Mumbai Court October 2005 Judgments

Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Franco-Indian Workers Unio ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)IILLJ355Bom

S.K. Shah, J.1. Heard.2. Rule returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties.3. The Order impugned herein is passed by the Industrial Tribunal on May 6, 2005, whereby the Petitioners application, to the effect that the Industrial Tribunal shall pass Award on the basis of the Settlement already arrived at between the majority of the workers with the Petitioners Management, was rejected.4. The reasons assigned by the Industrial Tribunal for rejecting the application were mainly on two (i) Whether the settlement (as already arrived at between the majority of the workmen and the Management) was just and fair, is a matter to be scanned on the basis of evidence and (ii) that the antecedents as pointed out in the Order, were sufficient to hold that the principles of fairness and justness could be extended so as to accept the fairness and justness of the settlement; meaning thereby that the Industrial Tribunal held that the antecedents were of such a nature that those were ca...

Annasaheb Vartak College of Arts Vs. P.A. Mahajan and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2005(107)FLR1208]

S.A. Bobde, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Sabnis for the respondent No. 1 and and Ms. Mhaispurkar, learned AGP for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 appear and waives service of Rule. Heard by consent.The petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.12.2003 by which the Dy. Director of Education, Nasik has entertained an appeal and has set aside the order of imposing minor penalty on the respondent No. 1. The only point urged on behalf of the petitioner is that Dy. Director had no power to entertain the appeal beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Rule 29 of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981. The relevant part of the proviso to the Rule 29 reads as follows:Provided that, an employee of a private school aggrieved with decision of imposing a minor penalty as specified in clause (1) of Rule 31 may prefer an appeal to the Deputy Director of the region concerned within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order of punishment.2. Admittedly, there is no power to condone the delay. The appeal...

Shri K.K. JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. There is a delay of about 10 months in preferring the appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Khandla. THE applicant explained the the delay is due to the fat that his previous advocate had meet with serious accident on 17th march 2004, when he was traveling to Bhavnagar and had been hospitalized due to serious injury.The applicant also submits that his advocate had informed him that he had filed an appeal before the Tribunal against order dated 31.03.2004 of the Commissioner and it was only in March 2005. He appeared before the Tribunal to find out the status of the appeal stated to have been filed before the Tribunal and it was only thereafter he came to know that no appeal and stay application have been filed by his previous advocate, Shri Dilipkumar Joshi.2. On hearing both sides and noting the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Radha Krishna Rai v. Allahabad Bank and Ors. - (2000) 9 SCC 733 and Devendra Swamy v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hickson and Dadaji Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has set aside the order of the Joint Commissioner confirming demand of duty of Rs. 1,32,995.70 and imposing personal penalty of identical amount on the findings of clandestine removal, Revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard the Ld. JDR, Shri Nair appealing for the revenue. Nobody represented the respondent.2. Respondent are engaged in the manufacture of various products classified under Chapter 32 of Central Excise Traffic Act. They filed a monthly return for May 98 indicating some balance of finished goods and also some goods received by them for repairing and reconditioning under Rule 173H. Admittedly, the said return was the last return filed by them as they had stopped their manufacturing activities from March 98 onwards on account of heavy losses and workers strike. The appellant vide their letter dated 25-1-2001 also intimated the revenue that as they were unable to pay the wages to thei...

Gayatri Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Nobody has appeared for the appellant. Accordingly, we have heard did Ld. DR and have gone through the impugned order.2. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under chapter 28 and 29 of Central Excise Traffic Act and were availing the benefit of modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs. During the relevant period, they were clearing the bulk drugs in domestic market at the effective rate of duty of 10% advalorem in terms of provisions of notification No. 6/94-CE dated 1.3.94 and 8/95 and dt. 9.2.95. The said notification provided concessional rate of duty to the goods cleared as bulk drugs. However, in respect of exports, duty was paid at the rate of 20% advalorem without claiming the benefit of notification, classification list filed by the appellant for clearances in domestic market attracting 10% rate of duty and for exports attracting 20% advalorem duty were filed by them and approved by the revenue.3. During the period Dec.94 to March 95 appellant claimed re...

