Mumbai Court February 2004 Judgments

Raghuvir Vithoba Balgi and anr. Vs. Bombay Electric Supply and Transpo ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR797; 2004(5)BomCR690; 2004(3)MhLj174

D.G. Karnik, J. 1. This notice of motion is taken out by the plaintiffs for restraining the defendant from disconnecting the electric supply to shop No. 3 and 4 (for short 'the said shops').2. Plaintiff No. 1 was conducting the business in shop No. 4 since long and in the year 1983 he allowed the plaintiff No. 2 to carry on the said business, as a conductor. The plaintiff No. 2 is running a hotel in the name and style of Hotel Natraj in the said shops. The plaintiffs were provided with an electricity supply to the said shops under meter number D-804594 and D-408446, and the plaintiffs were paying the electricity bills regularly. There is also no dispute about the correctness of the bills upto March 1995. In respect of one meter, the dispute relates to the period between 20th April 1995 and 13th July 1999 and in respect of the other meter for the period between April 1995 and 12th June 1999,3. By a letter dated 6th January 1999 (the date on the letter appears to be erroneous), the defen...

Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Memorial Education Society and anr. Vs. State o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)MhLj872

V.C. Daga, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Perused petition, affidavits and counter affidavits. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. The validity of the permission granted by respondent No. 1, the State of Maharashtra in favour of respondent No. 3, Shinde Education Society, Sawargaon, to shift and start new Arts College at Panchwati-Katol, from the academic year 2002-03 is a subject matter of challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Factual ScenarioThe factual scenario giving rise to the present petition is as under :3. The petitioner No. 1 is an educational society having four Senior Colleges, Schools and Junior Colleges in the District of Nagpur. The Petitioner No. 2 is a Senior College which was opened in the year 1999 with due sanction of the State Government to impart education in Arts Faculty for women only; since then it is being run at Katol, Tq. Katol, Distt. Nagpur.4. The aforesaid College is affiliated to the second respondent - N...

The Devisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporatio ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR397; (2004)106BOMLR561

S.T. Kharche, J.1. By invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. has challenged the order dated 9.7.1991 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court in revision U.L.P.A. No. 62 of 1986 whereby the revision is allowed and the order passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the respondent in service with continuity of service and back wages was set aside,2. Relevant facts are as under :The respondent was employee as a conductor with the petitioner-Corporation. On 15.3.1982 he was on duty on the route of Golai to Akot. The S.T. Bus No. 9865 was scheduled on that route. The checking staff had surprisingly checked the tickets of the passengers of the said S.T. Bus at Khatkali spot and found that the respondent had recovered Rs. 3.50 from four passengers each when they boarded the bus at Golai. Those four passengers were travelling from Golai to Khatkali and on checking ...

Secur Industries Ltd. Vs. Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)BomCR49; (2004)106BOMLR798

Ruma Pal, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been preferred from an interim order granted by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court staying the arbitration proceedings before the Uttar Pradesh Industry Facilitation Council (referred to as 'the Council') set up under the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 (referred to as 'the Act').3. We are not concerned with the merits of the proceedings initiated by the appellant before the Council. The only question is whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.4. The chronology of events which are relevant for the purposes of this appeal, commenced with a notice dated 11th September, 2001 served by the appellant on the respondent raising a demand. The notice also contained the following paragraph:You may also treat this as a notice under the provisions of the 'Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993. Failu...

intervet Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC289

1. The prayer is for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 9,73,205.65 confirmed for the period 1.11.1996 to July 2001 and of Rs. 31,450.85 confirmed for the period 1.8.2001 to 31.3.2002. The appellants have also been imposed with identical amount of personal penalties under Section 11 AC of the Act.2. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri Prakash Shah, learned advocate and Shri S.S. Bhagat, learned SDR, we find that the issue related to the classification of the appellants interim product, i.e. Aluminum Hydroxide Gel. Whereas the appellants have claimed the classification of the said product under Heading 30.02, Revenue has classified the same under Heading 2818.10. Shri Shah has challenged the impugned order on merits as also on the point of limitation. He has drawn our attention to the fact that during the relevant period they were filing the classification list claiming classification under Heading 3002.00. The Show Cause Notice for the per...

