Mumbai Court October 2005 Judgments

Maharastra Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. and ors. Vs. S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)3LLJ102Bom

B.R. Gavai, J.1. All these petitions challenge the validity of the notifications issued by the respondent-State dated June 30, 2004, thereby fixing the minimum rates of wages for the employees employed in employments covered under Entry No. 65 of Schedule I and the notifications dated July 20, 2004, thereby fixing the minimum rates of wages for shops and commercial establishments, hospitals, not falling under entry No. 6 in part I of Schedule, and Paper and Paper Board Industries.2. Since a common question as to whether the minimum wages as fixed by the State Government by the impugned notifications are sustainable in law, is involved in all these petitions, they were heard together and are decided by the common judgment.3. Since there was agreement between the learned Counsel for the parties that the arguments advanced in support of the challenge and in support of the defence of the notifications dated June 30, 2004 pertaining to residuary employments, would cover all the matters, we ...

Pooja Enterprises and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC31

2. The learned Counsel for the appellants brings to my notice that order of payment dated 16th October, 1998 passed by the tribunal, which is at pages 19 and 20 of the paper book. He submits that the tribunal has specifically directed that the appellants may be provided with copies of the relied upon documents or given the opportunity of making copies on their expenses. He submits that despite the direction of the tribunal, the appellants were not given the opportunity as admitted by the learned DR on page 52 of the Order. Page 36, internal page 11 of the order, the learned SDR pointed out that the notices have inspected the relevant records for Page 32 48 days through out the years 1988 to 1991 and also took out the copies thereof. Therefore, he contended that they were given the relevant records. However, the ld. Counsel points out that the order of the tribunal is dated 16th October, 1998.Therefore, non-compliance of the direction contained therein has resulted in the violation of ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Samarth Acid Products

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. Revenue is aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in having set aside the order of confirmation of duty demands made by the Dy. Commissioner, who determined the value of 'Pure Acids' cleared by the respondents by adding profit margin of 15% i.e. 115% of cost of production as per the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rules 8 & 11 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 as they were on goods manufactured on job work basis.2. There is no dispute that the valuation in this case has to be arrived at as per the settled law on valuation of goods manufactured on job work basis i.e. by applying the formula stipulated by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon para 27 of CBEC Circular F. No. 354/81/2000/TRU, dated 30-6-2000 [2000 (119) E.L.T. T22] wherein it was held that new Valuation Rules has essentially maintained the scheme & features ...

Valson Dyeing, Bleaching and Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of man-made cotton fabrics. He processes grey fabrics on job work basis. The processed fabrics are valued on the basis of the formula laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints v. UOI 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 (S.C.), that is, the cost of raw material plus job charge. During the process of manufacture, defective fabrics emerge which the appellants call cut-pieces of fabrics. The appellant determined the value of cut pcs.as 25% of the value of first quality fabrics. The dispute pertains to valuation of cut pcs. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the value of cut-pieces for the purpose of assessment should be the same as that of the value of the first quality fabrics. Hence this appeal.2. Heard both sides. Learned advocate for the appellant contends that in a situation where the goods were not sold but were returned to the merchant manufacturer, the value of the goods will have to be arrived at only on cost construct...

Mohd. Rizwan Mohd. Isaq @ Laddowala Vs. the State of Maharashtra (at t ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR1056

Ranjana Desai. J. 1. Rule in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2363 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No. 789 of 2005 is admitted. The respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing forthwith.2. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2363 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No. 789 of 2005 involve common questions of law and facts and, therefore, they can be disposed of by a common judgment. 3. The petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2363 of 2005 is original accused 5 and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 789 of 2005 is original accused 4 in POTA Special Case No. 1 of 2004 which is being tried by the Special Court constituted under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (for short, 'the POTA 2002'). For convenience, it would be better to refer to the petitioner in the writ petition and the appellant in the appeal as per their status in the special case. The accused are being tried along with other accused for offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 20 of the POTA 2002 and also under the ...