Pedder Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants herein removed Ceramic Tableware falling under Chapter sub-heading 6910.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act during the period 16-12-86 to 28-02-89 without showing the correct description of the goods in the classification lists filed with the proper officer and without determining the duty on the goods prior to their removal. Hence show cause notice proposing recovery of duty and proposing imposition of penalty was issued. The notice was adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner, who confirmed the demand and rejected the claim of the appellants that the goods would fall for classification under CETA sub-heading 6909.10. He has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- upon the appellants in terms of Rule 173Q of this Central Excise Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order; hence this appeal.2. None appears for the appellants in spite of notice and hence we heard Ld. SDR and perused the records. As rightly observed by the lower appellate authority, th...

Micropure Parenterals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT23Tri(Mum.)bai

1. There was a difference of opinion as regards the classification of medicaments in the form of tablets/injections having fixed dose i.e.combination of Vitamin B1, B6, B12. While the Western Zonal Bench, Mumbai in Emerck India Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai held the products are classifiable as medicaments under chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff, another coordinate Bench of CESTAT in the case of P&B Laboratories Ltd v. CCE, Mumbai-V arrived at a conclusion that fixed dose combination of Vitamin B1, B6, B12 in injection as well as in tablet form fall under heading 29.36. This bench has been constituted to hear the matter for resolving these divergences.2. After hearing both sides & considering the material on record, the opinions of Drugs Technical Advisory Board & other relevant material, it is found and held as-Micronova Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of CCE Bangalore Tribunal in its order dtd 31.5.96, while examining the classification of Vitamin B Complex Tablets NF...

Mr. Abdul Rehman M. Mulgand, Civil Contractor Vs. Shri Mohammad Hashan ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR111; IV(2006)BC265; 2006CriLJ1159

N.A. Britto, J.1. Admit. Heard forthwith. 2. Heard Shri Singbal, learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Asunde, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent no.1, who are both brothers and were complainant and accused respectively in a criminal case filed by the former against the latter under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act(the Act, for short). The present application filed by the complainant is treated as a revision application against the order dated 11.5.05 of the learned Sessions Judge, Margao. 3. The complainant having filed the said complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, by his order dated 25.10.04 was pleased to issue process against the accused under Section 138 of the Act but the accused having filed a revision application before the learned Sessions Judge, Margao, being criminal revision application 12/05, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to allow the said revision and set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate...

Royal Oil Field Private Limited, a Company Incorporated Under the Comp ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR675; 2006(1)BomCR107; 2006(194)ELT385(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Heard counsel on both sides. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. In the ordinary case, we would not have entertained the writ petition which challenges the show cause notice. However, the case of the petitioner is that the imports covered under the impugned show cause notice as well as the imports under an earlier show cause notice have been made pursuant to a registered contract and the earlier show cause notice issued by the Customs authorities for enhancing the invoice value has been quashed and set aside by the CESTAT and, therefore, the present show cause notice issued for enhancing the invoice value for the balance quantity of goods imported under the registered contract is also liable to be quashed and set aside. Since it is contended that the issue raised in the show cause notice is already adjudicated, we thought it fit to entertain the writ petition. 4. The case of the petitioner is ...

Shri Trivikram Amonkar S/O Venkatesh Amonkar Vs. Shri Deepak Alve S/O ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)108BOMLR219

R.M. Lodha, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Shri F.M. Reis, learned Advocate waives service for the respondent. 2. Rule is heard finally at this stage. 3. In Regular Civil Suit No. 331/83/D wherein the present respondent was the plaintiff and the petitioner was defendant, the decree came to be passed on 31.3.2004. Upset by the Judgment and Decree passed in the said suit by the Civil Judge J.D., Margao, Goa, the defendant (the petitioner) filed appeal on 13.7.2004. The appeal was barred by time and, accordingly, an application for condonation of delay was made by the petitioner. The application for condonation of delay was contested by the respondent. The appellate Court after hearing the parties through their counsel, dismissed the application for condonation of delay. He held that sufficient cause was not made out in the application. The Order dated 21.9.2004 whereby the petitioner's application for condonation of delay came to be dismissed has given rise to the present petition. 4. ...