Mumbai Court June 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Pang Rubber Products

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT827Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue raised in these appeals of the Revenue is the correct classification of "Precured Rubber Tyre Patches". Under the impugned order the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune held the correct classification to be under sub-heading 4016.99. In the present appeals, the Revenue has contended that this classification is erroneous and the correct classification would be under sub-heading 4008.21.2. We have perused the records and considered the submissions made by both sides. The contention of the Revenue is that the very issue remains decided by another Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Unipatch Rubber v. C.C.E. - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 348. Learned DR pointed out that after taking into consideration the earlier decision of the CEGAT in the case of Madras Rubber Factory [1987 (31) E.L.T. 71 (Tribunal)], Board's Circular and Note 9 to Chapter 40, the Tribunal held that correct classification would be under sub-heading 4008.21 and not under residuary sub-heading 40...

Advance Engineers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT476Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of moulds and dies as a job worker, out of materials supplied by H.R. Johnson (India) Ltd. In the price list that it filed, it arrived at the assessable value of the goods based on the cost of manufacturer, including the charges that it received for manufacturing the goods. The notice issued to it proposed to add profit obtained from the books of the appellant on the ground that what it received was described in the contract of HR Johnson (India) Ltd. as "labour charge" therefore did not include profit. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner confirmed the liability to addition of profit to these labour charges.2. The Counsel for the appellant contends that the charges that the appellant received would have included an element of profit in addition to the actual expenses incurred by it in the manufacture of these goods. It is unavoidable, he says, it could have carried out the work without incurring any profit at all. He a...

R.R. International, Friends Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This stay applications in all these appeals are being disposed off by this common order, since the issues involved are the same and common submissions were made by the appellants as well as the learned Jt.C.D.R.2. It is found that no financial hardship is pleaded. From the copy of the letter, received from office of Director General of Foreign Trade (CLA), New Delhi, which were produced by the Department, on directions from the bench at the last hearing, it is evident that no D.E.P.S.s were issued in favour of M/s. Million Dollars Inc. and M/s. Abhiman Exports, Delhi. Prima facie, therefore it appears that the D.E.P.B.s in this case are not existing or valid. They could be fabricated and or forged documents and issues relating to the same have to be established or ruled out arrived at during the final hearing. Similarly consequences that would visit the appellants before us, have to be determined at the time of final hearing. At this preliminary stage, after considering the pleas m...

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

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT134Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The common question which we are required to consider in these appeals by Nestle India Ltd. and Johnson & Johnson Ltd. is whether the activities undertaken by each of these companies on the goods imported by them amounts to manufacture within the meaning of Note 3 to Chapter 18, Note 3 to Chapter 19 and Note 5 to Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Nestle India Ltd. imported chocolates. As required by the Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, it affixed on the retail packs of chocolates the name and address of the importer, maximum retail price, net weight, month and year of manufacture, whether vegetarian or not, and month of importation.3. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. imported, among other goods, two products, Topomac and Eprex. Both are life saving medicaments. The medicaments when shipped by the supplier abroad were packs intended for retail sale. Several such packs were placed in bul...

Chennai Petro Corporation Ltd. Vs. Icici Bank Ltd. and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2004)BC126

1. This appeal is an apt illustration of how like politics, business makes strange bed-fellows.This appeal is filed by a party which is not party to the original proceedings before Debts Recovery Tribunal-Ill, Mumbai, who did not choose to intervene in those proceedings though, now, before this Forum they say that the impugned order passed by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT-III, Mumbai, which is being assailed by them in this appeal before this Appellate Tribunal, was passed without hearing them and that it is to their detriment. The appellants say that they are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT-III, Mumbai on 10.3.2003 and that they learnt about it only from a write- up, which appeared in "Hindu" on 19.2.2003. Hence, they filed the appeal before this Appellate Forum on 28.3.2003.The respondent No. 1 ICICI, on the other hand, is making allegation against the present appellants that this is totally a collusive appeal and that the appellants are ...

