Mumbai Court April 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Indofil Chemicals Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT391Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the copolymer composed predominantly of acrylic and partly of styrene monomer is entitled to the benefit of exemption in entry 5 to the Table to Notification 14/92. The entry exempts from duty "homopolymer and copolymer resin emulsion based on acrylic and/or vinyl monomer" classifiable in heading 3905.10, 3905.90 or 3906.90 of the Central Excise Tariff. The goods were held not be entitled to the entry by the Asstt. Collector on the ground that only a copolymer based on acrylic and vinyl monomers would be entitled to the exemption, and the commodity did net contain any vinyl.2. On appeal from this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention of the manufacturer that the expression "and/or" occurring in the notification had to be construed disjunctively as well as conjunctively. Since the acrylic monomer predominated, it was copolymer based on acrylic. She also noted that on the basis of predominance the copolymer ...

M/S. Sudhir Electrical Ltd., Mr. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT335Tri(Mum.)bai

1. M/S Sudhir Electricals Ltd manufactured water filters of capacity not exceeding 40 litres which bore the brand name of M/s Bajaj. These filters were exempt from payment of duty in terms of Notification No 76/86 dated 7.3.1986. In view of the unconditional exemption, the assessees surrendered their licence and were thereafter filing declarations as required under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the declarations, they had given the processes of manufacture in the following words "From steel circles into steel containers made and buffing, polishing, punching, labelling with brand name Bajaj, candles in water filter and micro clin candles is fixed as purfier etc." Mr Sudhir Gupta was the director of the said unit and Mr S.B.Mishra was the manager. Subsequent to a visit and investigation by the officers, Show Cause Notice dated 22.10.1991 was issued alleging that the assessees had manufactured ceramic water filter candles falling under Heading 69.11 without taking out a l...

Mazgaon Dock Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Shivbrat Jagroop Mishra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)3BOMLR485; [2001(90)FLR220]; 2002(2)MhLj219

ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner is a Central Government Company and its shares are held by the President of India. It is engaged in the business of construction of warships, submarines and ship repairs. It employs about 10,000 employees.2. The respondent workman has filed a Complaint of Unfair Labour Practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV under Sections 28 and 30 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, the State Enactment, The Complaint is still pending before the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Mumbai. We are not concerned with the facts and the merits of the complaint, and therefore, I am not referring to the factual aspect of the Complaint.3. The petitioner Company filed an application before the Industrial Court praying for dismissal of the Complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Industrial Court under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act to entertain...

Subhash Laxmidas Majithia Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR713; 2002(1)BomCR272; (2001)4BOMLR150; 2001(4)MhLj170

R.M. Lodha, J. 1. By means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner initially prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to withdraw the order of requisition dated 5th November 1955 in respect of the premises, viz, a room on the ground floor of the building known as 'Patel Niwas', now known as Gomati Bhavan, situate at 2/E French Road, (Dr. Atmaram Rangnekar Marg), Mumbai 400 007, and restore possession thereof to the petitioner. Since during pendency of the writ petition, the Maharashtra Act No. XVI of 1997 and later on the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 were enacted, the petitioner by way of amendment to the writ petition, prays for declaring the said Maharashtra Act No. XVI of 1997 and section 27 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 as unconstitutional. We note here that although in the writ petition by way of amendment the petitioner also prayed for declaring the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 19...

Suleman Shaikh Vs. District Magistrate, North Goa District and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)1BOMLR557; 2002(1)MhLj266

A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the Order dated 17th December, 2000 passed by the District Magistrate, North Goa District, in exercise of powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.2. The petitioner was detained by the respondents pursuant to the aforesaid impugned Order. The short question that arises in the present Petition is: whether a person can be detained without serving a copy of the order of Detention on such a person at the time of his arrest/detention.3. Briefly stated, the petitioner asserts in Para 4 of the Petition that at about 5.00 a.m. of 17th December, 2000, a posse of Police came to the petitioner's parental house at Ansabhat, Mapusa and arrested the petitioner without serving any papers on him and without informing why he was being taken in cust...

