Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

Parshuram Ganpat Bhoir Vs. National Textile Corporation (S.M.) Ltd., M ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)MhLj79

D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. The petitioner was employed in the erstwhile Kohinoor Mills in 1956 as a machinist in the Bleaching Department and was assigned Ticket No. 42. The Kohinoor Mills were taken over and acquired by the Central Government and came to be vested in the first respondent. A general strike took place in the Textile Industry with effect from 18th January, 1982. In the application which has been filed by the petitioner before the Third Labour Court at Mumbai under Section 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, it has been stated that as soon as the tension of the strike eased and gradually the workmen started reporting for work, the petitioner also reported for duty at the gate of the first respondent every day. The grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent in collusion with the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh which was a recognised Union, took back only those workers who according to the Sangh were considered to be fit and proper regardless of merit, ...

Air India Limited, Mumbai Vs. K.S. Bhat

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001(91)FLR650]; 2002(2)MhLj264

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. The respondent waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. Air India Limited challenges the order passed on 14th May 2001, by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal by which the Tribunal declined to grant its approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act'), to the dismissal of the respondent from its service. The respondent joined the services of the employer in August 1963 as a Teleprinter Operator. Between the night of 29th May 1986 and 30th May 1986, the respondent was on duty in the third shift between 9.30 p.m. and 6.30 a.m. One of his functions was to allot duties to Cleaners and Sweepers on incoming flights of Air India and other Airlines such as Air Canada with which Air India had Ground Services contracts. On the night between 29th May 1986 and 30th May 1986, the respondent transferred an employee of Air India, Peter David from Group-F to Group-E and assigned the j...

Noorkhan @ Nuru S/O Rahimkhan Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)MhLj13

S.G. Mahajan, J.1. By this appeal, accused Noorkhan alias Nuru s/o Rahimkhan Khan has challenged the order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Court, Nagpur in Special Criminal Case No. 31/1998. He was convicted of the offence under Section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act for the contravention of the provision under Section 8 of the said Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh or in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year more.2. The case of the prosecution is as follows :--(A) At the relevant time, Head Constable Pali was attached to Crime Branch, Narcotic Cell, Nagpur. On 18-5-1998, around 9.40 a.m., after taking the station diary entry, Head Constable Pali, P.S.I. Tidke and other police staff made a departure from the office of Crime Branch for collection of the information about the Narcotic Drugs and effecting the raids. At about 11.30 A.M. while the aforesaid police of...

Gulab Manik Surwase Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1895; 2001CriLJ4302

A.S. Bagga, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 26-6-1996 passed by Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. 376 of 1995 thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable Under. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life.2. Prosecution story, in brief, is as follows :The appellant happens to be the son of Manik Laxman Surose. Laxman Surose has two brothers namely; Jagannath Surose (PW 4) and Ajinath Surose. They reside at Rawalgaon with their families in the houses which are close to each other with small open land in front of their houses. Deceased Gunabai the paternal aunt of three brothers resided with one of the brothers namely; Ajinath. There was small shed raised in front of house of Ajinath where deceased Gunabai sometimes used to have her afternoon siesta. It is alleged that on 25-3-1995 in the afternoon, the appellant arrived, entered the house of Ajinath and equipped with axe came out...

