Mumbai Court June 2004 Judgments

Shantaram Genuji Satav Vs. B.A.i.F. Laboratories Ltd. and Shri P.S. Sh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR353; 2005(2)BomCR430; [2005(105)FLR1121]; (2005)IILLJ552Bom; 2005(1)MhLj950

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 22nd August 1995 passed by the Labour Court, Pune in applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The applications have been dismissed on 22nd August 1995. According to the Petitioner, he was working at the plant of the first Respondent at Wagholi. It appears that on 12th December 1989 the first Respondent entered into a Settlement with Sarva Shramik Sanghatana, a trade union representing the workmen employed with the first Respondent. Under this Settlement, the workers were entitled to production incentive as per the scheme at Annexure I to the Settlement. Accordingly the workers were paid production incentive. A new Settlement was entered into between the Sanghatana and the first Respondent on 16th October 1992. By this Settlement, it was agreed that the production incentive scheme would be revised and finalized soon, in consultation with the workers and the staff union. It appears that ...

Bhima Bhagoji Redekar, Vs. Sarladevi Keshavrao Desai (Deceased by Her ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR860; 2005(2)BomCR455; 2005(1)MhLj881

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order dated 3rd February 1984 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur, in Revision No. MRT-KP-24/1981. Briefly stated, the land in question is Survey No. 65 admeasuring 15 acres 18 gunthas situated at village Sule, taluka Ajara, district Kolhapur. The Petitioners claim to be tenants in respect of the suit land. The Respondents are the landlords of the suit land. This matter has chequered history. Suffice it to mention that earlier round of litigation culminated with the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 586 of 1965 decided on June 14, 1967. The order reads thus:'By consent the orders of the Tribunal, the Collector and the A.L.T. are set aside and the matter is remanded to A.L.T., Ajra. The A.L.T shall proceed with the enquiry under Section 32-G and the A.L.T. shall give both the sides sufficient opportunity to put in their sa...

Shiva Ragho Kumbhar (Since Deceased, by His Heirs Smt. Vithabai Shiva ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR951

A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune dated June 3, 1988 in Revision No. TNC.RA.121,86. Briefly stated, the lands in question are Gut No. 1692 admeasuring 1 hectare 29 acres, Gut No. 1719 admeasuring 0 hectare 75 acres and Gut No. 217 admeasuring 1 hectare 31 acres, situated at Kapileshwar, Taluka Radhanagari, District Kolhapur. The Respondent claims to be landlord in respect of the suit lands. It is not in dispute that the petitioners predecessor was tenant in the suit lands prior to 1st April 1957. It is also not in dispute that the suit lands were originally held by Krishna, father of the present Respondent as joint family property. On 29th October 1956, an agreement was arrived at between family members of said Krishna and his seven sons, which was reduced into writing, purported to be partition deed, in which the suit lands were given to the share of the Respondent. The Respondent w...

indumati W/O Vishwanath Nagargoje Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)MhLj632

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard.2. Rule.3. Shri K.B. Choudhary, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 5.4. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith.5. The petitioner came to be elected as Chairperson (Sabhapati), Panchayat Samiti, Bhoom, on 14-3-2003 and with a statutory period of two and half years. However, an inquiry was initiated against the petitioner under Section 73 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961. It was alleged that on or about 29-4-2003, she had called one Shri B.R. Shinde, Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti in her chamber and used derogatory language against him. This behaviour amounted to misconduct or disgraceful conduct. She was issued a charge-sheet on 16-6-2003 by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, being the competent authority. She had submitted her defence statement and the competent author...

Sharadchandra (Dr.) S/O Venkatrao Ratnalikar Vs. General Secretary, Sa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR379; 2004(4)MhLj1045

1. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his appeal filed under Section 42B(1) of the Marathwada Universities Act, 1974 by the learned Presiding Officer of the University & College Tribunal at Aurangabad, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order of removal dated 25-3-1986 and the consequential dismissal of the appeal by the said Tribunal.2. The petitioner holds degrees of M.Sc. as well as Ph.D. and he came to be appointed initially as a Lecturer in Yogeshwari Mahavidyalaya, Ambejogai where he worked from 1959 to 1963. Thereafter he came to be appointed as Lecturer in Botany by respondent No. 1 society in its college by name Saraswati Bhuwan College of Arts, Commerce and Science at Aurangabad. He was confirmed in 1965 and thereafter he also became Head of the Department of Botany. He was appointed as Principal of the Science College of the respondent No. 1 society at Aurangabad with effect from 15-6-1972. He continued in the said post till the order of removal was pa...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pankil Textiles

