Mumbai Court April 2004 Judgments

Electronics Corporation of India Limited a Service Engineers Union Vs. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)BomCR699; [2004(101)FLR880]; (2004)IIILLJ971Bom; 2004(4)MhLj151

Nishita Mhatre, J. 1. This petition challenges the Award Part-II dated 18th August 1995 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay in Reference (IT) No. 44 of 1993 rejecting the Reference on the ground that the petitioner Union was not able to establish the master and servant relationship between the workmen represented by the petitioner and respondent No. 1 herein. The entire dispute has arisen on account of the services of the workmen represented by the petitioner Union being terminated. For the sake of brevity, the petitioner Union is referred to as 'Union' and respondent No. 1 Company as 'Company'.2. The entire reference was in respect of about 30 workmen involved in the dispute. The Union represent the employees who are called Retainers by the Company. These employees sought permanent absorption and other reliefs from the Company. The Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling and servicing of electronic items mainly Televisions. Between the years 1972 and 1978...

Nivrutti S/O Shankar Shewale Since Deceased Through Lrs. Chandrakant S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR668; 2004(4)MhLj147

S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard Shri S.K. Shinde, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Shri N.H. Borade, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.2. This petition takes an exception to the Government Notification dated January 25, 1988 issued by respondent under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette dated April 7, 1988, as well as Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated July 31, 1989, published in Maharashtra Government Gazette dated August 3, 1989, holding that the land to the extent of 0 Hector, 81 ares out of Gat No. 30/4 (Part) situate at village Takli, Taluka Akole, District Ahmednagar, is required for public purpose. By way of consequential relief, the Notification issued under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Re-settlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1976', for short) is also sought to be quashed and set aside to the extent of petitioner's land from Ga...

Hamid Khan Nayyar S/O Habib Khan Vs. Education Officer and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR871; 2004(4)MhLj513

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respective respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The petitioner is in the service of the Anjuman Urdu High School at Nandgaon Peth in the district of Amravati. The school is run by the Anjuman Mufid-Ul-Awam Welfare Society, which is a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The school is recognised and is in receipt of grant-in-aid from the State. The petitioner was appointed as a Head Master and his services were approved w.e.f. 1976 by the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad Amravati. There is a serious dispute inter se amongst the trustees and members and rival groups from amongst the trust have filed respective change reports before the Charity Commissioner under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, which are pending. Change Report No. 391/2001 has been filed by the 3rd respondent while Change Report No. 534/2001 has been filed by the 4th respond...

State of Goa and anr. Vs. Shri Prabhakar Shivram Naik

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)106BOMLR173

N.A. Britto, J.1. The State of Goa has filed the present appeal against the Judgment/ Award dated 29.7.1997 of the learned Addl. District Judge, Panaji in L.A.C. No. 111/90.2. Briefly stated by virtue of Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and published in Government Gazette dated 7.1.82 the Government acquired 92,745 sq. metres of land situated at Porvorim for residential development under Integrated Development Programme and in that was included a plot of land No. 13 admeasuring 1250 sq. metres belonging to the firm M/s. Shivram Dattaram Pankar of which the respondent was a partner and the L.A.O. by virtue of Award dated 31.1.1984 awarded to the respondent compensation for the said acquisition at the rate of Rs. 25/- per sq. m. and as against the same respondent sought a reference to the District Court, Panaji and the learned Addl. District Judge by his Award dated 29.7.97 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 119.70 per sq. m.3. The first submission m...

Emtex Industries (India) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Deve ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR185; 2004(5)BomCR274; (2004)106BOMLR324

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioners for quashing and setting aside a demand notice dated 23rd December, 2003 for an amount of Rs. 2,09,64,344/- (Exh. K). A prayer is also sought directing respondent No. 1 to accept Building Completion Certificate dated 11th April, 1989 issued by the Area Manager of respondent No. 1 - Corporation.2. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company having its registered office at Plot No. F-4, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Badlapxir, Dist. Thane. Petitioner No. 2 is the Executive Director of petitioner No. 1. Respondent No. 1 is Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation ('M.I.D.C,' for short), a Government of Maharashtra undertaking constituted under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Respondent No. 2 is the State of Maharashtra.3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Deputy Engineer of the first respondent illeg...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Area Petrochem

