Mumbai Court February 2001 Judgments

Shri Tulsiram K. Gothad Vs. the Superintendent, Mahatma Gandhi Memoria ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR160; (2001)3BOMLR654; [2001(91)FLR1246]; 2001(3)MhLj662

R.J. Kochar, J.1. The problem of age of retirement in the industrial law is of perennial nature. At the fag end of retirement or after a stipulated age of retirement, the employees often contest the age of retirement to be higher than what many times is agreed upon either under the certified standing orders or under the appointment letters. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed by an appointment letter dated 25.6.1962 by the respondents as a plumber in Class IV category. There is no dispute that at the time of retirement he was in Class III category of the employees. Soon after his appointment in the year 1962 he was given promotion in Class III category. There is also no dispute that he received increase in wages and he received higher emoluments. There is also no dispute that he was provided residential accommodation after he was put in Class III category of the employees. By an order dated 31.10.1997, the petitioner was informed that he would attain age of 58 years and w...

Devidayal Stainless Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sharda S. Rao and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR641; 2001(3)BomCR392; [2001(91)FLR798]; (2002)ILLJ733Bom

ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the : Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 dated November 4, 2000 in PGA Appeal No. 4-21 of 1999. 2. The respondent No. 1 herein filed an application being PGA Application No. 99 of 1997 before the Controlling Authority under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 praying that the petitioner be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- being the gratuity payable to her late husband Shri Rao, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date the gratuity became due till the Opponent Company pays the said amount. The Controlling Authority allowed the said application. Against the said decision, the petitioner took the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority which in turn dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 3. Broadly stated the facts which are relev...

Pramukh Sampadak Marathi Vishwakosh and ors. Vs. Dhairyasheel S. Phala ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR79; 2001(3)BomCR390; [2001(91)FLR812]

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition takes exception to the order passed by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur dated September 5, 1994 in Complaint (U.L.P.) Nos. 12 to 17 and 156 to 169 of 1990. 2. The respondents original complaints had filed complaints before the Industrial Court, Kolhapur praying for a declaration that the petitioners had engaged in an unfair labour practice under Item Nos. 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV and for a direction against the petitioners herein to give fair treatment to all workers including the respondents herein and to pay wages for 30 days in the month for the period they have worked. The respondents further prayed for a declaration that the respondents be declared as permanent workers of the petitioners and their services be treated as continuous and give them all benefits of permanent employees and difference of wages. 3. Briefly stated, the respondents were employed as visiting Editors by the petitioners. According to the respondents, they were working f...

Sudhakar Pralhad Phagade Vs. Subhash Mahadeo Tokekar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR432

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27th March, 1991 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Pune in Civil Revision No. 10 of 1987. 2. The petitioner claims to be tenant in respect of ground floor shop premises in 322, Narayan Peth, Pune 411030. The petitioner claims that on 23rd March 1978 the petitioner and respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement in writing in respect of neighbouring premises by which respondent No. 1 created tenancy rights in favour of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, on the same day, another oral agreement was arrived at between the parties in respect of the suit premises whereby it was agreed that the suit premises is let out to the petitioner and possession thereof was to be handed over to the petitioner on 5th April, 1978. The petitioner further claims that in consideration of the said oral agreement, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 2,500/- by cheque and Rs. 10,000/- by cash. The petitioner relies on r...

Shaily Engg. Plastic Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT376Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is taken up for disposal, after waiving deposit. 2. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to take Modvat credit of the duty paid on plastic parts of photographic cameras if manufactured and cleared on payment of duty and received back from its customers for remaking, because the parts were not found to be of required quality.3. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in its decision in C.C.E. v. Tin Manufacturing Co - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 290 has confirmed the view of the Tribunal holding that credit could be taken of the duty paid on such returned finished products. There is no allegation that the procedures relating to the declaration were not complied with....

Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT340Tri(Mum.)bai

1. M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited, the appellant, has sought exemption from Customs duty on goods to be imported by them for expansion of manufacturing capacity for introduction of a model YE2 of its car primarily for export. After protracted discussions held with the Chairman and officials of the Central Board of Excise and Customs in this regard, the Government issued, under Section 25(2) of the Act, an order 207, dated 2-11-1993. This order exempted specified capital goods, toolings and spares, for a total value of Rs. 332.89 crores from payment of the basic and additional duty of customs. The substantive conditions subject to the grant of exemption were these. Maruti should export 11000 YE2 cars during the financial year 1995-96 and 21500 cars during each of the next six financial years, this obligation being in addition to any other obligations for export imposed on the company except for obligations under the Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate Scheme. If there was shortfall in ex...

Vinayak Dyeing Works Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(97)LC445Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These two appeals are filed by the same appellant and the issue is the same. We have heard Shri K.V. Sahasrabudhe for the appellants and Shri A.K. Jain for the Revenue. Today, before us, two applications were posted. One was for early hearing of the matter on the ground that the issues stood settled by a judgment of the Larger Bench and also that there was an unwarranted liability of Rs. 18 lakhs on the appellant who falls in small sector. The second application seeks stay of pre-deposit of the differential duty confirmed of Rs. 7,18,569/-. Granting the prayer for early hearing, we waive the pre-deposit of the duty and the penalty of same amount and prodeed to decide the appeals.2. Vide his order dt. 14.7.1999, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai III re-determined the burden of duty on the appellants by adding to the number of chambers, a value of 0.33 by including the rail length of galleries in the length of chambers. Pursuant to this order the Dy.Commissioner vide his ord...

Kohinoor TarpaulIn Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT660Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeals arise out of the adjudication order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Pune, by which he has confirmed the duty demand raised in several show cause notices against the appellants, totalling Rs. 27,57,920.10 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. The demand of duty stands confirmed on waterproof canvas manufactured with aid of power and cleared without payment of duty, holding that the items fall for classification under Chapter Heading 55.06 (sic) of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. Learned Counsel, Shri A.V. Phadnis, submits that the process adopted by the appellants is only common proofing of canvas cloth. There is no impregnation covering or coating so as to bring the cloth within the purview of Chapter sub-heading 59.06, that the layer formation is not visible to the naked eye and therefore classification under sub-heading 59.06 is ruled out, and he submits that the Tribunal had decided the identical issue in the case of CCE &...

M/S. India Limited Mills No. 1 Vs. C.C. Excise, Mumbai-i

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In these two cases the clearance from the Committee of Secretaries has not yet been submitted. The appeal No. E/1612/200-Mum was filed on 9.5.2000 Appeal No. E/3462-R/99 was filed on 7.10.99. On several occasions these appeals were adjourned on the ground that the due clearances has not been obtained. We grant adjournment for the last occasion and caution the appellant that in the absence of the clearances of the next occasion, the appeals may be dismissed without further notice. Posted on 8th May 2001....

Primella Sanitary Products Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT687Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Both the issues, which are involved in this appeal, have already been decided by the Tribunal. The first, the classification of the sanitary napkin manufactured by the appellant has been decided in the appeal of this appellant and another, appeal 3316 and 2214/93. The Tribunal has confirmed the classification of these goods under Heading 48.18 of the Tariff. We are told by the Advocate for the appellant that an appeal has been filed against this order. However, this is a substantive order. Accordingly, we confirm the classification of the goods under Heading 48.18.2. The other issue is the eligibility to Notification 175/86 of the goods. This has been denied in the impugned order on the ground that the goods bore the brand name "Comfit" or "Comfit Always" which belonged to Christine Hoden (India) Private Limited which was not entitled to the notification by virtue of its turnover exceeding the limit specified in the notification for eligibility to its benefit.3. The deed of assignm...