Mumbai Court February 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Santu Babaji Powar Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs Appa Santu P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR181; (2003)2BOMLR19; 2003(1)MhLj430
J.G. Chitre, J.1. The petitioner hereby assails the judgment and order which has been passed by learned Member of M.R.T. in Revision Application No. MRT-KP-214/1985 dated 17-11-1988 whereby he dismissed the revision application filed by the present petitioner confirmed the judgment and order passed by S.D.O. in Tenancy Appeal No. 61/83 dated 18-10-1985 and set aside the order which was passed in Tenancy Case No. 32-G Kukudwadi-14-A dated 6-6-1983. The land in question is survey No. 28 admeasuring 2 Acres and 3 Gunthas situated in the precincts of village Kukudwadi, Taluka Radhanagari, Dist. Kolhapur. The said land belonged to Shankar @ Nivas Sitaram Kamat, respondent No. 1, who was minor on 1-4-1959. Initially on 7-6-1979 Tahasildar and A.L.T. had decided the purchase ineffective as the tenant did not prove that the intimation was issued by him which was served on the landlords during the prescribed period. The present petitioner filed an appeal which was decided by S.D.O. who allowed ...
Hutatma Rajeshwarrao Wakde Gram Vikas Pratisthan Vs. Chief Officer, Mu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)MhLj785
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order passed on 30-9-2000 by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, in the matter registered as No. 2000/MUN/REV/ P-t/9 before him, thereby rejecting the revision petition, filed by the present petitioner, under Section 318 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter, 'the Municipalities Act'). While dismissing the revision petition, learned Additional Commissioner has not entered into any of the issues of controversy nor recorded any findings on merits. He has arrived at the conclusion that the powers under Section 318 of the Municipalities Act, which are ordinarily to be exercised by the State are not conferred upon him by proper delegation. In fact, he appears to be of the view that the Regional Director could not have re-delegated the powers in his favour, even though the State Government might...
Heena Restaurant and Bar and ors. Vs. Madhukar M. Dewadiga and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR449; 2002(3)BomCR471; [2002(94)FLR292]
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the ex parte order of the Labour Court in an application filed under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act as well as the orders refusing to grant unconditional stay of the ex parte order and the recovery certificate issued pursuant thereto.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows :Petitioner No. 1 is a Restaurant and Bar being run by petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, who are its partners. The respondents, who are the workmen employed with the petitioners, filed an application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 21-10-1999 claiming minimum wages, overtime, wages for the weekly-off, leave wages and bonus. Calculations of the amounts claimed had been filed alongwith the application filed by the respondent-workmen individually. It appears that although the petitioners were served through the bailiff, the petitioners refused to accept the ...
Jalsagar Manufacturing Co. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT702Tri(Mum.)bai
2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the liability to duty of the goods manufactured and cleared by the appellant without payment of duty, penalty imposed on it and the liability to confiscation of its plant and machinery.3. The representative of the appellant agrees that duty due had not been paid on the goods and does not question the order demanding duty.He contends however that there was no intention not to pay duty. The appellant's business is diminishing. He, therefore, requests a reduction of the penalty and setting aside the confiscation of the plant and machinery.4. The Commissioner has recorded that the appellant cleared the machinery manufactured by it without payment of duty over a period of five months. There is no explanation whatsoever from the appellant from which it can be concluded that this was a bonafide failure. The penalty of Rs. 1 lakh and fine for redemption of plant and machinery of Rs. 25,000/- are not incommensura...
KinjIn Food Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai-vi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT203Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether blending of asafoetida with gum and wheat flour results in the production of a new excisable commodity has already been answered by the Tribunal in Laljee Godhoo & Co. v. CCE in Appeal E/2891 & 3405/2000 [2001 (132) E.L.T. 287 (Tribunal)].2. Following the ratio of that decision, we hold that the product that came into existence at the hands of the appellant was not as a result of the manufacture and no duty was payable on it and allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order....
