Mumbai Court June 2001 Judgments

Jaywant Ganpatrao Dalvi Vs. Kolhapur District Central Co-operative Ban ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR666; [2001(91)FLR127]; (2002)IVLLJ975Bom

V.K. Barde, J.1. The Petitioner was appointed as Inspector by the Respondent- bank as per the order dated July 18, 1960. The Petitioner continued his service with the Respondent Bank and from time to time he was given promotions. He was promoted to the post of Chief Executive Officer in the year 1977 in the pay-scale of Rs. 425-1070. However, his services came to be terminated by the bank as per order dated May 5, 1983. He, therefore, filed an application before the learned Labour Court at Kolhapur challenging the order of termination on the ground that no previous notice was given to him; no departmental enquiry was held against him and, therefore, the order of termination amounted to unfair labour practice. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent-Bank is governed by the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The Respondent-Bank had, therefore, raised a preliminary issue contending that the petitioner was not an employee as per the definition of Sub-section 13 of...

All Saints Home Vs. Smt. Chhaya P. Pardeshi and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR93

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. In these proceedings the challenge is to an Award dated 26th September, 1994 passed by the Presiding Officer of the 9th Labour Court at Bombay in a reference (I.D.A. No. 752/1995) under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reference arose out of a demand for the reinstatement of the First Respondent with full back wages and continuity of service with effect from 1st February, 1985. By the impugned Award the Industrial Court has set aside the order of termination issued to the First Respondent from the service of the petitioner. The Industrial Court has granted the relief which was sought and has directed that the First Respondent be reinstated in service with full back wages and continuity of service with effect from 1st February, 1985.2. The Petitioner before the Court is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The Petitioner is controlled by a Society known as 'The Womens W...

Actis Technologies P. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellants before us have filed the appeals against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Ahmedabad passed on 25.1.2001 where under he has enhanced value of the imported product thereby demanded differential duty of Rs. 2,04,784/-. The impugned order also imposes a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- as well as redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/-. The impugned order also imposes a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the partner who has also filed a separate appeal.2. The appellants contained before us state that they have paid a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- out of the amount demanded from them by the impugned order. They therefore pleaded waiver of the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- impose don the assessee as well as on the partner. Since the major portion of the amounts have been paid, we waive the payment of penalty on the appellant and stay the recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeals....

M/S. Standard Synthetics Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These are stay applications filed against an Order No.69/2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai-V issued on 11.11.2000. By the impugned order the Commissioner has confirmed duty of Rs. 64,87,698/- and imposed a penalty on the assessee that is Standard Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. appellant in Appeal No. E/347/2001. A penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs under Rule 9(2) read with Rule 173 Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the period April 1994 to September 1996 and at Rs.41,11,491/- under section 11AC of the Act, for the period October 1996 to March 1998 have also been imposed on the said Appellant. The other appellants have filed appeals against the impugned order imposing penalties of various amounts ranging from Rs.5 lakhs of Rs.10,000/- on each of the appellants.2. The facts of the case are that the assessee Company carries out the process of distillation of clove leaf oil, citronella oil, DMO etc. on the job work basis for Hindustan Lever Ltd., M/s. Nippon Chemicals and M/s....

Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two applications (Application No. 289 and 290/2001) have been filed against the order directing the assessee appellant to pay differential duty of Rs. 2,75,420/- and imposition of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs and redemption fine of Rs. 4 lakhs on the assessee appellant in Appeal No. 123/2001. Another (Application 290/2001 in Appeal No.124/2001) has been filed against imposition of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellant Pradeep Mehta.2. Assessee imported two consignments of EPVC grade Ladene from Saudi Arabia. He filed two bills of entry mentioning the price at US$ 540 PMT CIF. The charge of the departure was that in none of the bags declared grade of 701ES, 702ES and 703ES was indicated to grades found 702E, 701E and 703E. The department proceeded against the assessee for violation of section 111(m), of the Customs Act, which resulted in the passing of the impugned order.3. Shri M L Grover learned Advocate for the appellant stated that in pursuance of the letter dt. 26.11.99 he ...