Bajaj Tempo Limited Vs. Subhash Simratmal Gugale and Bhartiya Kamgar S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR892; 2003(5)BomCR7; 2003(4)MhLj910

1. By consent this matters is heard for final) disposal) at the admission stage. In the circumstances, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.2. This writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Pune dated 30.9.2002 in Complaint (ULP) No. 195 of 2001. The said complaint was filed by the Respondent No. 1 alleging unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as, 'The Act'. for the sake of brevity). The background in which the said complaint has been filed is that the Petitioner company did not give benefits of pay increase as per settlement dated 24.3.2001 to, the Respondent No. 1 complaint and, therefore, the consequential relief of direction to the petitioner to give those benefits with difference of emoluments was also prayed. In the said complaint, the Peti...

Chairman/President, Rotary Charitable Trust and Principal, Pratapsingh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR888; 2003(5)BomCR12; 2004(1)MhLj191

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. This appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No. 3817 of 2002 on 2nd August, 2002. The learned Single Judge by the said order, confirmed the order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, New Mumbai in Appeal No. 12 of 2000. 2. The service of the respondent-teacher was terminated and the said action was challenged by the teacher by filing an appeal before the School Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the order passed against the teacher was illegal on more than on ground. It was observed that as per the order of appointment dated 10th June, 1999, the Management was required to give notice of two months before terminating services of the petition. Since only one month's notice was given, the action was illegal. It was also observed that as the service of the petitioner was not terminated by 'Management' as defined under Section 2(12) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) R...

Kamlesh Lakhmichand Talreja Vs. Vashdev P. Valecha

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR314; 2003(4)MhLj717

D.G. Karnik, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Forvaluable consideration, Varun Cements Limited drew a bill of exchange on 28thSeptember, 1998 in favour of the plaintiff. The bill was drawn on the defendantand was accepted by the defendant. On demand, the defendant failed andneglected to make the payment. Plaintiff therefore, issued a notice of demanddated 15th May, 2001 which was not replied. The plaintiff has therefore filed thissuit for recovery of the amount of bill of exchange and statutory interest under Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned counsel for the defendantsubmitted that the Summons for judgment was not taken out within a period ofsix months from the date of appearance and therefore, the defendant was entitledto unconditional leave to defend under Rule 227 of the Bombay High Court(Original Side) Rules, 1980. Rule 227 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 reads asunder: 'If the plaintiff does not apply for a decree within six mon...

Rajkumar S/O Sudarshan Agarwal Vs. the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribun ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR525; II(2004)BC485; 2004(2)BomCR307; [2005]126CompCas846(Bom); 2004(4)MhLj492

R.J. Kochar, J.1. Appeal is admitted and by consent heard forthwith. Respondent No.3 waives service and the respondent no.3 is the only contesting party. Other respondents need not be heard here. They had not even appeared before the Tribunal.2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 16.4.2003. The learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner who was aggrieved by the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and also by the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai.3. The facts, in brief, can be narrated as under:The respondent no.3/bank had instituted proceedings against respondents no.4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act ('the Act' for short) for recovery of Rs.12,65,642/-. The respondent no.4 was the principal borrower of the loan from the respondent no.3/bank. The appellant and the other respondents were impleaded as th...

Brihanmumbai Union of Journalists Vs. Indian Express Newspapers (Bomba ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)IILLJ199Bom

ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned advocates for the parties.The petitioner challenges the Judgment and Order dated March 31, 2003 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai. By the impugned order the Industrial Court has dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner making grievance about the transfer of the employees of the respondent from Mumbai to Delhi and Calcutta being mala fide and therefore, in violation of item Nos. 3 & 9 of Schedule-IV of MRTU & PULP Act. The Industrial Court has held that the complainant has not established the allegation of mala fide in the matter of transfer of the employees and has further held that the transfer has been on the ground of managerial need of running of business and due to the business exigencies and the same is in consonance with the terms of the employment. While challenging the impugned Judgment and order it was sought to be argued on behalf of the petitioner that the issue of mala fide has not been considered in proper perspecti...