Najma Hasan Bagwan Vs. M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1546; 2002CriLJ1432

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who describes herself as the mother of the detenu Farooq alias Firoz Hasan Bagwan, has impugned the detention order dated 30-11-2000, passed by the 1st respondent-Mr. M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining the detenu under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996), hereinafter referred to as 'the M.P.D.A. Act').The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 30-11-2000, was served on the detenu on 5-12-2000 and their true copies are annexed as Annexure-A and B respectively to this petition.2. A perusal of the grounds of detention shows that the impugned order is founded on three CRs. One L.A.C. (Local Act Case) and two in camera statements, the details of which are as under ...

Maharashtra Video theatre Owners Association and ors. Vs. State of Mah ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1399; 2002BomCR(Cri)152; 2001CriLJ3430

ORDERPratibha Upasani, J.1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Ms. Kejariwal for respondents waive service. By consent, taken up for hearing.2. By this writ petition the petitioners are seeking a sort of blanket injunction, praying that the Court be pleased to restrain the respondents, their officers, servants and agents from seizing the TV, VCR, VCP, Video Projector, Screen, Video Compact Discs (VCD) and Player, Laser Discs (LD) and Player, Digital Versatile Discs (DVD) and Player,. Audio Music Systems, Mixer, Amplifier, Wires, Original Master Censored Video Cassettes, Posters, Photo sets etc. and other electronic equipment as per Exhibit E from the respective premises of the petitioner named in the cause title or preventing them from operating Video cinema theatre except the pirated video cassettes. Declaration is also sought that respondents have no authority of law to seize and remove the TV set. VCR, VCP, Video Projector, Screen, Video Compact Discs (VCD) and Player, Laser Discs (LD...

Shailendrasingh Alias Litil Sardar Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1889; 2001CriLJ4514

R.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioner was ordered to be externed vide order dated 13-11-1999, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Nagpur City, Nagpur, for a period of two years. The petitioner filed an appeal before the State Government Under Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act against the said externment order and the said appeal was dismissed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security) to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, vide order dated 24th July, 2000. The petitioner assails the said order of dismissal of appeal in this writ petition on various grounds.2. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondents.3. It is not necessary to go into all the challenges raised by the petitioner in this petition since, in my view, after hearing learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned APP, the petition is going to succeed on account of denial of opportunity to the petitioner of hearing by the appellate authority.4. The appeal was...

PravIn Metal Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC407

1. After hearing both sides, we have decided to dispose of the appeals after waiving deposit.2. Pravin Metal Works (appellant in appeal 3010) is the manufacturer at Jalgaon of trailer for tractors. Its partners are Ashok P. Chaudhary, Dinesh P. Chaudhary and Pravin P. Chaudhary. During the period that we are concerned with, three other entities had been registered with the department at Jalgaon for manufacture of such trailers. They were Pankaj Auto, Yogesh Auto and Sarang Auto.3. The department issued notice on 23-4-1999 to Pravin Metal Works and other appellants before us who are the partners of these three firms and of Pravin Metal. The notice showed the close relationship between various partners and alleged that Sarang Auto, Pankaj Auto and Yogesh Auto were fictitious entities which were created by these partners in order to show manufacture at these premises of tractor trailers which were actually manufactured at Pravin Metal Works. The notice accordingly proposed to disallow th...

M/S. Tube Masters Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for stay of collection of duty of Rs. 19,15,798/- and penalty of Rs. 13,30,999/-. Learned counsel, Shri V.Sridharan, for the appellants submits that the show cause notice dated 31.3.1997 issued for the period 1993-95-96 for the amount Rs. 13,30,999/- is barred by limitation as it mentions that the intermediate products namely re-drawn brass tubes was intimated to the department. He cities letters written by the assessee from 1986 to 31.3.1992 where even under the last mentioned letter there is a reference to visit of central excise officers prior to the approval of classification list. he further states that the process of manufacture was known to the department in as much as in the declaration filed before the authorities there is a reference to the re-drawing of tubes as well as manufacturing of the brass in para 9 of the said declaration. The further argument he made was that the order-in-original was heard by one Additional Commissioner and the order was ...