The Khatau Makanji Spinning and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in these two appeals is whether duty can be imposed on the cotton yarn which was warped, beamed and reeled for the period commencing on 1.3.94 ending with 22.3.394.2. In these two cases appellant's three composite textile mills were manufacturing cotton yarn. Out of the cotton yarn manufactured they captively utilised the same in the manufacture of fabrics by paying the duty at spindle stage. It undergoes various process like warping, windings, beaming and reeling which were exempted processes under Notification No. 46/86. This was amended by means of Notification No.30/94 dt. 1.3.94. As a result of this duty was levied on warping winding, beaming and reeling etc. The show cause notice has been issued demanding duty resulting in imposition of duty. The appellants have brought to out notice exemption issued under section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by Notification No. 35/96-C.E. (N.T.) dt. 5.11.96. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned orders an...

Kellogg India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT547Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These three applications have been filed against the decision given by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Customs, Mumbai-VII where under he allowed the two departmental appeal against which Appeals No.E/3631/2000-Mum and E/3632/2000-Mum have been filed and third Appeal No. E/3634/2000-Mum. Commissioner (Appeals) has been filed against this order of the same authority who has dismissed the assessees appeal.2. The assessee is manufacturing cereal products falling under Chapter 19 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants sold the products manufactured by them from the factory and stock transferred the goods to the depots. The dealing and forwarding agents located at the depots sold the goods to the appellants distributors located all over the country. The transaction at their was a sale to the distributors. The appellants entered into a distributors agreement dated 1.1.97 with distributors. On the agreements is at pages 33 in appeal paper. It is the contention of t...

India United Mills No. 317 and I Vs. C.C.Ex. Mumbai - I

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appellant is a public sector undertaking in the Government of India and the clearance from the Committee of Secretaries of Cabinet Secretariat for pursuing the appeal has not been produced despite an opportunity having been given to produce it.3. In the absence of any information as to the status of the application for clearance, if it has been made, we dismiss this appeal for want of clearance. The appellant is however at liberty to seek revival if and when such clearance is received....

G.N. Rao and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

1. Challenge in this OA is directed against the respondents' Notification dated 4.11.1996, proposing to fill up, adopting the policy of reservation, the vacant post of Foreman 'B' in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200/-, which arose on 1.1.1993, on account of restructuring of the cadre.2. Heard S/Shri G.S. Walia and Shri S.C. Dhawan learned Counsel for the applicant and the respondents respectively.3. All the five applicants are working as Foreman 'B', on ad hoc basis w.e.f. various dates during June, 1995 to February, 1996. This is a selection post usually to be filled by written test as well as viva-vocc, though at times a modified selection process is adopted for filling up the above by way of seniority-cum-fitness. The category of Technical Supervisors in Railway to which applicants belonged was restructured by letter dated 27.1.1993, as on 1.3.1993, which letter directed that vacancies arising on 1.3.1993 should be filled by modified selection procedure and the selection procedure whi...

Shridhar T. Shetty Vs. Speedy Transport Company Pvt. Ltd., Bombay and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)3BOMLR877; [2001(91)FLR301]; (2002)IVLLJ930Bom; 2002(2)MhLj110

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The petitioner was employed as a Forklift Supervisor in the service of the first respondent and was a permanent workman, A disciplinary enquiry was commenced against the petitioner in respect of the charge that on 6th April, 1982 when he was on duty and was required to supervise a forklift, he was involved in a theft of the contents of certain containers of the 'employer. A charge sheet was issued on 9th November, 1982, after which the disciplinary enquiry was held. A Criminal prosecution had also been instituted against the petitioner in respect of the same events. The petitioner has set out several grievances in regard to the manner in which the enquiry was conducted. The grievance of the petitioner is, inter alia, that he was not furnished, together with the chargesheet, with a statement of allegations that would enable him to defend himself; that the documents which were relied upon by the employer were not supplied; and that the material evidence on the basi...