India United Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants is a composite textile industry engaged in the manufacture of, inter alia, spun yarn classifiable under Chapters 55.The appellant was discharging its duty liability at the spindal stage on single yarn. The single stage yarn was subsequently doubled by them and no duty was being paid on the same in view of the exemption notification No. 35/95-CE dtd. 16/03/1995. The said notification was however, subsequently amended on 84/95-CE dtd. 18/05/1995. Proviso to the said notification denied exemption to the doubled or multifold yarn if the same is being cleared from a factory having facilities for producing single yarn. The result of the said amendment was that the appellants were not eligible to avail the benefit of notification in respect of the doubled yarn inasmuch as they were themselves producing the single yarn. Accordingly, the authorities below had confirmed the demand of duty on doubled yarn from September 1995 to July 1997, and has also confiscated the seized goo...

Classic Marble Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri Anil Balani, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of the applicants and Shri Sanjay Singhal, Ld. JDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue.2. The Ld. Counsel submitted that there is a delay of about 11 months in filing the appeals before this Tribunal. His contention is that the Order-in-Appeal was issued by the Department on 10.01.02 and the same was received by the applicants in the last week of January 2002.Therefore, the last date for filing the appeal was last week of April 2002 whereas the appeals have been filed in the Tribunal on 28^th March 2003. Hence a delay of about 11 months. He contended that the Central Intelligence Unit searched the office premises of the Applicant on 02.01.2002 and seized several files and interalia containing import documents and other papers pertaining to the instant case and similar cases. When the impugned Order-in-Appeal in the appeal were received by the applicant, it was not possible to connect the same with its respective files. Hence all such ...

Seam Engineers Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT294Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The brief facts of the case are as under. The appellants were served with a show cause notice consequent to visit to their unit by preventive party saying that the appellants have sent certain inputs outside the factory for processing under Rule 57F (4) and did not bring them back within the stipulated period of sixty days and therefore the credit is required to be recovered. Secondly, they have received rejected duty paid goods under Rule 173H and that, these goods were not available for physical verifications by preventive party. Therefore it was stated that, the goods have been replaced and duty is required to be recovered. Though as per the directions of the preventive party, the duty has been paid voluntarily, (SIC) the matter has been contested.The appeal against the order in original passed by the Additional Commissioner has been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeal). Hence this appeal to the Tribunal.3. On going through the records, it is noticed that, in their reply to the...

Tracon India Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT320Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri K.M.Mondal, Consultant appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri Sanjay Singhal, Ld. JDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue.2. The Ld. Consultant submitted that this is the second round of litigation and there is a delay of two months in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. He submitted that the applicant is a chronic asthma patient and he had a severe attack on 28.8.2003. When he went to the Doctor, the Doctor advised him to go to dry climate immediately for relief and as such he has to leave for Jaipur in the 1st week of September 2003 and stayed there till the end of October 2003. He returned to Mumbai on 03.11.2003. While attending office on the next day, he realized that the appeal has remained to be filed. He, therefore, immediately contacted his Consultant and got the appeal prepared within a weeks' time. He, therefore, submitted that the delay of two months is not due to any inaction or negligence on the part of the applicant and as such the delay may be condoned....

Micro Forge (i) P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT251Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The instant appeal of the appellants is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeal) whereunder their appeal against the order-in-original was rejected. In the order-in-original the adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 3,31,921/- against the appellants, besides imposing penalties and ordering recovery of interest.2. The brief facts of the case are that consequent to stock taking conducted by the visiting Central Excise officers shortage of 127.662 MT of finished goods was noticed. The aforementioned duty was confirmed after discarding the explanations submitted by the appellants. The appellants had challenged the very fact that there was any shortage. It has come on record that weighment of the actual stock of finished goods was not carried out and instead the officers had resorted to an empirical method of ascertaining the weight by taking the weight of a single forging of each type and multiplying the same by the number of pieces of relevant items (u...