Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Wada Aun Asbestos Products Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), confirming the order of the Additional Collector, ordering confiscation of asbestos cement pipes manufactured by the appellant which he found were not entered in the RG1 register, and imposing a penalty on it.2. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the goods had not attained the stage of marketability. The contract between the appellant and its purchaser required inspection by a third party, and that inspection had not taken place. He relies upon an earlier order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the same regard.3. That order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not very clear. He no doubt says that he finds favour in the claim of the manufacturer, thereafter proceeds to reduce the redemption fine and penalty, thereby clearly expressing the view that the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty are justified in law. That order is therefore of no help.4. Independently of this decision, it is not poss...

Vidyut Metallics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The question for consideration before the Commissioner (Appeals) was whether the amendment made on 11.1.1996 to Sub- rule (7) to Rule 57Q, the credit should not be taken on capital goods prior to the date of installation for use, would apply to the goods. The appellant before him stated that it had received the goods prior to this date. The Commissioner was also required to consider the alternative submission that the condition has, in fact, been complied with. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) does not do so. His view, that the amendment will apply only to goods received prior to 1.1.1996 is not borne out by reading of the amended rule, which itself refers to the goods received in the factory on or after 1.1.1996.3. He has not gone into other details which he was required to do. His order is therefore set aside and appeal allowed. The Commissioner (Appeals) shall, after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appeal before him, deal with sp...

Cc Vs. Lml Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(100)LC503Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The delay of 83 days in preferring the above appeal by the Revenue is condoned as the delay has been satisfactorily explained as due to mix up of files and transfer of 4 concerned Appraisers at the relevant time.2. We now take up the stay application. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has accepted the contention of the importers that no show cause notice was issued to them before the adjudication order was passed. Further, on the merits of the matter viz. as to whether the importers and the foreign suppliers are related persons, which were an allegation based upon the fact that there was a collaboration agreement providing for control over the foreign collaborator in areas like payment of royalty, quality control etc., he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. 1995 (72) ELT 481 (S.C.). The appeal memorandum filed before the Tribunal in fact has not contested the reliance of the Commissione...

Raja Mohammad Amir Mohannad Khan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)BomCR663; (2002)3BOMLR248; 2002(2)MhLj425

R.M. Lodha, J.1. At the outset, pursuant to the order passed by us on 4th September, 2001 directing respondents to place on record copy of the note put up before the Cabinet regarding release of property of petitioner's father late Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan of Mahmudabad and decision taken thereon by the Cabinet for release of 25% of the property in favour of legal heirs of late Raja of Mahmudabad. Mr. S.B. Jaisinghani, learned Additional Solicitor General invited our attention to the affidavit of Shri Prabir Sengupta, Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce, New Delhi claiming privilege in regard to the said documents being placed on record before this court on the ground that public interest requires that the same should not be disclosed, no matter what the individual documents in that class may contain. In support thereof Mr. Jaisinghani also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in MA Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of...

Jimmy Abraham Thomas and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR1; 2002(3)BomCR219

H. L. Gokhale, J.1. All the writ petitions in Group (A) above invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise common questions with respect to the correctness and legality of the Maharashtra Health Sciences Common Entrance Test (MH-CET 2001) conducted by the State of Maharashtra and the Director of Medical Education and Research of the State of Maharashtra and the results of this Common Entrance Test. Some of these petitions have been filed on the Original Side of this High Court whereas some of them are filed on the Appellate Side and one writ petition is arising out of a letter sent by a student Miss Priyanka Dinkar Borde from Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar, which letter has been converted into a suo motu writ petition. These petitions raise questions with respect to the legality and validity of the results of this examination which were declared on 17th May, 2001 and the consequent admissions to various medical courses. These petitions are undoubtedly of urgent nature. All o...

Shashank Bhalchandra Subhedar (Dr.) Vs. Dir. Gen. of Health Services

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(151)ELT486(Bom)

D.D. Sinha, J. 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard Mr. Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Palshikar, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India/ respondents. 3. This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated30-8-2000, passed by the respondent No. 1, whereby the Custom Duty Exemption Certificate (CDEC) under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988, issued by the respondent No. 1, in exercise of powers, conferred on itunder Section 25(i) of the Customs Act, was revoked/cancelled by the respondent No. 1. 4. Mr. Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel, states that in exercise ofpowers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962,the Central Government, being satisfied, that it is necessary in the public interest to do so, exempted all equipments, apparatus and appliances includingspare-parts and accessories thereof and the import of which was approved ineach case, by the Government of India in the Ministry of Hea...

