Mumbai Court June 2001 Judgments

Patel Engg Co. (S) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT688Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applicants have sent a communication to the Tribunal on 30.5.2001 along with reminder dated 12.6.2001 stating that they have already paid the duty and penalty amounts involved in the present appeal and filed proof of deposit. Hence the stay application is dismissed as infructuous....

M/S. Mohan Dye Chem Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The matter came up earlier part of the day when it was found that the appellant was absent and was adjourned.When the proceedings of the day were going on, the representative of the appellant states that by mistake he was sitting in Technical Officer's room.Therefore the appeal was taken up.The issue involved in whether the firm which is having a turnover of less than Rs.30 lakhs, it is obligatory on their part to prepare and maintain the statutory records? The appellant brings before me Trade Notice No.35/94 dated 25.3.1994 issued by the Vadodara Collectorate wherein it has been specifically stated -- "doubts have been expressed as to whether it would be possible for the small units to maintain excise record and comply with the procedural formalities." In the said notice it is further stated -- "no separate accounts are to be maintained by the SSI units for excise purpose, private records showing date-wise proforma sales bills, copy of invoice adequate for excises purpose also." I...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S Enpee Pharma (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved n this matter is relating to endorsement ma on the duty paying document made after 31.3.1994. The issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Tribunal in Mossa Haji Patrawala 1996 (83) ELT 620. Hence the appeal of the department is dismissed....

Arihant Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for waiver of per deposit and stay of recovery of an amount of Rs 33,12,691.60 confirmed as duty along with interest @ 24% p.a. and penalty of an equal amount. The case relates to availment of input stage credit as well the benefit of notification 203/92 (duty free clearances) in respect of one value based advance licence.2. It is the contention of Mr Mondal, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, that although the supporting manufacture has availed of input stage credit, he reversed the same in 1995 itself but the interest was paid only in 1999 and January 2000 and therefore the applicants should not be denied the benefit of the notification.3. The prayer is opposed by the learned D.R. who submit that in cases where the input stage credit had been availed of, the Government had announced an Amnesty Scheme which provided that if the modvat credit taken was reversed and interest was also paid on or before 31.1.1997, then the benefit of the notificat...

Sureshkumar Kanhaiyalal Jethlia Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR122; 2002(3)MhLj268

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. By this application, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5022 of 2000 (since reported in 2000(1) Mh.LJ 901 seeks review of the judgment and order passed by this Court (Coram : Marlapalle and Dabholkar, JJ.) on 16-12-2000, By the impugned order, writ petition challenging the order dated 29-11-2000 passed under Section 55A read with 55B(b) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short, 'the said Act' hereinafter), by the respondent No. 3, by which the petitioner was removed from the post of President of Municipal Council, Partur, District Jalna and also disqualified for a period of six years from the date of the order for being elected as Councillor, was dismissed.2. In the elections for Partur Municipal Council held on 1-12-1996, panel of the petitioner was elected with thumping majority of 14 seats out of 17. Elected seats included the petitioner, his wife Vimaladevi as also one Shri Shamsingh Thakur. On 17-12...

Anil B. Nadkarni and ors. Vs. Amitesh Kumar, Dy. Commr. of Police, Wor ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1293; (2001)4BOMLR402; 2001(4)MhLj744

Ranjana Desai, J.1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('the Code' for short) seeks quashing of investigation in respect of the complaint bearing C.R. No. 40 of 2001 filed by Respondent No. 3 ('the Complaint' for short) Ms. Chetana Yashwant Vyas at Worli Police Station, Mumbat. It also seeks an order restraining the investigating agency from taking any further steps in respect of the said complaint.2. Petitioner No. 1 is the Director-Personnel of Siemens Ltd. ('the Company' for short). Petitioner No. 2 is its Senior Manager Personnel and Petitioner No. 3 holds the post of General Manager-Legal in the Company.3. Respondent No. 1 is the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-3, Mumbai. Respondent No. 2 is the Inspector of Police attached to Worli Police Station. Mumbai.4. The facts which give rise to the present petition as set out in the petition are as under :The complainant joined the Company o...

Federation of Hindustan Lever Ltd. and anr. Vs. Secretary, State Contr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)ILLJ355Bom

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Rule made returnable forthwith.3. The petitioner No. 1 is a registered tradeunion and represents various unions operating in the establishments of respondent No. 4company. The petitioner No. 2 is also aregistered trade union and represents contractworkers working in the training centre ofrespondent No. 4 situated at Worli. The respondent No. 1 is the Advisory Board set upunder the Contract Labour (Regulation andAbolition) Act, 1970, hereinafter referred to asthe Contract Labour Act. The respondent No. 2is the Commissioner of Labour. Therespondent No. 3 is State of Maharashtra whichis the 'Appropriate Government' in respect ofthe establishments of the respondent No.4. Therespondent No.4 is a company incorporatedunder the Companies Act, 1956 and therespondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are itsestablishments. The respondent Nos. 8 to 16 arethe contractors through whom respondent No.4allegedly gets various jobs done in itsestablishments. 4. The petitioners ...

Major Kurian Thomas Vs. Bank of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)ILLJ372Bom

D.B. Bhosale, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned order/communication dated November 30, 1987/ December 9, 1987, whereby the respondent No. 1 - Bank has drastically reduced the basic pay and allowances of the petitioner and further directed to initiate the action to recover with retrospective effect the difference between the pay received by the petitioner and refixed pay by the impugned order, which is equivalent to almost half of the total salary earned by him ever since he joined the Bank in 1985. He has further prayed for a direction to be given to the respondent No. 1 to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 49,606/- unlawfully withheld from his salary since December 1987. The petitioner has also sought an injunction restraining the respondents from refixing his salary on the basis of the Circular issued by the respondent No. 2, on June 15, 1987. The respondent No. 2 is the Union of India through the Ministry of Finance. While admittin...

Pashmeen N. Ghia Vs. Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR115; (2002)104BOMLR666

S.A. Bobde, J.1. Rule.Respondents waive service.By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.Heard parties.2. These two writ petitions are preferred by students, who have been found guilty of writing their roll numbers on the answer sheets in a place other than the place meant for the purpose, in disregard of instructions given by the Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board. Their performance at the examination has, therefore, been cancelled.3. The students are found to have violated the instructions during the course of the Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the respondent Board in the months of February and March, 2001. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1313 of 2001 appears to have written his roll number on all the sheets, including the subject of Computer Science, which is not taken into account for the purpose of admission to the Engineering College which he desires to pursue. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1231 of 2001 is said to have writt...

Aver Photographic Company and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These cases were listed today for reporting compliance to the stay order by which pre-deposit was directed. The applicants have filed miscellaneous application seeking leave to withdraw the appeals for the reason that they have decided to go in for settlement before the Settement Commission....