Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

General Education Academy Vs. Sudha Vasudeo Desai and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR718; 2001(4)BomCR103; [2001(89)FLR1015]; (2001)IILLJ273Bom

ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. In this petition the petitioner employers of the school teachers are denying the claim of gratuity to their retired teachers on the ground that they were not 'the employees' as defined under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as they were not doing 'any skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work .......'2. There is no dispute over the facts. The petitioners are a recognised unaided primary/secondary School established in the year 1963 and managed by the Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. It is an admitted fact that the respondents school teachers were in employment of the school as shown below:(i) Smt. Sudha Desai June 14, 1971 to March 20, 1997 (ii) Smt. Shanta Ranganathan November 12, 1979 to February 27, 1997 (iii) Smt. Aleyammo John June June 9, 1969 to May 31, 1997 (iv) Shri B.M. Deshpande January 28, 1975 to December 20, 1998 3. There is also no dispute that their services were meritorious an...

C.V. George Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ895Bom

R.M. Lodha, J.1. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the order of suspension dated August 1, 1975 (Exhibit 'A'), the order of termination dated December 14, 1983 (Exhibit 'F') and the order of appellate authority dated June 30, 1984 (Exhibit 'G').2. The petitioner is said to be ex-serviceman and joined the services of Kirkee Cantonment Board (respondent No. 2 herein) as male nurse on September 1, 1961. It appears that on July 28 & 29, 1975, his house was raided by police. The petitioner was not there and by breaking open the place of his residence, police confiscated some medicines and other articles. A criminal case was registered against him and so also he was put under suspension vide order dated August 1, 1975. Later on, the charges-sheet was served upon the petitioner under Rule 12 of Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 vide charge-sheet dated May 8, 1973. The petitioner was charged with three char...

Wajed Khan Vs. Mohasinabi and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2001)DMC116

R.K. Batta, J. 1. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and learned A.P.P. for respondent No. 2-State.2. The proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. had been initiated by respondent No. 1 for self and on behalf of her minor son on 7.2.1991. In these proceedings, the present applicant took the stand that he had divorced the respondent No. 1 by giving Talaqnama and as such in view of the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the said Act), the application for maintenance was not maintainable and as such he was not liable to pay maintenance. This objection was overruled by the Magistrate as he found that the Talaqnama was not valid since at the time of Talaq in question was given, the respondent was in menstruation. Even though the Magistrate held that the original applicant, namely the present respondent No. 1 had failed to prove ill treatment, yet the maintenance of Rs. 200/- was awarde...

Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to modvat credit of the rear view mirrors for scooters, motor cycles and three-wheeled motor vehicles which the appellant clear after payment of duty fitted with these vehicles. In its decision in the case of the same appellant in appeal E/674/97 and others (order No.C-I/1380-82/2000 dated 11.4.2000, which has been followed by two other benches, the Tribunal has held that these mirrors were inputs used in the manufacture of the motor vehicles which have been cleared on payment of duty and the duty paid on these mirrors was hence available to the appellant as modvat credit....

Kaira Can Company Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Allowing the application, we order that in the last sentence of the first paragraph of our order dated 11.8.2000, the word "not" be inserted between the word 'had' and the word 'been'....

M/S. Bechtel International Inc. Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT475Tri(Mum.)bai

The appellants imported certain ready made Housing Units, Kitchen Diner and a water treatment plant with chemicals, As per the documents such as commercial invoice etc. the goods were packed in 18 containers. 17 containers came in the first lot. These were subjected to detailed examination. These goods were cleared on payment of duty. The 18th container arrived later. The impression of the importer was that it contained chemicals for water treatment. The IGM declared the same. However, on examination, apart from the chemicals, a water treatment plant was also found in the 18th container. Duty was accordingly charged thereupon. At a later date, the claim for refund of Rs. 11,90,369/- was made. The ground was that under wrong presumption that the water treatment plant was contained in the cargo brought by the 17 containers, the importers had already paid duty thereupon and payment of duty once against amounted to double payment.2. The second claim for Rs. 12,72,058/- arose on the plea o...

Gammon India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. By his order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the classification determined by the Deputy Commissioner of the drive shafts manufactured by the appellant, which transmit power to the industrial fans manufactured by it, under heading 84.83 of the tariff as transmission shafts, and his finding that the show cause notice dated 28.9.1992, demanding duty for the period September, 1987 to February, 1992 rightly invoked the extended period contained in the proviso under sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Act,.2. Mr.Prakash Shah,counsel for the appellant, does not press the ground in the appeal relating to classification of the goods and agrees that they should rightly be classifiable as transmission shafts. He, however, disputes and applicability of the extended period. In the classification list submitted by the appellant to the Assistant Collector in 1988, the goods were specifically described as "drive shafts for industrial fans", although classificat...

M/S. Abhishek Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner demanding duty of Rs. 24,996.80, confiscating the goods manufactured by the appellant permitting redemption on payment of find and imposing penalty on the appellant and other.3. In his order, the Commissioner has found that the appellant had not paid duty on the seamless steel tubes manufactured by it. The main contention in the appeal before us is that the appellant obtained these tubes by redrawing tubes of larger dimensions which it purchased from the market and such redrawing of tubes into smaller diameter does not amount to manufacture. It is contended that this point was raised before the Commissioner.4. The Commissioner in the order has not dealt with this aspect at all.She only says that the assessee has not disputed classification of the product. That, however, was not the argument raised before her. She was required to consider the argument that the goods were not the result of manufacture as defined in Section 2(f) of t...

M/S. Flomatic Engineers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Departmental representative accepts that the question for consideration in this appeal, the includability in the assesssable value of the goods manufactured by the appellant of the notional interest on advances taken by it form its buyers, is covered by various decisions of the Supreme Court and the Tribunal [such as VST Industries Ltd. Vs CCE 198 (97) ELT 395]. Neither the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) indicates any nexus between the fact of advances and reduction in price. In the absence of any such nexus, the notional interest is not includable in the assessable value....

Commissioner of Cen. Excise, Vs. M/S Advance Prints P, Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal from the Revenue contests the grant of modvat credit on the inputs used for screening and painting on metal containers designed to contain the final product viz. paints.2. On examination of the appeal memorandum, we find that the issue is fully covered by the judgement of the Madras High Court in the case of Pond's India Ltd.(1993(63)ELT 3. We find that the impugned order sustains. This appeal from the Revenue is accordingly dismissed....