Mumbai Court June 2001 Judgments

icpa Health Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. ICPA Health Products Pvt. Ltd., the appellant was at the relevant time engaged in the manufacture of erythromycin stearate as a "loan licensee" for Abott Laboratories Ltd. The process of manufacture that was involved was conversion of thiocyanate into erythromycin base, which is reacted with stearic acid in order to obtain erythromycin stearate. Abott Laboratories imported thiocyanate and took credit under rule 57A of the additional duties of Customs paid on its importation.After receipt of the goods in its factory, it cleared the thiocyanate on payment of duty to the appellant. The show cause notice alleges that this thiocyanate was not sold to the appellant. There is however no allegation in the notice that it was not physically removed. It is the contention of the appellant that the commodity was physically removed to its factory. The show cause notice says that, after receipt, the appellant "is sending these inputs (thiocyanate etc.) again to M/s.Abott Laboratories I. Ltd." Abo...

Tata Engineering and Locomotive Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of Rs. 1.90 crores. The applicant imported major components of paint shop. Since these components when put together conferred upon it the essential characteristics of a paint shop, they were assessed by applying Note 2(a) of General Interpretative Rules to the Customs Tariff as a complete paint shop under heading 54.42 of the Tariff. Applicant brought these components into its factory on various dates, but all prior to 1.3.99. The components were assembled into a paint shop after this date. The question for consideration in this appeal is the entitlement to modvat credit of the additional duty of customs paid on these goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) has, in the impugned order, confirmed the view of the Deputy Commissioner that credit could not be taken under rule 57Q for the reason that on the date of their receipt of the goods classifiable under heading 87.24 were not specified in rule 57Q as capital goods.2. The emphasise placed by the c...

Amit JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

1. Shri Amit Jain, applicant in this OA seeks directions to the respondents for re-fixation of his pay, granting him the benefit of protection of emoluments (basic + DA) drawn by him with his previous employers, with United India Insurance Company Ltd. with due increments in terms in OA No. 12/1/88-Estt (Pay-I) dated 7.8.1989 w.e.f. 1.8.1989 with notional benefits from the date of his joining the Central Government services along with arrears and the interest.2. Heard Shri G.K. Masand and Shri R.R. Mishra, Learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri V.D. Vadhavkar, Proxy Counsel for Shri M.I. Sethna, for the respondents.3. To narrate the facts in brief, the applicant who worked as Asstt.Administrative Officer (Accounts) with the United India Insurance Company Ltd., a subsidiary of General Insurance Corporation of India from 7.10.1980 to 7.12.1984, joined on 10.12.1984 as a Direct Recruit Appraiser Mumbai Customs House, Deptt. of Revenue Ministry of Finance.In the United India Insurance...

Amrita Daulata Pawar (Dead) and ors. Vs. Shri Shahu Co-operative Housi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR317; 2001(4)BomCR356

V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 12th September, 1984 delivered in Appeal No. 215 of 1980 by the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai confirming the judgment and Award dated 16th September, 1978 passed by the Judge, Co-operative Court, Satara in ABN No. 596/72-73; wherein it was held that the original disputant, viz. Shri Chhatrapati Shahu Co-operative Housing Societies Limited, Satara (for short, the 'Society') was entitled fora decree of specific performance of contract and that the original opponent Nos. 1 to 6 were under an obligation to execute sale deed and hand over possession of the suit lands admeasuring 8 acres 5 gunthas situated at Satara (hereinafter referred to as 'suit properly' for short).Facts in Brief In brief, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as under :-2. The dispute was filed by the disputant 'Shri Shahu Co-operative Housing Society', a Society registered on 5.10.1962 under the Maharashtra Co-oper...

Smt. Reeta Bharat Arora Vs. Bharat Yasodanandan Arora @ Dhingra and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR1; (2001)3BOMLR636; I(2002)DMC136; 2002(1)MhLj7

Dr. Pratibha Upasani, J.1. The story revealed in these legal proceedings is the story of a husband, wife and the 'other woman' in the husband's life, as usual. The unusual angle of this usual story is the legal angle which gives food for thought as to what status this 'other woman' exactly has in a monogamous society, if it turns out that the 'other woman' also is a legally wedded wife, and has the same status? What then happens to the other wife? What if relationship goes soar with both the wives at one time or the other, the couple is divorced and reunited, and the second wife is now isolated and asks for maintenance? All this material is quite spicy and hot enough to churn out a Hindi Masala Movie, displaying sentiments like love, lust, selfishness, materialism and urge for survival. But, Reeta Bharat Arora, Indu Bharat Arora and Bharat Yasodanandan Arora are not the imaginary characters playing roles on the screen in the reel life. They are the real persons, in flesh and blood, bei...

