Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

R.P. Sawant and ors. Vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR376; [2001(91)FLR37]; (2001)IILLJ1349Bom; 2002(1)MhLj626

B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. These four Letters Patent Appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 24th December, 1999 delivered by the learned Single Judge (R.J. Kochar, J.) in Writ Petition No. 5536 of 1998 and Writ Petition No. 5550 of 1998. The issues of fact are common and the questions of law arise from the same judgment. It would, hence, be convenient to decide all the four Letters Patent Appeals by a common judgment.2. The appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 118 of 2000 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 119 of 2000 is a Public Limited Company which manufactures three wheelers and two wheelers (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'). The respondents in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals and the appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 19 of 2000 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 20 of 2000 are about 703 temporary workmen employed in the Company (hereinafter referred to as 'the workmen'). The 2nd respondent in Letters Patent Appeal No. 19 of 2000 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 20 of 20...

Ujwalabai @ Meena Shantaram Apte Since Married Now Mrs. Swati Rahul Da ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR637; 2002(2)BomCR767

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition, under Article 227 of Constitution of India, takes except the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangli dated 7th February, 1989 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 101 of 1983.2. The petitioners are the landlords in respect of premises consisting of one room admeasuring 12' x 10' situated in City Survey No. 701, Gaon-Bhag, Sangli. The respondent was inducted as the tenant in the suit premises in or around 1970. According to the petitioners-landlords contractual rent was Rs. 35/- per month and the tenant was also liable to pay other charges towards permitted increases on month to month basis. The petitioner gave notice thereby calling upon the respondent-tenant to pay permitted increases at the rate of Rs. 3.13 ps. for the period between April 1976 to December 1976 and rent along with permitted increases at the rate of Rs. 47-85 ps. from January 1977 to March 1977. This notice was issued by the petitioner on 1-3-1977 which was admittedly rec...

Rajesh S/O Jaywant Rao Makode and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR422; 2001(4)BomCR318

R.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard. 2. Rule. Returnable forthwith.3. Shri Deshpande, learned A.G.P. waives services for respondent No. 1. Shri Anjan De, learned Counsel waives service for respondent No. 2. 4. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties , rule is heard finally at this stage. 5. The petitioners are resident of Chandrapur and they are aggrieved by inaction on the part of respondent No. 2 in not removing the unauthorised slaughtering of animals in Kombdi Bazar, Chandrapur. It is alleged by the petitioners that due to unauthorised slaughtering of animals in residential colony, there is total unrest in the entire area and the residents have to live in the most shabby, uncleaned and unhygienic way. The petitioners have brought this fact to the notice of respondent No. 2 but still no action has been taken by respondent No. 2 against illegal and unauthorised slaughtering of animals in residential colony, necessitating filing of present writ petition. 6. In response to the notice, the...

Sopan Punjaram Mule Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002CriLJ376

Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. Through this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 17-8-1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in Sessions Case No. 92/93 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter :(i) Under Section 302, IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.e. to suffer 2 years R.I.; and(ii) Under Section 201, IPC to suffer 4 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- i.e. to undergo one year R.I.The substantive sentences of the appellant were ordered to run concurrently.It is pertinent to mention that along with the appellant, his two brothers namely; Dnyandeo Mule and Sakharam Mule and his wife Mirabai are also tried for the said offences but they have been acquitted through the impugned judgment and the State of Maharashtra has not assailed their acquittal by preferring a appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Shortly stated, the prosecution case runs as under :The decea...

M/S Gayatri Processors and R.C. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT155Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In these matters the appeals have been filed by Power of Attorney holders. Show cause notice has been issued on the basis of a bench order made on 2.11.2000. In that order we had observed that in terms of the relevant rule an appeal can be filed by Power of Attorney holder only when the appellant is absent from the country. We also observed that the power has to be given to the agent and it has to be a specific power and cannot be used by a holder of General Power of Attorney.Today, in spite of notice, none has appeared. In terms of rule 213(2(a) of the Central Excise Rules it is stated that the grounds of appeal and the form of verification as contained in form EA-1 shall be signed in case of an individual by the individual himself or if the individual absent from India by the individual concerned or by a person duly authorised by him in his behalf. We have not been shown any specific authority given by the assessee in this case who authorised a person to file the appeal specifica...

M/S Bullworker Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications have been filed for waiver of payment of duty of Rs.3,11,021/- and imposition of penalty of Rs.1,000/-. The question involved in this appeal is the effect of assignment of a trade mark and the effect of the same in respect of paragraph 5 of notification 8/99 (SSI notification). In similar matter the Tribunal in CCE, Bombay vs.Bigen Industries 1999 (107) ELT 213 has held in favour of the assessee.We therefore grant complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay the recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal. We post the appeal for hearing some time in October, 2001....

R.P.G. Cables Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs.20.87 lakhs and penalty of Rs.22.34 lakhs.2. Duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the findings of the Commissioner that the applicant was not entitled to take modvat credit of the duty paid of inputs used by it in the manufacture of finished product, the value of which was written off.3. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that this written off of the value was an exercise in accountancy and had nothing to do with the real value of the inputs. These inputs were used in the manufacture of the finished goods.4. We are prima facie unable to accept this submission. When something is written off follows that it has not value. If the inputs in question consists, we are told, items such as polyvinyl chloride, lead, copper etc., with regard to most of which did have no obsolescence or depreciation on account of passage of time. Even if this is happened this would no doubt effect the quality of the goods which wo...

Victor Clock Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The contention of the applicant that the duty and penalty in question have already been deposited appears to be correct on the copy of the TR6 challan dated 2.5.2001 and the extract of the RG23A register showing a debit made on 2.4.2001. Accordingly as prayed for by the applicant, we dismiss the application as withdrawn....

M/S Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants manufactured Diethyl Amine, a substance used for denaturing alcohol. Although these goods wee sold to distilleries, the price-lists were filed for determination of the assessable value on the costing method. From 10.10.1988 to 2.4.1993 13 show cause notices were issued seeking differential duty on the difference between sale price and costing price. All these notices were adjudicated vide single order whereby the total differential duty was confirmed of Rs. 1,59,304.70 and penalties amounting to Rs. 11,750/- were imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) having upheld the order, this appeal has been filed.2. Dr. D.M. Mishra does not press for the adoption of costing method or the availability of notification 217/86. He seeks the availability of modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs. Such credit wold be available in terms of the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of TELCO vs. CCE 1996 (87) ELT 157. We observe that even when the assessment was done on the costing su...

M/S Navrang Art Printers and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These are all the appeals and applications for stay filed for stay of collection of duty of Rs. 57,65,155/- (of which Rs. 7.50 lakhs was already paid which has been admitted in the show cause notice) and imposition of penalty under rule 173Q on the assessee. Appeals have also been filed against imposing penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs each on two partners of the assessee and appeals and applications for stay have also been filed against imposition of penalty on two partners of the other firm under rule 209A.2. The facts of the case are that Navrang Art Printers, the appellant in Appeal No. E/3520/2000 was carrying on the business in the manufacture of printed cartons (4819.19 labels, 4821.00) and other items falling under chapter 48. The other appellants are Paramount Paper Products and Rajdeep & Sons Pvt. Ltd. The partners of the assessee are A.M. Joshi and M.B. Shah. The directors and Rajdeep & Sons Pvt. Ltd. are their respective wives. The charge against the appellant in Appeal ...