Mumbai Court January 2003 Judgments

Bharatiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch Through Its President Vs. General Mana ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR950; 2003(4)BomCR189

Bhosale D.B., J.1. The award passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, is under challenged in the present writ petition filed by the union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The impugned award dated 8th September, 1994 arises from the reference made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication under section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short, 'I.D. Act').2. The facts leading to the present writ petition, in brief, are as under :Respondent No. 1 had engaged 246 casual labourers since 1992. Most of them had completed 240 days of continuous service when first respondent terminated their services without any notice and payment of retrenchment compensation. It is, therefore, the case of the petitioner is that their termination was illegal and invalid. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 1 did not maintain any seniority list of the casual labourers (for short, 'wor...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Mahavir Aluminium Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal by the Commissioner is whether the respondent was entitled to interest on the refund of the customs duty that was granted to it, in terms of Section 27A of the Act. The duty in respect of which refund was claimed was paid in May 1988, the claim for refund was filed on 18.4.1989. The refund fell due as a result of the decision of the Tribunal passed in 1992 holding that the goods imported by the respondent in 1989 were correctly classifiable in heading 98.01 which carried the lower rate of duty and various other headings in which the department classified the goods.Following the Tribunal's order, the importer lodged its normal claim for the duty along with the claim for interest. The department did not sanction the refund as it challenged the Tribunal's order in the Supreme Court. By order passed in January 1998 the Supreme Court dismissed the department's appeal. Subsequently the amount of duty that was paid in excess which was claimed ...

Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Hariganga Alloys and Steels Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT595Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal from Revenue challenges the following finding of the Collector (Appeals): "6. I find considerable force in the submissions above. A similar issue has already been decided by the Hon. Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Format Engineering Ltd. reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 791 (T) where in it was held that under Rule 57G the procedural requirement is that the manufacturer before taking credit should obtain a dated acknowledgement in respect of the declaration to be filed under Rule 57G. In the case of Formac Engg. Ltd., cited supra, the Hon. Tribunal has held that even if the technical requirement of applying, to the Assistant Collector is not complied with, the Assistant Collector has to give the benefit of credit specially since the assessee has taken the credit only after filing the declaration and not on receipt of the inputs on his own. In the cited case, the inputs were received in May '87, declaration was filed on 29-6-87 and the credit was taken on 30-6-87. The Tribuna...

Vipor Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal arises from an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) passed in pursuance of the order passed by the Tribunal on 8.5.2002 disposing of an appeal by the assessee against earlier order of that authority. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of "linear alpha olefin C-14" imported by the assessee.The assessee claimed classification of the goods in heading 29.01 which is for "Unsaturated Acryclic Hydrocarbon." By notice issued, the department proposed classification of the goods in heading 27.10 as which covers petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous mineral.The department referred a sample of the product of the Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai (IIT) for testing the product. In its report dated 15.9.1998 the IIT reported that the sample tested by it consists by weight as follows: Percentage by weight of unsaturated acrylic compounds - not detectable. In the light of the GC-MS report, it can be concluded that the given sample is a si...

Steelco Gujarat Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex. (Appeals)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT113Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides on the stay application, it was found that the issue being short, the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal.Both sides agreeing, this was done after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 91,589/-.2. The appellant had received certain duty paid inputs on which they had taken Modvat credit. Subsequently, the supplier-manufacturer paid further differential duty and issued a certificate which was countersigned by the jurisdictional superintendent on 7-4-2000. The assessee took credit on the basis of the certificate. This credit was reversed by the Assistant Commissioner on the grounds that the certificate was not a valid document and that as per the amendment vide Notification No. 51/2000/C.E. (N.T.), dated 29-8-2000, the correct documents should have been a supplementary invoice issued by the supplier-manufacturer. The assessee cited clarification given by Board Circular No. B/4/7/2000/TRU, dated 3-4-2000 to the effect that the dispute shou...

