Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

Shashikant S/O. Rambhau Make and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR782; 2002(3)BomCR739

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This group of petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, raises the grievance regarding regularization/absorption in the permanent service of Zilla Parishads as Junior Engineers who were appointed under the Jawahar Rozgar Yojana vide order dated 21st February, 1990 issued by the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. The petitioners had apprehended discontinuation of their employment after 10th June, 1990 and, therefore, they approached us on 4th of June, 1990 and prayed for the following substantial reliefs :'(C) This Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the order filed at Exhibit 'F' dated 21-2-1990 in so far as it relates to the discontinuation and termination of the petitioners from the service as Junior Engineers by the respondent No. 3.(D) This Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any writ direction or order directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to t...

Shri Cyril George Mathew K.A. Alias Vishnu Vs. the Commissioner of Pol ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)2256; 2002BomCR(Cri)5; (2002)104BOMLR432

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this criminal writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu Cyril George Mathew K.A. @ Vishnu, has impugned the order, dated 30th November, 2000, passed by the first respondent, Shri M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining him under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV) of 1981 (Amendment 1996).The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 30th November, 2000, was served on the petitioner-detenu on 3rd December, 2000 and their true copies are annexed as Exhibits 'A' and 'C' respectively to this petition.2. A perusal of the grounds of detention (Exhibit 'C') would show that the impugned detention order is founded on two C.Rs., namely, C.R. No. 23/2000, under Sections 399 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code r/w Sections 3 and 25 of the...

Johnson and Johnson Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT481Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 4,19,032/- confirmed as duty on magnical tablets manufactured by the applicant herein as a result of classifying the product under sub-heading 2108.99 as "other miscellaneous edible food preparations", rejecting the applicant's claim for classification as P&P medicines under sub-heading 3003.10, and imposing penalty of Rs. 1 lakh.3. The contention of the applicant that the item in question is used to prevent pre-eclampsia which leads to hypertension and swelling of feet in pregnant and lactating women and that the tablets are also used for prevention of Vitamin-D deficiency and prevents premature labour, that it is sold under prescription and that it is not commonly available but available only in chemist's shop, etc. has not been rebutted by the Revenue. The Revenue rests its case upon the fact that the composition of the item namely, zinc, calcium and magnesium are not such as to make the item a P&P medicine but only a s...

Manoj Kumar B. Punamiya Vs. C.C., Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of the appeal on the ground that the matter has been settled under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 and produces a certificate issued by the appropriate authority in support....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Mercedes Benz (i) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)LC93Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of cars. The assessee had appointed M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. (TELCO) a single wholesale distributor. During the year 1995-56, since the price was under negotiations, the goods were cleared by the appellants on payment of duty on provisional basis which was accepted by the department for provisional assessment. On finalisation of the wholesale price with the distributor, the differential duty arising due to the difference between provisional price and the final price agreed to between M/s. Telco and the assessee was paid as calculated by the assessee. Show cause notice dt 11.12.98 was issued, demanding various amounts on different grounds. The Assistant Commissioner Pune in the Order-in-Original dt. 9.2.99 specifically held that the advertisement expenses incurred by the sole distributor (TELCO) should be added to the assessable value after referring to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the Metal Box India Ltd. ...

D.P. Mehta Engineers P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant does not produce the certified copies of Order-in-Original and verified the grounds of appeal despite notice issued to it.2. The contention of the consultant for the appellant that he was unable to contact the appeal does not appear to be to be relevant to the issue....

Kishan Kumar JaIn Vs. C.C., Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of the appeal on the ground that the matters has been settled under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 and produces a certificate issued by the appropriate authority in support....

Shri C. RobIn Shah, Shri J.H. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Commissioner II Central Excise Mumbai-I is his order dt. 30.1.96 (OIO No. 5/96)confirmed duty of Rs.48,14,546.15 against M/s. Collins & Co. He imposed penalty of Rs.65 lakhs on them. He confiscated plant, building etc. put permitted their redemption on payment of fine of Rs.15 lakhs. In this order he imposed penalties on Shri C.R. Shah partner of Collins & Co., Shri J.H. Bhagdeo Chief Accountant M/s.Bentex Marketing Corporation and M/s. SK Enterprises and on Balkrishna Khattar Director of Bentex Marketing Corporation under Rule 209A. The Corporations and individual filed appeals. The Tribunal in an interim order dt. 17.9.96 directed M/s. Collins & CO. to deposit a sum of Rs.40 lakhs as a precondition on hearing all the appeals. The deposit was made as was noted by the Tribunal on 24.2.98. Today the appeals of the Co- noticees were listed for hearing Shri P.S. Kalve places on record the orders issued under KVSS determining the sums to be paid by M/s.Collins & Co....

C.C. Ex., Mumbai-vii Vs. Indian Aluminium Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Having regard to the fact that the appeal does not deny the Commissioner (Appeals)'s finding that the Deputy Commissioner has confirmed the amount of duty larger than that proposed in the show cause notice, and the statement of the counsel for the respondent that the credit has already been availed of, we do not find any ground for staying operation of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order....

Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT532Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondents in this case took Modvat credit of the additional duty of Customs paid twice in as much as on the same date two entries were made in the concerned register on 13-10-1992. They had voluntarily reversed this on 5-11-1992 when this fact came to their notice. Later, show cause notice was issued on 28-12-1992 seeking imposition of penalty upon them. The Asstt. Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs. 13 lakhs upon them. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty to Rs. One lakh. The present appeal is against this order from the Revenue.2. The plea made in the appeal memorandum is that for imposition of penalty, there need not be any culpability but that mere non-compliance with the dictate of the rule would invite penalty. It is urged that the reduction in the penalty is not warranted.3. We find that the ld. Commissioner has given elaborate reasonings for coming to the conclusion that the quantum of penalty required reduction. The entire logic of the ld. Commissioner in h...