Mumbai Court October 2005 Judgments

Jyoti W/O Anil Ganeshpure Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR196; 2006(3)BomCR852; 2006(2)MhLj173

ORDERB.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, petitioner who happens to be President of the Zilla Parishad, Washim has challenged the show cause notice dated 30-3-2005 served upon her by Commissioner, Amravati Region, Amravati, respondent No. 3 herein, under Section 16(l)(i) of Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as '1961 Act'). On the 19-4-2005 after hearing Advocate Khapre for petitioner I have issued notice before admission and directed the petitioner to file her reply to the said show cause notice before respondent No. 3. After hearing learned AGP on 3-5-2005 said respondent No. 3 was permitted to proceed further with inquiry but was restrained from passing final orders to the prejudice of petitioner. Writ petition stands at same stage for last about four months. Advocate Priyadarshan Madkholkar has moved one application vide Civil Application No. 3463/2005 on behalf of a Sarpa...

Dockendale Shipping and anr. Vs. Jevanbhai Ramji Tandel

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007ACJ271; 2006(3)ALLMR141; 2006(2)MhLj178

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The First Appeal is directed against the judgment of the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation. The commissioner has granted the application filed by the workman. The appellants were directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 15 lacs towards compensation payable to the applicant. The applicant, i.e, the respondent herein was employed as a seaman with the appellant No. 1 company. The applicant had been in service from 18-5-1990. It appears that on 25-12-1990, he suffered a cerebral stroke and hemiplegia while at sea. He was, therefore, taken ashore and was treated in a hospital. Thereafter in January 1991, he was repatriated to India and was admitted to hospital for further treatment. It appears that or 11-2-1991, the respondent's son had him discharged from the hospital, against medical advice and returned with the respondent to their native place. The respondent-applicant claimed an amount of Rs. 15 lacs as compensation from the appellant contending that he has suffer...

Superintending Engineer and anr. Vs. Dattatraya Mahadeo Badarkhe and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR193; 2006(2)MhLj349

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Nos, 1 and 2 who are officers of the erstwhile Maharashtra State Electricity Board, are challenging the order dated 22-12-1993, passed by the Industrial Court, in Revision ULP No. 2/1987, challenging the order dt. 30-10-1986 passed by the Labour Court in ULPA Complaint Case No. 31/1985. This order dated 30-10-1986 of Labour Court is in favour of the petitioners.2. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed ULPA Complaint No. 31/1985 before Labour Court, challenging their termination from service orally on date 5-3-1985. Their contention was that they were appointed as Apprentice by order dt. 15-5-1980 and they were provided work on Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) on temporary establishment as skilled worker by order dated 8-4-1982. They relied upon the agreement between the Union of Employees and Management, which provided that NMR workers who have worked for 5 years should be regular...

Morvi Vegetable Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The condonation of delay applications are allowed, inasmuch as the original appeal was filed in time and it is only the supplementary appeals, which were filed subsequently on an objection raised by the Registry. As such, after allowing the COD applications, we take up all the appeals together for disposal.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of vegetable products falling under Chapter 15 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. As per the provisions of Notification No. 115/86-CE, dated 1-3-86, vegetable products falling uner chapter 15 were granted exemption subject to increased use of specified minor oils, subject to fulfilment of conditions stated therein. However, the appellants did not avail the exemption under the said Notification during the period March 86 to May 86 and cleared the vegetable products on payment of duty. Thereafter, they filed a refund claim, which was sanctioned by the original adjudicating authority.3. Subsequently, show cause notice was issued ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Advance Cooling Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Classification of a product called 'sconce micro refrigerator' manufactured by the respondents herein arises for determination in this appeal. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim of the assessees for classification under Chapter Heading 84.18 claiming 20% ad valorem rate of duty and classified the item under Heading 8415.00 attracting duty @ 40% ad valorem. He held that the function of the item was basically to protect computer by providing air-conditioned environment, as seen from the catalogue of the manufacturer and, therefore, held that the machine, although it incorporated refrigerating devices of various capacities, was akin to an air-conditioning machine regulating temperature and humidity at 27C and 55C respectively. The lower appellate authority set aside the adjudication order after noticing that it was a compressor type refrigerator having essential elements such as compressor, condensers and evaporator. Hence this appeal by the Revenue.2. We have heard the lea...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Milton Polyplast

