Mumbai Court June 2001 Judgments

Bank of Maharashtra Officers' Association, through Its Dy. Gen. Secret ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR833; 2001(4)BomCR382; (2001)4BOMLR230; [2001(90)FLR1088]; (2001)IILLJ1533Bom; 2001(4)MhLj330

H.L. Gokhale, J. 1. The petitioner, herein, is a registered Trade Union, and in this petition it is representing the Law Officers working under the first respondent Bank. The Petition seeks to espouse the cause of the Law Officers who were appointed in the years 1979 and 1983 as against the Law Officers who were appointed in the year 1982. The principle grievance in the petition is that there is a discrimination with respect to the starting pay given to the Law Officers appointed in the years 1979 and 1983 as against the Law Officers who were appointed in the year 1982 and that there is a violation of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work'. The first respondent is the Bank of Maharashtra which is a nationalised Bank. The second respondent is the Union of India. Mr. Deshmukh with Mr. Anturkar has appeared for the petitioner. Mr. Pai with Mr. Girish Kulkarni has appeared for Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Karnik has appeared for Respondent No. 2. 2. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing f...

Dilip Bastimal JaIn Vs. Baban Bhanudas Kamble and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2002Bom279; 2001(3)ALLMR338; 2001(4)BomCR374; (2002)1BOMLR94; 2001(3)MhLj730

1. The often raised familiar question of law placed before me by way of this Revision, relates to the payment of court-fees under the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 ('the Act' for short) in a suit seeking specific performance of contract of sale coupled with relief of declaration that sale in favour of subsequent transferee is bad, illegal and void. BACKGROUND FACTS The background facts are as under : 2. The plaintiff as 28-1-1999 filed the suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 8 of 1999 for specific performance of contract of sale dated 28-5-1982 on the allegations that the original defendant No. 2 respondent No. 2 herein owner of the suit property having executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff not only failed to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff but sold the said suit property to the original defendant Nos. 2 to 5 by Registered sale deed dated 6-7-1989 for a consideration of Rupees 90,000/- and delivered possession thereof. 3. It was further alleged that part of ...

Indian Commercial Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is taken up for disposal with consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. The order of the Commissioner has denied the benefit of notification 203/92 which had been granted to the goods imported by the appellant on the ground that the condition in the notification that modvat credit should not have been availed of in the manufacture of exported goods has been contravened.3. Counsel for the appellant shows the copies of the reply which he says were filed before the Commissioner to the show cause notice, claiming that the supporting manufacture of the appellant enclosing a certificate issued by the jurisdictional Superintendent, that Swati Plastics, the manufacturer who manufactured the exported goods was not registered with the Central Excise department and hence did not avail modvat credit. It is not very clear whether this letter in fact been received by the department; since there is no acknowledgement by it.4. In any event, the notice issued by the Commissioner did...

Gujarat Ship Trading Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. Modification of the stay order of the Tribunal is prayed for on two grounds. The first is that the Supreme Court has in its judgement in Jalayan Udyog Vs. Union of India interpreted a notification similar to the one with which we are concerned in favour of the assessee. Details of the Supreme Court judgement have not being cited, nor any copy enclosed. The reference apparently to the judgement of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Jalyan Udyog 1993 (68) ELT 9. In that judgement the Court held that in applying notification 162/65 specifying the proper rate of duty, it is the rate of duty prevailing on the day on which the ship is broken that is to be applied and not the rate of duty prevailing on the date of importation of the ship.This is not the case before us, nor we do find it possible agree that it is even similar.3. The second contention is that it is the practice of the Custom House to recover duty under not from the importer but from the person who break up the ship. Th...

Century 21st Hi Tech Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeals are taken up for disposal with consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. Each of the three orders of the Commissioners has denied the benefit of notification 203/92 which had been granted to the goods imported by the appellant on the ground that the condition in the notification that modvat credit should not have been availed of in the manufacture of exported goods have been contravened.3. Counsel for the appellant shows the replies which were field before the Commissioner to the show cause notice, claiming that Swati Plastics, the manufacturer who manufactured the exported goods was not registered with the Central Excise department and hence did not avail modvat credit. It is not very clear whether this letter in fact been received by the department; since there is no acknowledgment by it.4. In any event, the notices issued by the Commissioner did not advance any material in support of the claim that the modvat credit had been availed of. The Commissioner himself ...

