Mumbai Court July 2004 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Akash Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard Shri A.K. Saxena, learned J.D.R. for the Department. None appeared for the respondents. We find that the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Commissioner of Customs has been challenged on the basis of a Review Order passed by the Board on the following grounds:- "1. The Commissioner by applying the ratio of the judgment in case of Jopson v. James, Doleman v. Osset Corporation, referred to in the case of AIR 1954 Patna 262 of Sree Bhabapritananda Ojha, has held that when proper officers of Bombay Custom House were seized of the mater with the filing of the B/E and assessment thereof, the jurisdiction of DRI was deemed to be barred, who are having concurrent jurisdiction over the same subject. For convenience sake, relevant extract of the order of the High Court of Patna is set out herein below. "(6) In my opinion the argument of Mr. P.R. Das is correct. If the statute is construed in its plain and grammatical sense there would be conflicting orders between two jurisdicti...

Diamond Biscuit Co. and Shri Gope Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT294Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants are a partnership firm, engaged in the manufacture of biscuits and its partner looking after the business.2. (a) On the basis of an intelligence, the officers visited the factory premises o f the firm on 26.11.95 and found certain stocks of biscuits not accounted. They also searched another firm engaged in the manufacture of biscuits on the next floor by the name and style of M/s.Demand Biscuit Company. They found that both firms manufacture biscuits with the brand name Diamond. Certain stocks of biscuits were found unaccounted and documents were seized. On subsequent visit attempt, to remove biscuits, which were product of the appellant firm, without preparation of bills and challans of M/s. Diamond Biscuit Company was thwarted and goods seized. After considering the material in the enquiries, evidences, a show cause notice was issued proposing - ii) Confiscation of biscuits worth Rs. 2,69,553/- seized on 13.12.95 along with confiscation of tempo and plant and machinery...

Deepak Fertilisers and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT468Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing the appellants for some time, it transpires that the issues herein are fully covered by the decision of the Supreme Court and this Tribunal. The appeal is therefore taken up for disposal, after waiver of pre-deposit.2. The learned DR could not produce any orders contrary to the one produced by the LD. Advocate for the appellants. His plea, of, that the appeal need not be decided at this stage is therefore rejected as no purpose will be served by keeping an appeal after full pre-deposit waiver, pending on the board, if issues in such appeal are no longer res-integra and well settled.3. The appellants is an assessee under the Central Excise and availing credit, is aggrieved against the demands made on:- The appellants submitted that the M.S. Scrap, S.S. Scrap & Aluminium Scrap is not generated from CENVAT credit availed inputs but is of M.S.drums, carboys empty packing material, etc b. The Jt. Commissioner adjudicating the notice held that the "Most of the metallic ...

Arihant Arts, Mr. Malsi Thawar Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT194Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals, against the common order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise are being disposed by this order.While MPP was declarant unit under the Central Excise Act & Rules, was enjoying the benefit of exemption on Printed Cartons, was managed by Mr. M.T. Rita, a partner, the two other firms, viz. M/s. AA and M/s.GP, operating from Mr. M.T. Rita's residence were floated to obtain in eligible exemption on cartons since they did not have any factory or office premises and were alleged to be bogus units created on paper to fragment the clearance value of Mayur to obtain benefits not eligible under notification 1/93. i) with Malsi T. Rita of MPP started in 1980-81 with partnership with Shri Ramji T. Rita who retired and started M/s. AA with another partner Smt. Champaben V Rita in 1989-90. Yet Malti T. Rita looked after the affairs of M/s. AA and has several offer, quotations as partner for M/s. AA without any remuneration of M/s. AA or M/s. GP. ii) One Prasanna S. Kasaw...

R.B. Kamble Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(1)SLJ389CAT

1. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to challenge the order dated 10.12.2001 of Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement, which was upheld by order dated 26.2.2002 of the Appellate Authority and order dated 19.6.2002 of the Revisional Authority and has prayed for quashing and setting aside the above orders.2. The applicant at the relevant time was working as Junior Booking Clerk at the booking office of Vikhroli on 29.10.1997 in shift 0700 hours to 1500 hours on window No. 5, was involved in a trap by the vigilance team. A memorandum was issued on 19.1.1998 by Assistant Commercial Manager on the following charges: "Article I: He irregularly overcharged the decoy passengers by Rs. 8/- (Rs. Eight) on the sale of one II/O/Retn. ticket Ex. VK to ABH and one II/O/Retn. VK to Shelu/ Vashind. Article II: He was found with an excess of Rs. 21.75 (Rs. Twenty one and paise seventy five) in the Railwa...