The Divisional Manager, Division Wanprakalpa Office (West), Forest Dev ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR633; (2001)4BOMLR5; 2001(4)MhLj97

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Group of these 99 writ petitions arise out of the common order passed by the Industrial Court, Nashik, dated July 31, 2000, disposing of in all 202 complaints filed by the workmen. All these writ petitions involve common questions and therefore, same are heard and disposed of together by this common judgment.2. The Industrial Court has allowed in all 99 complaints which were filed by the respondents in the respective writ petitions, whereas it was pleased to dismiss the remaining complaints. The workmen, whose complaints have been dismissed, have not challenged the common order, which is the subject matter in the present writ petitions. But the employer, petitioner herein, has preferred the present writ petitions challenging the order allowing the complaints filed by the respondents in the respective writ petitions.3. The facts in all the writ petitions arc almost identical except that the respondents in the respective writ petitions have been appointed on differe...

Reeta Bharat Arora Vs. Bharat Yasodanandan Arora @ Dhingra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR649

Pratibha Upasani, J.1. The story revealed in these legal proceedings is the story of a husband, wife and the 'other woman' in the husband's life, as usual. The unusual angle of this usual story is the legal angle which gives food for thought as to what status this 'other woman' exactly has in a monogamous society, if it turns out that the 'other woman' also is a legally wedded wife, and has the same status? What then happens to the other wife? What if relationship goes soar with both the wives at one time or the other, the couple is divorced and reunited, and the second wife is now isolated and asks for maintenance? All this material is quite spicy and hot enough to churn out a Hindi Masala Movie, displaying sentiments like love, lust, selfishness, materialism and urge for survival. But, Reeta Bharat Arora, Indu Bharat Arora and Bharat Yasodanandan Arora are not the imaginary characters playing roles on the screen in the real life. They are the real persons, in flesh and blood, being s...

Mandabai Balnath Rohom and ors. Vs. Ashok Fakira Chandar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR316; 2002(2)BomCR772; 2002(1)MhLj916

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. 3. The point which arises for consideration in this petition is -- whether under Sub-section (2) of the Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter called as 'the said Act'), it is necessary to hold the meeting of the panchayat for considering the motion of no-confidence, of which the notice has been received by the Tahsildar under Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the said Act, within seven days of the receipt of such notice or whether it only requires that a notice calling meeting of the panchayat should be issued within seven days of the receipt of the notice of no-confidence motion by the Tahsildar? 4. Few facts, relevant for the decision, are that the petitioners were elected as members of the Gram Panchayat, Khirdi Ganesh, taluka Kopergaon, District Ahmednagar in the elections held in the year, 1997 for a term of fi...

Bal Shikshan Mandal and anr. Vs. Poonam Rameshwar Joshi and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR789; 2002(4)MhLj848

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. 3. The petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5-12-2000 passed by the School Tribunal, Solapur setting aside the order of dismissal dated 7-5-1997 issued by the petitioners against the respondent No. 1 dismissing him from services of the petitioners and further directing reinstatement of the respondent No. 1 with half backwages and continuity of services from the date of his dismissal till he is actually reinstated. 4. Though, various contentions are raised and the impugned order is sought to be assailed on various grounds, it is not necessary to address to all those grounds and suffice, to refer to only one ground i.e. failure on the part of the Tribunal to afford a proper opportunity to the management to lead further evidence in the matter in spite of the tribunal arriving at a finding that the inquiry against the respondent No. ...

Shri Balaji Dyg. and Bleaching Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In these two matters question involved is whether galleries are treated as part of Chambers in terms of Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. The issue involved has been decided Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2001 (127) ELT 679 (TrlLB)] holding that galleries are not part of the Stenter and decided in favour of the assessee. Hence following the said judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, we set aside the impugned order passed by the lower authority and remand the matter back to the lower authority for requantification of the duty to be payable by the assessee. Appeals are allowed on the above terms....