Rashtriya Chemicals and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The stay application and the application for condonation of delay in appeal E/719/2001 are taken up with consent of departmental representative.2. There is a delay of 227 days in filing this appeal. The delay is attributed to the fact that the applicant was unaware of the fact that separate appeal was required to be filed. Counsel for the applicant agrees that the explanation (1) to Rule 6A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules makes it clear beyond doubt that as many appeals shall be filed as number in orders in original. The failure to file the other appeal therefore is entirely due to negligence of the applicant, who is a public sector undertaking with a turn over of Rs. 2000 crores. We therefore decline to condone the delay and consequently dismiss the appeal.3. The stay application in the other appeal is for waiver of deposit of duty of RS. 22. 14 lakhs approximately. The amount has been demanded on the ground that the cooler used in the applicant's plant for cooling synthesis gas is...

Kailash Rug Industries, Varanasi Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT1231Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These three appeals are against the common order of the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai. In that order he has demanded duty of Rs. 13.50 lakhs approximately from Kailash Rug Industries (Kailash for short) and ordered confiscation of the goods imported by under Section 111(o) of the Act valued at Rs. 1,24,387/- with an option to redeem them on payment of duty of Rs. 10,000/-. He has imposed penalties of Rs. 1 lakh on Kailash Narain, the managing partner and Rs. 50,000/- each on Vasant Ajmera and M.K. Shah.2. Kailash, located at Khamaria, U.P. imported 11 consignments of various chemicals and other items required for the manufacture of carpets under the Import and Export Passbook Scheme. The scheme contemplates import duty free of materials required for manufacture of export goods and also permit importation duty free of goods for replenishment of other material used in the manufacture of exported products. The effect to the duty free exemption is given by notification 117/...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Bharat Forge Ltd. Mundhwa, Pune

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the importer is entitled to claim benefit of notification 154/86 in respect of items which form part of a contract which was registered under the Project Import Regulations cleared claiming benefit of assessment under heading 98.01 of the tariff. Adjudication upon the notice issued in this regard, the Assistant Collector disallowed the claim on the ground that once the classification of the goods had been claimed in heading 98.01, it was not permissible for the importer to have them classified in heading 84.61, and hence denied the exemptions claimed for basic duty contained in notification 154/86 and for auxiliary duty in notification 312/86.2. The importer appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals), relying upon two decisions of the Tribunal allowed this appeal and set aside the Assistant Collector's order. Hence this appeal by the department.3. The ground in the appeal, not very clearly expressed, is that heading 98.0...

Mardia Chemicals Limited, Mumbai Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT595Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for modification of the stay order earlier passed by the Tribunal urges two grounds.2. The first is that the applicant is governed by the provisions of the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958, as applied to the State of Gujarat. Counsel for the applicant relies upon the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act. This provides rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities in respect of any relief undertaking that shall be determined and shall be enforced. Sub-sec.(1) refers to an undertaking in respect of which any of the laws schedule to the act shall not apply. Counsel for the applicant agrees that Customs Act, 1962 is not listed in the schedule. Sub-section on (2) refers to an undertaking which is taken over by the State Government. That is not the case before us. We therefore see how the provisions of the Section would apply. Counsel for the applicant relies upon some interim order of the High Court of Bombay in ICICI Limited Vs. Mardia Chemic...

B.N. Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

1. This combined order disposes of three applications, which are similar in nature, cover identical issues and have been heard together.2. Heard Mr. S. Natarajan and Mr. Ranganathan, Proxy for Mr. J.P.Deodhar, learned Counsel for the applicant and respondents respectively.3. Shri B.N. Singh, applicant in OA No. 1241/96, who joined B ARC as Tradesman 'B' on 3.12.1983, was promoted as Tradesman 'C' w.e.f.1.11.1988. Though his promotion as Tradesman 'D' was due on 1.11.1993, it was granted to him only on 1.11.1995. This delay was on account of imposition of penalty on 14.12.92 of reduction in pay scale by two stages for two years w.e.f. 1.1.1993, which was confirmed on 22.2.1993.In terms of the Merit Scheme for promotion from Tradesman 'C' to Tradesman 'D' a trade test followed by an interview is conducted, following which the persons found fit would be promoted from the previous 1st May or 1st November, as the case may be. The applicant having passed the trade test, was called for inter...