Mumbai Court August 2004 Judgments

Dr. Mrs. Tanuja Bhat, Assistant Lecturer Vs. State of Goa and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2005(106)FLR697]

P.V. Hardas, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner prays for striking down the amendment dated 16.7.1998 to Item No. 5 under Schedule III of the 1979 Rules altering the mode of recruitment and essential qualifications and making it retrospective on the ground that it is a mala fide exercise of the power and bad in law. The petitioner also prayed for quashing and setting aside the appointment of respondent No. 3 to the post of Lecturer and the further appointment of respondent No. 3 to the post of Asst. Professor in the Department of Biochemistry as well as the promotion and appointment of respondent No. 3 to the post of Asst. Professor. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lecturer in the Department of Biochemistry under the unamended 1979 Rules from the date on which respondent No. 3 was appointed.2. The facts, in brief, as are necessary for the decision of thi...

Blue Star Ltd. Vs. C.C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT339Tri(Mum.)bai

a) For the period April 1994 to July 1996 differential duty amount of duty were demanded of Rs 4,00,147/- on Air Conditioners and Rs. 7,462/-on Water Coolers and Rs. 4,07,609/- as penalty under Section 11AC and Rs. 25,000/- as penalty under Section 173Q were confirmed by the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeal). b) The Appellants had paid differential duty on Air conditioners amounting to Rs. 4,00,147/- by debit to RG 23A part II vide entry No. 2000 dated 29/11/96 and Rs. 7,462/- towards differential duty on Water Coolers amounting to Rs. 7,462/- by debit to RG 23A part II vide entry no. 127 dated 16/1/97. They were issued Show Cause Notice dated 18.9.97. c) The issue in this case is that the Appellants having cleared and sold Air Conditioners and Water Coolers to different customers from their branches, which were cleared on stock transfer basis, and sold from Depots at rates higher than that declared to the department. With a deliberate and willful intent to evade duty...

Capsulation Services Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT223Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant imported a consignment of Robenidine Hydrochloride and claimed assessment under CTH 2942 read with Notification No. 17/95 dt.16.3.95, which provides for exemption from duty on Robenidine. The authorities below denied the exemption on the ground that the product imported is different from the one mentioned in Notification No. 17/95.Before the lower appellate authority the appellant claimed that by Notification No. 161/95-CUS dt 29.11.95, the Central Government substituted the entry No. 29(Robenidine) with the entry Robenidine HCL.The product Robenidine has been always imported as Robenidine HCL. The Government also has realized the mistake in the entry in Notification No. 17/95 and therefore found it necessary to substitute it. They pleaded that therefore their product is covered under Notification No.17/95 and is eligible for exemption.2. The lower appellate authority held that a notification has to be read as a part of the statute and therefore there is no scopes for...

K.D. Bhatia Dyg. and Pkg. Mills P. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals emerge from the same order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by the MMF assessee, its director & certain shop keepers dealing in MMF. a) The demands are pursuant to a visit of the officers to the registered factory premises of the assessee on 29/08/1997. They noticed certain lots of Gray Fabrics missing and not accounted for. The Panchnama drawn on 29/08/1997 to 30/08/97 after a diligent search of the premises found 990 pcs admeasury 102303.50 L.Mtrs & alter finding the RG1 stock to be tallying, certain kachcha challans for Gray fabrics were recovered from the office of the Director & listed in Annexure C to the panchnama, the particulars number of job not found were listed in Annexure A & Kachcha delivery challan were listed Annexure B. A Show cause notice was finally issued on 23.07.2002 demanding duty & proposing penalty. b) The entire quantity of the clearances allegedly found unaccounted & removed etc in action dated 29/08/1997, could not have...

Arif Y. Divasli, Ohasban Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT438Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These stay applications arise in the appeals against the same impugned order. After hearing both sides, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants in E/Stay/1820/02 in appeal E/1989/02 are engaged in the lamination of HDPE fabrics with LDPE on behalf of various customers on job work basis and on job work plus cost of LDPE procured in certain other cases. They have been visited with a duty demand along with penalty consequent to a show cause notice dated 5.1.2001. The other applicants have been imposed penalties. The adjudicator, as it appears, from paragraphs 46 and 46(ii) read by both sides before us, concluded that the activity conducted by the said job worker would amount to 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner and the learned DR, in support, rely upon the decision of the apex court in the case of Laminated Packagings (P) Ltd. v. CCE (1991 [49] ELT 326 [SC]). However, the learned consultant for the applicants points out to a f...