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Revenue is the appellant. The respondent has taken modvat credit of over Rs. 5.73 lakhs on inputs namely "Organic Composite Solvent - 73 (OCS-73)" falling under heading 3814.00. During the period October to December 98,the said inputs had been supplied by M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd., (Surat) under an invoice evidencing payment of duty on the goods @ 32%. This rate of duty at the material time was applicable to sub-heading 2710.19 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. However, the tariff heading shown in the invoice was 3814.00. This was the heading shown by the appellants in their modvat declaration filed under Rule 57G in respect of "OCS-73". The department proposed to disallow the credit on the ground that inputs falling under sub-heading 2710.19 where not eligible for modvat credit in terms of Notification NO. 5/94 CE (NT) dated 01.03.94 (as amended). The show-cause notice containing this proposal was contested by the party.The adjudicating authority conf...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hemitronics Equipments and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has set aside the Order-in-Original passed by the Asst. Commissioner along with subsequent corrigendum issued by him vide which he has confirmed the demand of Rs. 74,065.57 against the respondents by extending the benefit of Notification 175/86 dated 1.3.86. The revenue's grievances is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not discussed the merits of the case but has set aside the order on the technical issue of addition of 10% notional profit in the assessable value of the final product, as also on the ground that in his order the Asst. Collector directed the Superintendent to re-quantify the demand and subsequently he has himself confirmed the demand by way of issuance of a corrigendum.2. I have heard Shri Hitesh Shah, Ld. SDR appearing for the revenue.The respondents have made a prayer for decision of the case on the basis of the cross objection filed by them. The respondent's ...

Shree Prakash Textiles (Guj) Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT162Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The appellants are manufactures of cotton and man made fabrics. They were working under the compounded levy scheme since 16/12/98 and were accordingly discharging duty liability in terms of Rules 96 ZQ of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Prior to 16/12/98, they had outstanding unutilised credit on inputs in their RG-23A Part II. They were unable to utilise such credit for payment of duty on final products under the compounded levy scheme. Therefore, they filed claims for refund of the duty equivalent to the outstanding unutilised credit, under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. There were two such claims, both pertaining to the month of December 1998. Both were rejected by the original authority saying that there is no provision for sanctioning a refund of duty equivalent to modvat credit. This view of the original authority was upheld by the first appellate authority. Hence the present appeal.3. The main ground of this appeal is that the refund claims were liable to be sanctioned i...

Maharashtra State Electricity Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT541Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant is Maharashtra State Electricity Board. The Board was constrained to pay the duty on Pre-stressed Concrete Poles at the instance of the Central Excise department during the period May 1981 to September 1987. Subsequently, they succeeded on the plea that they were not the manufacturer of the said goods. The Tribunal by order dated 02/09/93 (1994 (71) ELT 156) held that MSEB was not the manufacturer of Pre-stressed Concrete Poles and that the manufacturers were their job workers. On the strength of the Tribunal's decision, MSEB filed refund claims for various periods. Most of the claims were allowed by the departmental authorities. Two claims were, however, rejected by the original and first appellate authorities on the ground that the original duty paying documents had not been produced by the claimant The claims so rejected are for an amount of Rs. 6,11,966.71 (for the period May 1981 to August 1987) and R.1,86,222/- (for the period April 87 to September 87). The pres...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Virlon Textile Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT301Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This application is for condonation of the delay of over four months involved in filing of the Revenue's appeal. The appeal is against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), which was received by the appellant on 16-6-2003. The statutory period of limitation for appeal expired on 15-9-2003. The appeal has been filed on 9-2-2004.2. The Counsel for the respondent wants an adjournment of this matter, which 1 am not inclined to grant, inasmuch as the respondent had received notice of this application sufficiently in advance.3. The main ground raised in this application is that the impugned order was initially accepted by the Commissioncrate on 24-7-2003, but the appeal has been occasioned by a subsequent circular of the Board.Circular dated 26-9- 2003 of the Board was issued to inform the field formations that the department had filed review petitions against the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgments dated 27-2-2002 and 26-2-2002 [2002 (141) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] in the case of Maruti U...