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides, and considering the materials, it is found that valid grounds exist in the Revenue's appeal to deny the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 to the respondents herein, since the respondents have purchased the premises where the factory is located from the earlier owners in 1995-96 and thereafter 1996-97 had cleared the goods from these premises and another factory located at Kim in Surat District and the turnover from these two factories in 1995-96 is admittedly more than Rs. 300.00 lakhs.2. The reliance of the ld D.R. on the cases of 1990 (50) ELT 250 Indica Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India. (PARA 30) AND Dukes Pharma v.Govt of India 1994 (69) ELT 433 (Mad) and Gaurav Equipments (Pvt) Ltd v. CCE 1993 (66) ELT 438 (Tri) is well founded and induces us to set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals).3. On considering the reply of the Ld Advocate for the respondents and the Cross Objection and after ascertaining from the orders impugned in t...

Cosmo Films Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The issue pertains to denial of Modvat Credit of Rs. 1,03,472.32 on the basis that duty paying documents have not been produced in as much as the appellant is not stated to be the consignee in invoice No. 1670 dated 25.7.94 issued by the IPCL.3. M/s Cosmo Film Ltd. MIDC Chikalthana, Aurangabad are engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 39 of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. The assessee had taken Modvat Credit of Rs. 3,10,416.96 without producing duty paying documents. The assessee had also taken Modvat Credit of Rs. 2,69,093 as CVD against the bills of entry No.2079 dated 3.8.94 which is in the name of their Delhi Head Office. The finding of the additional Commissioner CCEx Aurangabad is that there is no provision under Central Excise Rules 1944 which allows the credit when the duty paying documents are not accompanying the goods and lost in transit. In respect of second item it is observed that the name of the Assessee given on the declaration appended to the Bi...

Polynova Inds. Ltd. Vs. C.C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The issue under consideration is that denial of the Modvat Credit availed on the invoices amounting to Rs. 60,328/- by the appellant. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise (Div) Panaji (Goa) has confirmed the duty and ordered for the recovery of the aforesaid amount in terms of Rule 57 I read with Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Commissioner (Appeals) has also confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner.2. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has observed the following. "adjudicating authority has observed that in view of the discrepancies it was not possible to accept the dealer's invoices about the goods sold are One and the same and are removed by the manufacturer on payment of duty. To establish the duty paid character is an essential requirement in the modvat scheme. Once that is in doubt the modvat credit is not admissible." 3. The learned Advocate for the appellant contended that both the authorities have erred in...

Aero Industries Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(116)LC537Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants, an assessee under the Central Excise Act, 1944, inter alia, manufacture and clear on payment of duty on entity '"Baygon Mosquito Specialist" classified under CETA 1985, schedule 3808.10.2. On scrutiny of RII 2 return and the clarification declaration filed, it was observed, ...The product "Baygon Mosquito Specialist" was in aerosol cases of 320 ml and 500 ml having spraying device for household use with a declaration on the cans 'Repels Mosquitoes and other flying insects', The assessee had replaced the words "Repels Mosquitoes and other flying insects" by the words "Control Mosquitoes and other flying insects.They had removed the subject entity after payment of duty as value as under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, where they were, as found by the lower authorities to discharge duty under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in terms of Notification No. 9/2000 CE (NT) dated 1.3.2000 and reference No. 5/2001 CE(NT) dated 1.3.2001 as covered under Sr. No...

Aero Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(204)ELT61Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants, an assessee under the Central Excise Act, 1944, inter alia, manufacture and clear on payment of duty on entity "Baygon Mosquito Specialist" classified under CETA 1985, schedule 3808.10.2. On scrutiny of RT 12 return and the classification declaration filed, it was observed, ...The product "Baygon Mosquito Specialist" was in aerosol cases of 320 ml and 500 ml having spraying device for household use with a declaration on the cans 'Repels Mosquitoes and other flying insects'. The assessee had replaced the words "Repels Mosquitoes and other flying insects" by the words "Control Mosquitoes and other flying insects.They had removed the subject entity after payment of duty on value as under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, where they were, as found by the lower authorities to discharge duty under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in terms of Notification No. 9/2000-C.E.(N.T.), dated 1-3-2000 and Notification No. 5/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2001 as covered...