Mumbai Court November 2005 Judgments

Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Petroleum Employees Union and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR574

Lodha R.M., J.1. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited (for short the Corporation*) is in appeal aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated January 13,1997 whereby the Corporation has been directed to absorb the canteen workers at serial Nos. 1 to 48 and 50 to 52 in Exhibit 'A' annexed with the writ petition from the date of filing of the petition.2. The Petroleum Employees Union and General Employees Association - respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (for short the Union) filed the writ petition before this Court inter alia, praying for absorption and regularisation of the employees as shown in Exhibit 'A' to the petition employed in the canteens in the establishment of the Corporation. The case set up by the Union in the writ petition was that the Corporation has the canteens situated at LPG Plant, Uran, Exploration Business Offices, Priyadarshani and Andheri and Transportation and Shipping Office, Ballard Pier for the benefit of its workers. The LPG Plant, Uran is the factory under...

S.B. and T. International Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2007)BC523; 2006CriLJ1541

ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. Rule. By consent, returnable forthwith. Shri. Shinde, A.P.P. for respondent No. 1 and Shri. Kantawala for respondent No. 2 waive service. As a short question is involved, by consent the petition is taken for final hearing.3. This petition questions the correctness of the decision of the 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar dated 1st August, 2005 in Crim. Rev. application No. 41 of 2005. By the said order the Sessions Judge has allowed the revision application thereby setting aside the order passed by J.M.F.C. Vasai dated 7th August, 2002 issuing process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against respondent No. 2 in CC. No. 3582 of 2002. The basis on which the Sessions Judge has allowed the revision application in favour of respondent No. 2 is that respondent No. 2 had produced form No. 32 to substantiate the plea that at the relevant time respondent No. 2 was not the director of the accused company. No...

Madhukar G. Nigade Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ1305

V.M. Kanade, J.1. The appellant is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 902 of 1994 dated 10-7-1998 whereby the appellant-accused was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. Brief facts are as under :3. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Sunanda Nigade was residing with her husband atWorli Police Quarters in Building No. 50, Room No. 2, Ground Floor. Along with them, her mother-in-law Kamal Ganpat Nigade {since deceased), her sons and one daughter and one brother-in-law Shankar were also staying in the same quarters. One other younger brother of her husband Madhukar - the accused, appellant herein was residing elsewhere. However, he used to visit their house to meet mother-in-law of the comp...

Bhaurao Namdeorao Subhedar Since Deceased by Lrs. Shobha Wd/O Bhaurao ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR105; 2006(6)BomCR461; 2006(3)MhLj103

P.S. Brahme, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. This appeal is filed by the appellants (legal heirs of original defendant-tenant) challenging the judgment and order passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 121/1989 dated 6-1-1993 where under the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Umrer in Regular Civil Suit No. 209/1982 decreeing the plaintiffs suit for possession has been confirmed.3. This Court admitted this Second Appeal on 16-3-1993. However, no substantial question of law has been framed. Now considering the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and also averments made in the appeal memo, I have framed following substantial questions of law:1) Whether the permission under the Rent Control Order is prerequisite before filing the suit for possession?2) Whether the appellate Court was right in dismissing the appeal on merits whe...

Century Laminating Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The dispute relates to two imports. The first one was imported under Into Bond Bill of Entry for warehousing on 1-1-2002 and subsequently cleared under Ex-bond Bill of Entry dated 11-2-2002.The second import was made under Into Bond Bill of Entry dated 25-2-2002 and the same was cleared under Ex-bond Bill of Entry dated 2-5-2002. Both the imports were from Singapore. Imports of the impugned goods (Phenol) from Singapore became chargeable to Safeguard duty with effect from 12-4-2002.2. It has been argued by the learned Advocate for the appellants that in the following cases relating to levy of Antidumping duty it has been held that such duty is not payable if levied subsequent to the date of import:CC, Chennai v. Suja Rubber Industries (iii) Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. v. CCEx, Mumbai M.K.P. Fashions v. CC (Port), Kolkata 3. He states that provisions for Safeguard duty are similar to provisions of Antidumping duty under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and hence no S...