Pratibha D/O Sahebrao Patil Vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR141; 2006(3)BomCR927; 2006(1)MhLj697

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.2. Learned Advocates appearing for the respondents waive respective service.3. Heard finally.4. This petition can be decided by addressing a very limited question.5. The petitioner and respondent No. 2, both, were appointed in the employment on the same date. Admittedly, petitioner was holding the qualification of B.A., as well as B.Ed., on the date of joining, while the respondent No. 2 completed her B.Ed., course in September, 1987.6. The petitioner herein is senior amongst the two, based on the qualification on the date of entry in the employment. However, in the Seniority List prepared by the Management, the respondent No. 2 was shown senior. It is alleged that the petitioner did not raise any dispute as to the Seniority List. When the Management promoted the respondent No. 2, treating her as senior-most, the petitioner filed an appeal before the School Tribunal and challenged respondent No. 2's appointm...

Galaxy Plastics (Bombay) Pvt. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals, one by the Revenue and the other by M/s. Galaxy Plastics against the order of Commissioner of Central Excise's order are taken up for disposal, The Commissioner held that the respondents' goods are classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.19 as against the Department's claim for classification under Chapter Heading 3920.19. The goods involved are corrugated Rigid PVC sheets and plain sheets of the same material albeit of special characteristics such as size, strength and composition. M/s. Galaxy's contention before the Commissioner was that the goods were not of a kind used as roofing material or as ordinary sheets of plastics. It was their contention that the goods manufactured by them were 'Media Fills' which were used in water purification plant/Bio gas plants; that the goods were exclusively sold to one M/s.Reva Enviro Systems Pvt. Ltd. who assembles the sheets into Media Fills for further use as part of purification plant and are therefore classifiable under Ch...

Shangrila Latex Industries Pvt. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(194)ELT106Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants M/s Shangrila Latex Industries Pvt. Ltd., is a 100% EOU, are engaged in the manufacture of hand gloves and women condom of Latex rubber, falling under chapter 40 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Their factory was visited by the officers on 21/03/1992, and stock verifications were conducted. The records were found to be tallying with the physical stock of the goods. The officers also seized various private records maintained by the appellants, during the course of manufacture and it was believed that the production as shown in such private record was more than the recorded production in RG-1.2. As a result of post seizure investigation statement of Shri Sanjay C.Munshi, Managing Director, of the company was recorded. Shri Munshin in his statement dated 21/03/92, explained that the discrepancy between the private production records and statutory records was due to fact that the production of any day accounted by the production department as finished goods did not cons...

Ramesh Haridas Ashar Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All the three appeals, challenging imposition of personal penalties of Rs. 35 lakhs, Rs. 20 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs on Shri Ramesh Ashar, Shri Arun Ashar and Shri R.S. Jajoo, respectively, imposed by the Commissioner under the provisions of Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, are being disposed off by a common order. We have heard the Id.Counsels appearing for the appellant and Id. SDR for the Revenue and have gone through the impugned order. It may be mentioned here that vide the impugned order, Commissioner has confirmed duty of Rs. 1.25 crores (approximate) against one M/s. Neha synthetics (Proprietary firm with Shri Prem Ganesh Salihar as its Proprietor) along with imposition of personal penalty of identical amount on the said concern on the findings of clandestine processing and removal of processed fabrics.Penalties have also been imposed upon some other noticees. It may be clarified that the appeals of either M/s. Neha Synthetics or any other person except the present three app...

Energy Equipment Distributors Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The learned advocate for the appellants states that the appellants have only acted as a commission agent for M/s. Emco Ltd. procuring orders on commission of 5% of the selling price but they never handle the goods as the same are supplied by M/s. Emco Ltd. directly to the buyers. Hence, he pleads that no service tax is payable by the appellants for the period October 1998 to September 2000 as they do not fall in the category of clearing and forwarding agents. He points out that there are following contrary decisions of the Tribunal on the issue: (1) Prabhat Zarda Factory (India) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Patna Raja Rajeshwari International Polymers (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E. BangaloreCoal Handlers Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E, Kolkata-I (4) Raja Rajeshwari Intl. Polymers (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bangalore-III Kulcip Medicines (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-II 2006 (1) S.T.R. 36 (Tri.) : 2005 TIOL 790 CESTAT DEL.Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-I- 2006 (1) S.T.R. 94 (Tribunal) : 2005 TIOL 837 CESTA...