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue is in appeal against the decision of Commissioner (Appeal) having accepted the Respondent as-sessees claim on valuation of the excisable goods viz "Water Jug packed along with a water bottle given free" under a 'special set scheme' whereby on purchase of this combo pack there would be no separate charge for the water bottle. The said bottle was claimed to be given 'free'. Duty was to be paid on the declared value of jug. The CCE(A) set aside the lower authorities order of demand of duty and penally as arrived, on such Kool Lancer (water bottles) of 700 ml & 1000 ml capacity cleared along with Kool 'Twister' water jug (10 ltrs & 12 ltrs capacity) respectively without including the assessable value of the bottles.2.(a) The clearance of Kool Lancer (water bottles) along with jug, would be eligible to be covered, as quantity discount or not, under the provisions of Section 4(4)(d)(11) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is the question involved in this appeal.(b) The relian...

Ramachandra Art Silk Yarn Trading Vs. Cc (imports)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC119

1. Vide their impugned orders, the authorities below have raised the value of the imported viscose rayon filament yarn 120 Denier from US $ 2550 PMT to US $ 3380 PMT (CIF), in terms of the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Customs Act 1962 read with Rule 8 of the Customs of Valuation (Determination of Price of imported goods) Rules 1988.2. As per facts on records, the appellants bought consignment of viscose rayon filament yarn 120 Denier from Brazil by M/s. Vyapar Industries Ltd., on high sea sales basis. The goods were of Brazilian origin. Bill of entry was filed declaring the price as US $ 2500 PMT.The said price was based upon the invoice raised against the appellants. Proceedings were initiated against the appellants for increase in the value of the goods on the ground that other imports of the same goods were noticed to be at US $ 3380 PMT. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, vide his impugned order admitted that the appellant's goods were of Brazilian original, whereas the ...

ispat Metallics Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(194)ELT417Tri(Mum.)bai

1. By this common order, three appeals are disposed off. Appeal no.E/1093/05-Mum has been filed by Ispat Industries Limited (IIL) against order of the Commissioner confirming demand for duty of Rs.10,94,59,315/- under Section 11A(1), imposing a penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC and a further penalty of Rs.2,00,00,000/- under rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 read with rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944, besides ordering recovery of interest under Section 11AB. Appeal no. E/1642/05/Mum has been filed by Ispat Metallics India Limited (IMIL) against confirmation of demand of Rs.2,72,36,100/-, imposition of penalty of equivalent amount, besides recovery of interest under section 11AB. Appeal no. E/1509/05/Mum has been filed by IIL against imposition of penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- under rule 25 read with rule 173Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, this penalty has been imposed by the Commissioner in the order demanding duty from IMIL. Since the issue in dispute i...

Shri Jawahar H. Sabhandasani Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR54; 2006(2)BomCR659; (2005)107BOMLR1136

V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition the petitioner who is a consumer of the telephone department using its telephone has made the following prayers:'a) To call for the record of tele. Nos. 549577, 544729, 555801, 555802, 555803 and 555804 for verification that no outstanding bills are pending against these telephones and also call for the record of tel. No. 543846 for the verification of the jumping of the meter reading from one bill to another bill.b) To issue writ of mandamus or order or direction, directing the respondents to reconnect the tele. Nos. 549577, 544729, 555801, 555802, 555803 and 555804 at Ulhasnagar Telephone Exchange.c) To order investigation to be conducted by Central Bureau of Investigation in the jumping of meter reading during the period 16.9.98 to 15.11.98 and 16.11.98 to 15.1.99.d) Pending, hearing and final disposal of this petition the respondents may be directed to reconnect the tel. Nos. 549577, 544729, 555801, 555802, 555803 and 555804.e) Pending, hearing...

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ahmed Miya Mohammed S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2006(108)FLR1075]; 2006(1)MhLj742

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioner challenges the concurrent findings of fact of the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court in Revision. Both the Courts below have held that the respondent is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages for the intervening period. Both the Courts below have found that the misconduct alleged against the respondent was not proved.2. The petitioner had issued a charge-sheet to the respondent on 24th September, 1992 alleging that he had committed misconduct under Clauses 12(b), 24(a), 24(b) and 25 of the Discipline and Appeal Procedure. An enquiry was held against the respondent wherein it was found that he had committed the acts of misconduct alleged against him. It was found that the respondent had purchased a vehicle, tempo trax, which he used for transporting passengers from one place to another. The allegation was held to be proved because the driver engaged to drive the tempo trax was prosecuted when he was found ferryin...