Dharam Exports and Suresh M. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The two appeals have been dismissed on the failure to show compliance with the stay order.2. The application filed seeks restoration of the appeals on the ground that Dharam Impex Pvt. Ltd, one of its director Suresh Jumani, who is the proprietor of Dharam Exports, the applicant, has deposited Rs 12.45 lakhs in the Customs (for some unspecified purpose) and there is no objection if the amount is taken as payment towards the dues of Dharam Exports.3. Mr Lalit Jain, the counsel for the applicant agrees that no authority has been issued by the component person of Dharam Impex Pvt Ltd for adjustment of the amount. He blames the illness of Mr B.N.Rangwani, earlier representative of the applicant and his subsequent demise, for this.4. The Tribunal's order disposing the appeal was passed in March 1999.The application for restoration of the appeals are filed two years and four months subsequent to that. If in the space of two years and four months this adjustment could not have been made, ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S Baroda Ferro Alloys and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Commissioner, in the order impugned before us, has held that the extended period of limitation contained in the proviso under sub rule (1) of Rule 571 would not apply to the demand of credit issued to the respondent.2. The department's appeal disputes this finding on one ground. This is that in applying the period of limitation, it is the date from which RT12 return is to be filed that the period of six months or five years as the case may be, is to be computed. If this is done, the demand in question will be within six months period.3. We are concerned with the period 1991-92. Rule 571 at the relevant time provided for issue of notice within six months from the date of taking credit. In these circumstance,s it is not possible for us to ignore the rule and to apply the criterion that is contained not in this rule but in Section 11A of the Act with regard to recovery of duty short paid or not paid or refund erroneously made....

Mahavir Butyl Rubber Industry Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The duty demand of Rs.29,58,580/- has been confirmed against the applicants herein on the ground that they had manufactured and cleared tubes clandestinely with intention to evade payment of duty.2. None appear for the applicants when the case called and hence heard the learned DR and perused the records.3. We find that the adjudicating authority has considered all the materials on record to hold that there was clandestine removal on the part of the assessee. He has calculated the process loss and also he has taken into account that even at higher level of consumption of values and carbon black powder the present consumption is much more than the estimated level. On this basis he has held that there has been unaccounted production and clearance during the period 1994-95 and 1995-96 as alleged in the notice. Prima facie, the applicants has not made out a strong case for waiver of pre-deposit and in these circumstances we direct the applicant to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs towards duty and o...

Cosepa Fiscal Inds. Ltd. and Vs. Ccex, Aurangabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On the last occasion, a statement was made by the counsel for the appellant that even assuming that Cosepa Fiscal Industries Ltd. and Standard Batteries Ltd. are related there would be no demand for duty for the reason that the price at which Standard Batteries Ltd. sold its goods to various classes of buyers, i.e., original equipment manufacturers, dealers and government buyers, in many cases, were lower than the prices at which it bought the goods from its manufacturers.2. Today it appears to us that, prima facie, the third proviso of Section 4(1)(a) says that in the case of sales by related person it is the value of the sale by such related person to a wholesale dealer not related, that would apply. On this being pointed out to the counsel for the appellants he seeks time to study the matter in detail. Hence adjourned to 27^th July, 2001....

N.G. Bhanushali and Company Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT119Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 54 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs dated 11^th December, 2000 which was received by the applicant on 13^th December 2000. The last date for filing the appeal was 14^th March, 2001. However, since the applicants approached the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court by way of Special Civil Application challenging the order of the Commissioner, they have moved the Tribunal only after the Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court was withdrawn.It is submitted that the delay was owing to the wrong legal advice to approach the High Court instead of filing the statutory appeal before the Tribunal.2. On hearing both sides we are satisfied that the delay has been satisfactorily explained and hence we condone the delay....

Milton Plastic Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT139Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In support of this application for modification of the Tribunal's stay order, the counsel for the applicant contends that the assessments were provisional. The applicant had made a request in its letter dated 16.2.1997 for provisional assessment, and by application of the first proviso under sub rule (1) of Rule 9 B, the assessments are deemed to be provisional. There are various objections at this stage to accepting this contention. The first is that this was not even a ground that was argued before the Tribunal. The counsel for the applicant agrees, without reservation, that this specific point was not raised. The stay application merely contends that the assessments were provisional without indicting the reasons. The Tribunal has already dealt with this ground in its stay order. This alone should be enough to dispose of the application. It is settled law that stay application cannot be argued in piece meal (Plus Cosmetics (Pvt) vs CCE 2. Apart from this there are other objection...