D.M. Bhingare Vs. C.T.R. Manufacturing Industries Ltd. Through Its Chi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR178; 2005(1)MhLj794

Nishita, J.1. The Petitioner was employed with C.T.R. ., the first Respondent herein, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') for several years. He was working in the Fabrication Department of the Company and was giving production as per norms fixed in 1984. These norms were fixed by the company and Sarva Shramik Sanghatana, a trade union representing the workers at that time. The settlement included revision of wages and other conditions of service as well as fixation of norms of production. Accordingly, the Petitioner continued to give production in the Fabrication Section where he was working as per the norms. It appears that thereafter sometime in 1985-86, the Petitioner was shifted to another Section. There was no complaint about the working of the Petitioner. Thereafter the majority of the workmen including the Petitioner discontinued their membership with Sarva Shramik Sanghatana and joined the C.T.R. Trade Union which was an internal union formed by the workmen. This Union t...

Karsul V.K.S. Society Limited, Through Its Chairman, Gulabrao Jayavant ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR247; 2005(1)BomCR369; 2004(4)MhLj1037

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Petition takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated June 24, 1991 passed by the State Minister (Co-operative), Government of Maharashtra. Briefly stated, the Respondents were original members of the Petitioner Society. For some reason, they tendered resignation which was duly accepted by the Society. However, after some time, they made application for enrolling them as members afresh. That application was, however, rejected by the Society. Against the said decision, the Respondents carried the matter in appeal before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Niphad. The Appellate Authority, in turn, allowed the appeal by Judgment and Order dated October 25, 1988 and directed enrolment of the Respondents as members on certain conditions. Respondents being dissatisfied by the conditions imposed by the Appellate Authority, took the matter in appeal before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nasik Division, Nasik. The appeal prefer...

Madhukar Deoman Patil, Etc. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors., Etc ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom473; 2004(4)ALLMR504; 2004(6)BomCR659; 2004(4)MhLj485

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in the present writ petitions is whether the Commissioner is competent to pass order of disqualification on his own against the elected Councillors.2. Briefly stated, in all these matters, the Petitioners are duly elected Councillors of the Malegaon Municipal Corporation. Respondent No. 3 - Commissioner - issued show cause notice to each of them, in all 14 elected Councillors on December 6, 2003. The show cause notice essentially is founded on the allegation that the respective Councillors have incurred disqualification in terms of Section 10(1)(f) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. The respective Councillors, Petitioners herein, filed their explanation to the said show cause notice. The Commissioner was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the Petitioners. However, instead of making reference of the issue as to whether the concerned elected Councillors have incurred disqualification...

Shivaji Krishna Zunjare Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR133; 2004(4)MhLj764

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. Both these petitions are directed against an order passed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority on 8th April, 2004, holding that the petitioners were ineligible to participate in a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. In the circumstances, notices have been issued to the petitioners to vacate the premises. In order to appreciate the controversy which arises in these proceedings, it would at the very outset be instructive to advert to the provisions of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, more particularly, Regulation 33(10). By a notification dated 15th October, 1997, in exercise of powers conferred by subsection (2) of section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, the State Government sanctioned certain modifications in Development Control Regulation 33(10) read with Appendix IV thereto. Clause...

Super Fastner Corporation Vs. Shashikant Salunke

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)ILLJ341Bom

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. A complaint under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 was filed by Mr. Shyamrao Salunke who, it is admitted ground, had worked with the Petitioner as a hand cart puller-cum-helper for 30 years between 1969 and 1999. According to the employer the workman did not report for work while according to the workman he was unlawfully terminated in 1999. On this aspect no more need be said since the complaint is pending and the issues that arise therein will be decided on merits by the Labour Court. During the pendency of the complaint before the Labour Court, the workman expired on June 13, 2002 and is survived by his widow and sons. The legal representatives have been brought on record on July 17, 2002. An application was moved before the Labour Court for a direction to the employer to deposit the legal dues of the deceased workman since his heirs were facing economic starvation. The app...