Bhagwan Shankerdas Moorjani Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT327Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri B.S. Moorjani appeared in person to argue the two applications filed by him. The first is for condonation of delay of about two years in filing of this appeal and the second is for early hearing of his appeal. On perusal of the proceedings, I find that the appeal is wrongly filed.Shri Moorjani was accosted by the officers of the Customs on his departure to Hong Kong. Indian currency of Rs. 5,15,000/- was seized from his possession. The Additional Commissioner of Customs adjudicating the case absolutely confiscated the currency and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,25,000/- on Shri Moorjani. Shri Moorjani then filed an appeal. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the absolute confiscation of the currency but reduced the quantum of penalty from Rs. 1,25,000/- to Rs. 75,000/-. This order was dated 2-7-1999. The preamble to this order directed that the aggrieved person could file an application in revision to Joint Secretary to the Government of India.This application was filed a...

Nivrutti Anna Kadam, Vs. Namdeo Bala Sawant

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR241; 2003(3)BomCR867; 2003(2)MhLj232

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 9.10.2001 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, rejecting the application for review of its judgment dated 30.10.2000 passed in Revision Application filed on 19.1.1992. By the impugned judgment application for review by the earlier judgment has been rejected. The judgment in the Revision Application was to the effect that the Revision Application filed by the petitioner against the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Pandharpur dated 18.11.1992 was dismissed. Order dated 18.11.1992 of the Sub Divisional Officer was in the appeal filed by the petitioners being Tenancy Appeal No. 99 of 1988 against the order dated 13.6.1988 passed by Tenancy Aval Karkun in Tenancy Case No. 29 of 19/6. The said appeal was dismissed and the order of the Aval Karkun dismissing the application of the petitioners for resumption of land for...

T. Raghavan Nair Vs. Brij Mohan P. Sethi and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR548; 2003(4)BomCR606; 2003(2)MhLj762

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of theConstitution of India challenges the Judgments and orderpassed by the Small Causes Court at Bombay dated13.6.1986 in Appeal No. 524 of 1984. In Paragraph 16and 17 of the impugned Judgment the Appellate Court hasreproduced all the relevant facts that have given riseto the filing of the present petition. It is therefore,not necessary for me to burden this Judgment with allthose dates so as to avoid prolixity. Suffice it topoint out that, the original Respondent No.2 wasinducted as tenant in the suit premises being shoppremises, situated at Plot No. 28, B-1 Block, JawaharNagar, S.V. Road, Goregaon, in the year 1970 by t heRespondent No.1-landlord. The said Respondent No.2 inturn, inducted the Petitioner herein in the saidpremises some time on 6.1.1971, pursuant to theagreement dated 6.1.1971. The period under the saidagreement was limited. In the circumstances, secondagreement was executed between the Respondent No. 2 andthe...

Shrikant R. Sankanwar and ors. Vs. Krishna Balu Naukudkar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR1161; 2003(3)BomCR45; 2003(2)MhLj276

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Rule. By consent, the rule made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioners challenge order dated 6-8-2002 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, allowing the Revision Application at the instance of the Respondent against the Order of Additional Collector Kolhapur dated 24-8-2001. Additional Collector, Kolhapur by the said order dated 24-8-2001 had set aside the order dated 19-2-2001 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gadhinglaj. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Gadhinglaj, in turn by his order dated 19-2-2002 while allowing the appeal of the Respondent had set aside the order dated 15-12-1998 passed by the Tahsildar, Chandgad in RTS No. 26 of 1998. The Tahsildar of Chandgad had allowed the application filed by the petitioners for necessary mutation of entry in favour of the petitioners claiming right of occupation to the suit premises based on the registered Sale Deed dated 15-7-1998. T...

Gadchiroli Zilla Sahakari Krushi and GramIn Bahu-udeshiya Development ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR283; 2003(5)BomCR389; 2003(2)MhLj790

R.S. Mohite, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.2. These writ petitions impugn interim winding up orders passed under Section 102(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The petitioners are members of the Managing Committees, who are affected by the impugned orders insofar as they have been visited by its consequences and have been required to hand over to the Liquidators appointed under the impugned orders, the custody and control of all the property, effects, actionable claims, books, records and other documents pertaining to the business of the societies, which they were managing, in accordance with Section 103(2) of the said Act.3. As the possible fall of one more bastion of old style commerce is under consideration, the history of its building and collapse would bear scrutiny.4. The problem of reducing indebtedness and of bringing credit facilities within the reach of agriculturists on reasonable terms had engaged the attention of the Government...