Cce Vs. Cellulose Products of India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(116)LC387Tri(Mum.)bai

1. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), has upheld the assesses/respondents claim for classification of Alginic Acid and Sodium Alginic under Tariff Item 68 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff, setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner who had classified these goods under Tariff Item No. 15A(1), having been specifically mentioned there under.2. We heard the Ld. SDR and perused the records as none represented the respondents in spite of notice. Tariff Item No. 15A covers "artificial or synthetic resins and plastic materials, and other materials and articles specified below namely: I Condensation, Polycondensation and Polyaddition products, other high polymers, artificial resins and artificial plastic materials, including alginic acid, its salts and esters;--" (Sodium Alginate Salt of Alginic Acid).3. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the definition of Synthetic Resins in Hawley Condensed Chemical Dicti...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. A.G.S. Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(181)ELT126Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Revenue challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) extending the benefit of notification 38/97 to the respondents herein, as according to the department, the condition under the notification of opting for the availment of the notification during the period in dispute, viz. 1-4-1998 to 19-8-1998, was not fulfilled.3. We find that the benefit under the notification was claimed by the respondents under a letter of option on 8-7-1997. Such option was not withdrawn at any point of time. For the period in question, the assessees filed a classification declaration under which they had categorically mentioned that they were entitled to the benefit of notification 38/97. The only thing missing is a separate declaration covering the period in dispute under the notification itself.Accumulative reading of the earlier declaration, its continuance by not withdrawing therefrom, and the classification declaration covering the period in dispute, would make it clear that the appellants w...

Usha (India) Ltd. Vs. Sidbi and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: II(2005)BC5

1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by appellant/ original defendant No. 5 Usha (India) Ltd., being aggrieved by order dated 3.9.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune on Exhibit No. 49 in Original Application No. 117/2002. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected application made by appellant/original defendant No. 5 praying for stay of the proceedings which are initiated by respondent No. 1-Small Industries Development Bank of India (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred to as 'SIDBI') on the ground that the appellant company is before BIFR and hence, they are logically entitled to protection under Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred to is 'SICA').2. I have heard Mr. Raut for the appellants and Mr. Sanjay Krishna for the respondent No. 1 Bank. I have gone through the proceedings so also relevant provisions of the Sick In...

Devendra Pandurang Pandore Vs. the Chief Executive Officer, Chiplun Mu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR37; [2005(104)FLR536]; 2005(1)MhLj104

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner challenges the Award dated 28th February 1996 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kolhapur by which the Labour Court has held that the first Respondent Council has committed a breach of Section 25F and Section 25G of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) and that the termination of service effected from 1st January 1987 is illegal. However, the Labour Court has not granted the relief to the Petitioner of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. This relief has been denied by the Labour Court on the ground that the appointment of the Petitioner to the post of Sub-Overseer was against a reserved post. Relying on the judgment in Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1988 I CLR 408, the Labour Court rejected the Reference.2. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. The Petitioner was appointed for a period of 30 days as a Sub-overseer in the first Re...

Subhash Bhimashankar Kalase Vs. State Bank of India

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom165; 2004(4)ALLMR473; I(2005)BC519; 2004(6)BomCR20; 2005(2)MhLj878

V.C. Daga, J.1. This batch of appeals is directed against the order dated 30th April 2003 passed below Ex.12 in Spl.Civil Suit No. 274 of 2002, by the Join Civil Judge, SD, Solapur, whereby objections preferred by the appellant/3rd party; objecting to the attachment of their property under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code (the 'C.P.C.' for short) were rejected.FACTUAL MATRIX:2. The factual matrix lies in narrow compass. The State Bank of India, respondent No. 1, - original plaintiff ('the plaintiff' for short) made available various financial facilities to respondent No. 2-original defendant No. 1, ('the borrower' for short) Respondent No. 3-original defendant No. 2 ('the guarantor' for short) guaranteed repayment of the various financial facilities availed by the borrower.3. The amount of various loan facilities were made available by the plaintiff-Bank to the defendant No. 1 against security of his own immovable property bearing Sub-plot No. 82, F.P. No. 26, Survey No. 156...