Shafi Ahmed Sayyed Mohammed Guse Kadri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)IILLJ252Bom

1. The Respondent-Management terminated the services of the Petitioner on December 13, 1991. It appears that a dispute was raised by the Petitioner for the first time on June 30, 2000. By the impugned order dated November 10, 2000, Exhibit 'E' page 23, the Government of India has refused to refer the matter for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in view of the fact that a dispute has been raised belatedly after the lapse of 9 years without any valid reason.2. The ground on which the Government of India has refused to refer the dispute for adjudication, does not appear to be valid in view of the settled law. We only refer the judgment Gurmail Singh v. Principal, Government College of Education, reported in : (2000)ILLJ1080SC which refers to the earlier authorities. It has been laid down that if the dispute persists despite passage of time, the dispute exists and, therefore, must be adjudicated upon. In case of delay, the only question would be, the manner in which the ...

Narhar Rao Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)ILLJ535Bom

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. By this writ petition, petitioner challenges parts of Government resolutions dated August 18, 1987, October 11, 1988 and October 3, 1988.By Government resolution dated August 18, 1987, in the Department of Finance, and more particularly by Clause 3.1 of the same, the term 'pensionable pay is restricted to pay' as defined in Rule 9 (36)(i) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (henceforth referred to as Tension Rules' for the sake of brevity), thereby excluding personal pay, special pay and any other emolumentsspecially classified as 'pay', which were till then included in the said term 'pay'.By resolution dated October 11, 1988, Government of Maharashtra in the Finance Department fixed September 1, 1988 to be the date for giving effect to the recommendations of Fourth Central Pay Commission regarding enhancing the ceiling for accrual and encashment of unexhausted earned leave at the time of retirement on superannuation to 240 days from the then ex...

Madhukar S/O Wamanrao Jadhav and anr. Vs. Dayalbabu S/O Shyamlal Jaisw ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR243; 2002(1)BomCR141

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. The appeal from order as well as the civil revision application have been filed by the original defendants in Suit No. 1505/1996.2. There is a long history giving rise to the appeal and the revision as under:3. The parties hereinafter are referred to as original defendant in Suit No. 1505/1996 and the original plaintiff in the same suit.4. There was a partnership between the original defendant in Suit No. 1505/1996 and original plaintiff for running a licensed liquor shop. This partnership came into existence in 1991 by a deed of partnership. So far as the duration of partnership is concerned, the deed of partnership is silent, but according to the Counsel for the original defendant, it is a partnership at Will by virtue of provisions of section 7 of the Partnerships Act. The original defendant gave a notice in 1993 i.e. notice dated 27-3-1993 for dissolution of the firm. Thereafter he filed a Suit No. 593/1993 for dissolution of the firm or for declaration. In tha...

Govind S/O Raoji Katole Vs. Ganpati S/O Tukaramji Khanke Dead Through ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR610; 2002(1)BomCR124

P.S. Brahme, J.1. This second appeal is preferred by original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 82 of 1977 challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Wardha, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 59 of 1982 dated 14-6-1985 reversing the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit dated 29-6-1982 and granting decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff.2. The subject matter of the suit was portion of land admeasuring 0.35, decimal, i.e. 13.84 Are out of land Survey No. 143/1 and 144/1 as shown by letters A, B, C, D in the map (Exhibit 30). It is admitted that by registered sale-deed dated 13-3-1955 the plaintiff/respondent purchased field Survey Nos. 143/2, 144/2, 145-146/2, 155 and 150/3 in all measuring 15.09 Are from one Sitaram Parmanand. He also purchased 0.70 decimal of land out of Survey Nos. 143/1 and 144/1, which is the field adjoining the above said fields to the northern side. At the same time, the defendant also purchased 8.80 acres out of fie...