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Nirma Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC831
1. This is a department's appeal filed against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), Ahmedabad, made in Order-in-Appeal No.43/2000(2-Ahd-II) CE/Commr (A)/Ahd dated 19.1.2000. In the Order-in-Appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the demand of Rs. 5,94,141 and Rs. 11,284 but revered the demand of Rs. 18,25,299 and penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 which was confirmed and demanded by the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner.2. The facts of the case are that the respondent assessee purchased sulphur. This is used in the manufacture of sulphuric acid. It is captively consumed by reacting it with LAB (Linear Alkyl Benzene) when acid slurry and spent sulphuric acid emerge. The acid slurry is thereafter converted into detergent powder which is cleared on payment of applicable excise duty. Spent sulphuric acid is ordinarily cleared on payment of applicable excise duty under chapter sub-heading 28.07 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. However, when cleared for use in the ma...
Jai Shakti Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC234Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Collector (Appeals) had confirmed the finding of the Asstt. Collector that the benefit of the exemption contained in Notification 31/88 would not be available to the ampicillin trihydrate and amoxycilin manufactured and cleared by the appellant for the reason that the certificate showing the end-use of the goods in accordance with the notification was not produced.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented and has made written submission. We have considered these and heard the Departmental Representative.3. The contention in the appeal and the submission is that there is no provision in the notification for an end-use certificate to be produced. The decisions of the Tribunal in CCE v. Maize Products 1997 (94) E.L.T. 651, Kashyap Sweeteners Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 751 are relied upon. The Departmental Representative relies upon the Board's Circular 8/90, dated 6-3-90 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mysore Metal Indust...
Nilmac Packaging Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Mumbai-iii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC112
1. The appellant is a manufacturer inter alia of bodies of marker pens which it sells to Camlin India Ltd., a manufacturer of such pens. The process starts with the aluminium slugs, which extruded into cylindrical shape closed at one end with an open end with uneven and jointed rim at the order. This extruded product is subject to the process of cutting of the rough edges, necking of the open end and putting a thread on it, coating the interior of the tube and printing the relevant material relating to the pen on the outer surface. The question for consideration in this appeal is the liability to duty of the extruded product. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held this product to be aluminium cans classifiable under Heading 7612.91 of the tariff.2. The contention of the appellant throughout has been that this product is not marketable. It has no use for anyone except Camlin India Ltd. no buyer or any other use. The Assistant Commissioner and Commissi...
Central Pulp Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT704Tri(Mum.)bai
1. A sum of Rs. 1,56,592/-has been paid towards duty. The application has been filed for waiver of deposit of the remaining amount of duty of Rs. 52.80 lakhs approx. and penalty of Rs. 54.37 lakhs approx.3. The duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the finding of the Commissioner that the waste that arises in the applicant's factory in the course of manufacture of paper referred to as "broke" is liable to duty under Heading 4702 as pulp and paper waste. Counsel for the appellant relies upon the decision of this Tribunal in Sri Venkatesa Paper and Boards Ltd. and Ors. v. CCE - 2000 (90) ECR 526. In this decision, the Tribunal has held that broke was not marketable and hence not excisable.4. The counsel for the applicant contends that the Commissioner has not established the marketability of the broke that the applicant manufacture, merely says that because it was being used by the applicant it was marketable.5. The departmental representative echoes the view of the Commissioner...
Shriniwas Vs. Union Bank of IndiA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR1; [2003(96)FLR787]; (2003)ILLJ112Bom
Marlapalle, J.1. This petition, filed under Article 226 of theConstitution, had initially prayed for three reliefsviz. (a) reinstatement in service, (b) payment ofback wages with arrears with effect from the date ofdismissal i.e. 31st July, 1970 till the date ofreinstatement, and (c) for a declaration that theRespondents had no right or authority to initiate thedepartmental inquiry against the Petitioner as per theMemorandum of Charges dated 4th January, 1990 and fora declaration that the Petitioner was entitled for theconsequential benefits of increments, medicalallowance, bonus, promotion etc. as per seniority bytreating him in regular service of the bank.The Petition was subsequently amended and thefollowing four more prayers came to be added:(a) to quash and set aside the inquiry report andthe order of disciplinary authority dated 4thFebruary, 1990 (Exhibit-L and M); (b) to declare the Union Bank of India OfficersEmployees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations,1976 as altravires Arti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »