Mumbai Court February 2006 Judgments

Ashok Kumar Narang Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(3)SLJ36CAT

1. This O.A. has been filed by the applicant seeking a declaration that this promotion to the post of Chief Enforcement Officer has become final and it cannot be reviewed any more.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows. The applicant was initially appointed as Assistant in the Directorate of Enforcement in December, 1975 and the applicant was promoted to the post of Enforcement Officer in December, 1982. Thereafter, vide order dt.11.11.1998, he was promoted to the present post of Chief Enforcement Officer. The applicant has stated that as Enforcement Officer when he was interrogating a foreign exchange racketeer on 28/29th February, 1992 the said person made a bid to escape by jumping from the window of the 6th floor of Delhi Zonal Office of respondent No. 2 which resulted in his death. It has been further mentioned by the applicant that the deceased at that point of time was a proclaimed offender for evading the execution of the COFEPOSA detention orders in respect of the...

Agricultural Produce Market Samiti Vs. the State of Maharashtra and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR370; 2006(2)BomCR1; 2006(2)MhLj544

V.G. Palshikar, Ag. C.J.1. By this Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the action of Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 which are village panchayats to collect cess or market fee from persons marketing within the area of the village presumably on the ground that though the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Islampur is the Committee which can regulate the marketing, no occupation of any kind is taken by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Islampur in those villages and therefore, by recourse to section 126 of Village Panchayats Act it is entitled to levy such cess.2. These villages were covered by a notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of its powers under section 4 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The factum of such notification having been issued is not denied. The only reason given for such levy and collection of fees from the markets situated within the jurisdiction of the ...

Eknath Bhiku Yadav and anr. Vs. Shri Ganpatrao Shankarrao Dhawan and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR738; 2006(3)MhLj288

D.G. Karnik, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the certificate of exemption granted under Section 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short 'the B.T. & A.L. Act') 2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 are the trustees of Shri Maruti Deo Trust Pimpli Limtek (for short 'the trust') which is registered as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short 'the BPT Act'). The trust is the owner of the lands bearing Gat No. 264 and 265 of Village Pimpli, Taluka Baramati, District Pune (for short 'the said lands'). The petitioners are the tenants of the trust since long and it is not disputed that they were in possession of the said lands on 1st April 1957 i.e. the 'tillers day' prescribed under BT & AL Act. The respondent Nos. 4 to 7 made an application to the Collector, the respondent No. 10 herein for issuance of a certificate of eligibility for exemption under Section 88-B of the BT & AL Act on 9th July 1986. A notice of enquiry was issued ...

Adinath S/O Bajirao Pathade and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR559; 2006(3)MhLj73

S.P. Kukday, J.1. In the present petition, the petitioners are seeking direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for placing them in the time scale of Rs. 1375-3050.2. The petitioners are the employees of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (for short 'the Board')- The Board had different cadres including non technical cadres of Typist, Lower Division Clerk (LDC), Head Clerk and Upper Division Clerk (UDC). Service conditions of employees of the Board are governed by Rules and Regulations of the Board, including General Orders (Personnel) (hereinafter referred to as 'the G.O.'), MSEB Employees' Service Regulations, Classifications and Recruitment Regulations, 1961.3. G.O. No. 74 of GO (Personnel) provides incentives in the form of higher pay scale for those who either do not get promotion after prolonged period of service in view of the unavailability of the promotional post and also to those who do not have promotional avenues. In the beginning, this benefit was available after 10 years...

Tukaram Angadrao Akele Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR711; 2006(6)BomCR330; 2006(3)MhLj527

S.P. Kukday, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties.2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service for the respective respondents.3. The petitioner claims status of 'Mahadeo Koli', Scheduled Tribe. He applied for the post of Junior Operator in Maharashtra State Electricity Board (M.S.E.B.) and was selected from the category reserved for Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Operator by an order dated 24-4-1997 against the reserved post. The respondent No. 4 submitted caste certificate produced by the petitioner for verification to the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claim, Aurangabad. During the course of verification of the caste claim, procedure was followed, home enquiry was conducted by vigilance Cell and the report was submitted. After considering the documents produced by the candidate and the report of the Vigilance Cell, the Commit...

Siddheshwar Devasthan Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008[10]STR236

ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondents.2. Rule, Rule (sic) made returnable forthwith.3. Learned counsel for respondents waives service.4. By consent of the parties taken up for final hearing.5. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of the appellate authority dated 8-11-2005. The said appellate authority has held that the petitioner should furnish the full details to the adjudicating authority so as to enable the adjudicating the authority to quantify the service tax liability. The appellant authority has rightly observed that the petitioner ought to have provided all the details of tax liability from 1st July, 1997 so as to enable the adjudicating authority to quantify the service tax liability.6. In view thereof, Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned Counsel states that the petitioner will furnish all the requisite particulars of details with regard to service tax liability from 1st July, 1997 to the adjudicating authority to enable the said adjudicatin...

Kaatyaani Exports Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)9STR328

1. After hearing both the parties for some time it transpires the main appeal could decided at this stage. The appeal is taken for disposal after waiver of pre-deposit. Vide their letter dated 27-9-04 the appellants requested for further 30 days for filing their submissions to notice dated 31-8-2000. No reply to this extension request was received. The personal hearing was kept on 19-7-2005 which was adjourned to 8-8-2005 on that date also applicant did not attend the hearing. Thereafter without giving mandatory third adjournment as per provision under Section 33A of Central Excise Act, the matter was decided by the Commissioner and the present order dated 16-8-2005 impugned was issued.2. Since the procedure of adjudication envisaged 3 adjournments and they have been denied, there is violation of procedure established by law. Appellants have produced purchase order indicating the intent purchasers were supposed to use the goods supplied by applicant to manufacturer handicraft. This co...

T.S. Ramaswamy Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC71

1.The appellants were required to deposit 50 % of the duty demands and penalty as ordered by Commissioner (Appeals), to meet the requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicants did not deposit the same and filed a modification application. The Commissioner dismissed the same and for compliance of pre-deposit dismissed the appeals without granting a hearing, hence this application.2. Considering the provision of registration prescribed under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which prescribes a single registration for trader as well as manufacturer and considering that there is no allegation and finding of having taken Modvat credit in RG 23A. In excess of any other violation of Mod-vat rules, we find that non-entry of such credit in the dealers account book would be prima facie only a technical violation, if the appellants are held only to be a dealer. There is no restriction by Rule 51A to deal in goods which the as-sessee does not manufacture. In t...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is a Revenue appeal against the order of the lower appellate authority who has held that the bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable to cases of provisional assessment under the Customs Act, 1962.2. Heard both sides. Shri Vimlesh Kumar, learned S.D.R. appearing for the department refers to the three judges Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v.Commissioner of C. Ex. & CMS. to argue that even in the absence of a specific provision in the law, a person cannot claim or retain undue benefit. Paragraph 48 of the said decision reads as under: 48. From the above discussion, it is clear that the doctrine of 'unjust enrichment' is based on equity and has been accepted and applied in several cases. In our opinion, therefore, irrespective of applicability of Section 11B of the Act, the doctrine can be invoked to deny the benefit to which a person is not otherwise entitled. Section 11B of the Act or similar provision merely gi...

Act Shipping Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)8STT344

1. After hearing both sides in this application for waiver & stay of service tax of Rs. 97,000/- credit which was sought to be recovered along with penalty Rs. 10,000/- and on finding that prima facie we cannot persuade ourselves to the plea of appellant that for the same service one cannot be taxed twice, Counter application to be placed in terms of pre-deposit of Rs. 20,000/-. In this view we order pre-deposit of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to be made & compliance thereof reported on 3-3-2006 & on such compliance being reported further pre-deposit would reveal and recovery stayed....