Protec Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The appellants have received the impugned amounts from M/s. Cipla for acting as canvassing representative during the period from 1997 to 2003. It is the case of the appellants that they have merely obtained and supplied free samples from M/s. Cipla to various Doctors for advertising medicaments manufactured by M/s. Cipla.It is contended by them that there is no sale of goods and therefore, no clearing or forwarding involved.2. It is the contention of the Department that the impugned amounts received by the appellants are chargeable to service tax under the head clearing and forwarding services. The learned D.R. relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prabhat Zarda Factory (India) Ltd. v. C.C.Ex., Patna to the effect that any services rendered indirectly also come within the scope of services for levy of service tax.3. After hearing both sides and perusal of the case records, we are of the prima facie view that there is neither any sale nor any cleari...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Polfrost Aircon Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing the Ld. SDR in this appeal filed by Revenue. The respondents being not present, we proceed to decide the appeal.2. The issue is classification of 'Condensing Unit' claimed by the assessee to be under 8418.10. Revenue wants the classification under 8415.00 & they rely on HSN notes at page 1169 for heading 8418 which specifies that the equipment of that heading are the main machine/assemblies for the production in a continuous cycle of operations of low temperatures in this case the entity under dispute can maintain temperature in the +or-4C or 2C to 4C.3. We find that there is no material available, shown or relied upon to indicate that the entity is equipped with a blower. The notes under heading 8415 at page 1165 reads as follows:- (ii) Designed to change, both the temperature (a heating or cooling element or both) & the humidity (a humidifying or drying element or both) of air & (iii) For which the elements mentioned at (1) & (2) are presented togeth...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Thakkar Shipping Agency

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC46

1. This appeal has been filed by the applicant Commissioner in pursuance of order of review passed by a Committee of Chief Commissioners. In the application for condonation of delay filed by the applicant Commissioner, a prayer has been made for condoning delay of 10 days. In the case of CCEx, Mumbai v. Azo Dye Chem , larger Bench of the tribunal has held that the tribunal has no power to condone the delay caused in filing such appeals by the department beyond the prescribed period of three months. Even though the said decision was in a Central Excise case, the ratio of this decision is equally applicable to customs cases since the legal provisions under both the enactments are similar.2. Accordingly, following the ratio of Azo Dye Chem (supra), we have no option but to reject the application for condonation of delay. We order accordingly and consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Harikrishna Cement and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1.1 Consequent to certain enquiries made, a show cause notice was issued to the respondents, an assessee under the Central Excise Act 1944, engaged in the manufacture of Cement, employee Accountant & its Managing Director on 25/7/98 why duty should not be determined on the goods clandestinely removed and recovered along with interest. The seized goods valued at Rs. 90,000/- found unaccounted were to be confiscated under Rule 173Q & penalties imposed under Rule 173Q and Section 11AC of the Act on the assessee & penalty under Rule 209A on the Accountant & the Managing Director.1.2 The Addl. Commissioner confirmed the proposals as made imposed penalties & offered redemption fines. The Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon the decision in case of CCE v. Moon Beverages Ltd 1999 (33) RLT 153 remitted the matter back for denovo proceedings with the direction that no mandatory Page 0216 penalty under Section 11AC & interest under Section 11AB should be ordered for the pe...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Gemag Rotoplast and Containers P.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When the matter was called none appears for the respondent, in this appeal filed by Revenue.2. The respondent is an assessee availing benefit of Notification No.1/93. During the period 1993-94, January, 1995 to March, 1995, 1995-96, 1996-97 up to July, 1996 plastic tank of expected 300 litres. However, they were found manufacturing Pulverized Powder through the process of pulverization which was actually used in the factory for manufacture of storage tanks. As such this power was excisable and was cleared without classifying and declaring the activities and the value of such pulverized powder used in the manufacture of 300 liter tanks for working out value of clearance in terms of notification 1/93.Commissioner (Appeals) observed that assessee's action of treating value of pulverized powder to be outside scope of computation was a bona fide mistake of belief and therefore, he dropped the proceeding after arriving at a conclusion that department was in knowledge of the production of...