Mumbai Court June 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Standard Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT555Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Both appeals involve common issue and are hence heard together and disposed off by this common order.2. M/s. Standard Industries Limited is engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn, man-made fabrics, embroidered fabrics, etc., while M/s.Khatau Makanji Spinning and Weaving Company Limited is the manufacturer of polyester staple fibre yarn of different blends. Both the respondents have opted for Modvat facility for inputs to be used in the manufacture of their final products. During the manufacture thereof soft waste was generated and the same was cleared at nil rate of duty.Show cause notices were issued for recovery of wrongly availed Modvat credit which notices were adjudicated by the jurisdic-tional Assistant Commissioner, who confirmed the demand raised on waste in the show cause notices and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on M/s. Standard Industries Limited. No penalty was imposed upon M/s. Khatau Makanji Spinning and Weaving Company Limited. The assessees preferred appeal...

Sterlite Optical Technologies Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for sometime on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, we find that it was possible to decide appeal itself at this stage. We, therefore, proceed to hear both sides and dispose of the appeal.2. The brief facts of the case are the appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz. optical fibre and optical fibre cables. They clear the optical fibres to their other units/subsidiary units. The assessable value of the goods used/consumed by them was required to be determined on the basis of value of comparable goods manufactured by themselves or by any other manufacturer. The Department found that price charged to independent buyer for the same goods was higher than the price charged to their own units. They paid Central Excise duty on weighted average price of the goods equal to independent buyers which was lower than the value charged to independent buyers which resulted in under valuation and short levy of duty o...

Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus., Airport

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT763Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeal arises out of the Order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bombay holding that Durametal Cold Welding System Repair Kit imported by the appellants are consumer goods and hence liable to confiscation as they were imported without a specific licence as required under the Export-Import Policy 1992-1997, with an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/-.2. We heard both sides. The goods in question are a combination of specially selected steel and aluminium micro particles used to make repairs where welding and soldering are not possible, as it can adhere to oily, greasy and wet surfaces, which results in saving valuable parts and machinery of heating systems, radiators and air-conditioners through repairs. It does not satisfy the definition of consumer goods as it does not directly satisfy human needs. There is no finding in the adjudication order or in the impugned order as to how these goods satisfy the definition. The goods are for indust...

Rahul Sakharam Naik, through his natural Guardian father Shri Sakharam ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR897; 2003(5)BomCR1; 2004(1)MhLj375

C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. Rule. Mr. P.P. Chavan learned advocate appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of Respondent No. 1. Mr. M.P. Rao learned advocate, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 2. In the facts and circumstances, the matter is taken for final hearing. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioners for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside decision of respondent No. 1 Divisional Secretary, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Mumbai Divisional Board, Mumbai and directing him to declare the result of the petitioners who had appeared in the Higher Secondary Certificate Examination held in March, 2003. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they completed their Secondary School Certificate Examination (Xth Standard) in 2001 and they secured admission in XIth Standard. Sometime, in July, 2001, the first term of the standard XIth i.e. First Year Junior College started. Th...

Ramesh Shivram Khairnar Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Sc ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(6)BomCR254; (2004)ILLJ970Bom; 2003(4)MhLj470

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. The matter was not on board but is taken on board at the request of learned counsel for the Petitioner in view of the fact that the interim relief granted earlier was to expire today.2. With consent of parties, we have taken the matter for final hearing and have heard the parties. Rule. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. A.A. Garge learned advocate, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 3.3. A short question which arises for our consideration in the present petition is as to legality or otherwise of the action of respondent No. 3 Rail Child Sanstha, Kalyan, District Thane in issuing an advertisement for filling of a post of Junior Clerk without considering the case of the petitioner for the said post.4. The case of the petitioner which has not been disputed by the respondent-Management is that he was appointed as a Peon by an order dated 12th June, 1990 and he res...

Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. Vs. Sealand Shipping and Exports Private Li ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR644; 2003(6)BomCR647; 2003(4)MhLj379

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. An order of a Learned Single Judgedated 30th April 2003 declining to stay under Section 10 of the Code of CivilProcedure, 1908, a suit instituted in the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court, hasbeen called into question. The first respondent who is the original Plaintiff in thesuit instituted in this Court, claims to have been, at all material times, the ownerof a sea going vessel by the name of m.v. Concord. By a Charter-party agreementdated 7th August 2001, the first respondent is stated to have let the vessel on atime Charter to a Company by the name of Kinship Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.,Kochi. According to the Appellant, it entered into a contract of affreightment on26th July 2001 with Kinship Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. The vessel arrived at PortMuldwarka for loading a consignment of bagged cement on 24th September2001, to be discharged partly at the Ports of Kochi and Vizhinjam. Bills ofLading dated 29th September 2001 are stated to have been issued in respe...

Suryabhan Popat Londhe Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR130; 2003(6)BomCR886; (2004)ILLJ319Bom; 2003(4)MhLj568

D.V. Chandrachud, J.1. This appeal, is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 23rd August 2001, by which the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal has been set aside. By the award rendered on 22nd April 1997 on a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Industrial Tribunal directed that the appellant be reinstated in the service of the Port Trust with continuity of service and backwages. 2. The appellant joined the service of the Respondent on 30th July 1977.On 8th July 1985, he was assigned the duty to clean an assigned area within the Docks at the Port of Mumbai. On that day at about 6.30 a.m., the appellant reported for duty and commenced the worked assigned to him outside the office of the Assistant Shed Superintendent, along with other workmen. At about 9 a.m., a clerk in the employment of the Port Trust by the name of Shivaji Warula noticed that the appellant suddenly sat down on the floor while cleaning it. The beh...

Suresh S/O Tikaram Pustode Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR233; 2004(1)MhLj157

R.J. Kochar, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties.2. This petition deserves to be disposed of at this stage itself as the petitioner has been knocking the doors of the State Government on and from 20-3-1997 for compassionate employment under the Government Resolution No. EM/1080/35/96-A dated 21-1-1980 issued by the General Administration Department wherein it has been provided that the State shall provide a job to one of the family members of the Project Affected Persons. There is no dispute that the land of the petitioner's father was acquired for the purpose of Itiadoh Project for Constructing the canals. There is also no dispute that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to get a job under the policy enunciated by the welfare State of Maharashtra under the aforesaid Government Resolution. No doubt, on paper, the said policy appears to be very laudable, but in practice, the petitioner and many like him are waiting to get the fruits of this welfare policy of the welfare...

Padma Narsima Kokarne Vs. Commissioner of Police and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR101; 2004(1)BomCR209

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 2-5-2002 having been passed without giving the opportunity of being heard to the petitioner after the adjournment of the hearing on 14-2-2002.3. The facts which are not in dispute are that the matter was fixed for hearing before the lower Appellate Authority on 14-2-2002. On the said date, the petitioner's Advocate prayed for adjournment of the hearing which request was not rejected by the lower Appellate Authority. The fact that on 14-2-2002 the petitioner had sought adjournment was recorded by the petitioner under letter dated 15-2-2002 which reads thus:--'This is to record that hearing of the above appeal was fixed for 14-2-2002 at 11 a.m. when I attended your office and requested you to kindly adjourn the hearing to any other convenient date and your honour was pleased to allow my application.You are requested to kindly give a fresh date for hearing....

Mehboobkhan Vs. Babarkhan and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2004)DMC224

P.S. Brahme, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Applicant Mehboobkhan Babarkhan has filed the present application questioning validity and legality of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Akola in Criminal Revision Application No. 12 of 1997 whereunder the applicant was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 200/- to each non-applicant i.e., non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2. It is not disputed that initially non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 had filed an application for maintenance Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the present applicant and the learned Magistrate passed the order directing the applicant to pay maintenance. Against that order, Criminal Revision Application No. 200 of 1991 was filed by the non-applicant wherein the Sessions Judge had directed the applicant to pay maintenance @ Rs. 300/- p.m. to each of his parents. Thereafter, the present applicant filed Misc. Criminal Application No. 991 of 1995, Under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal ...