Mumbai Court February 2006 Judgments

Vasu Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides in these applications filed for recall of Order No. A/1718/1719/WZB/2005/CI, dated 8-11-2005 allowing Appeal No.E/922/2001 and dismissing Appeal No. E/3746/98. This order is passed.2. The appellants rely on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. and submit that this order passed in their absence on 8-11-2005 is required to be recalled on following grounds. (ii) In the open court when the matters was listed it was announced by the bench on 17-6-2005 that the matter stand adjourned to 28-10-2005 awaiting the decision in W.P. filed High Court.In this view of the matter they submit that the order which was passed has been passed by overlooking the declaration made in the court on 17-6-2005 by the bench and on 28-10-2005 when they attended, matters were not called. The Ld. DR submits that the appellants were on notice for 28-10-2005 thereafter they attended on 28-10-2005 and were required to attend on the dates as per the rolling list...

Supreme Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides in this application for waiver and stay of duties determined on the applicants who are an assessee engaged in the manufacture of apparatus used in tandem within a X Ray System for medical diagnosis. Both sides agree that the subject goods are specifically designed for use in 'X Ray system' for medical purposes.Prima facie, therefore we find that the subject goods would be eligible for the exemption notification as parts and accessories of under Heading 90.22 of the Central Excise Tariff. The plea of the Id. DR that what is being presented for clearance is an apparatus as mentioned at para E under HSN notes heading iii of the 90.22 will not be a part but an apparatus. This plea issue will be heard and gone into length in detail at the regular hearing.2. At this prima facie stage of considering requirement under the provisions of Section 35F, we find a prima facie case has been made out by the appellant to eligibility to Notification No. 26/02-C.E., dated 27.4.02. In...

Sungrace Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, by which he has confirmed duty demand of Rs. 26,17,065/- on clearances of excisable goods falling under Chapter 29 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985, in excess of the exemption limit of Rs. 30 lakhs prescribed in the relevant SSI notification, in the Financial Year 1996-97 and 1997-98 and imposing a penalty of amount equal to duty upon the manufacturer and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs upon the Director.2. We have heard both sides. We find that the grievances of the appellant is one of contravention of the principles of natural justice as documents relied upon by the department were not made available for filing the counter reply and although preliminary reply was filed, it was incomplete as the appellants could not defend themselves, when the copies of documents relied upon in the show cause notice.3. We note that the documents relied upon in the show cause notice have been made available to the appe...

Hemant Plastics and Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. In the instant appeal, the appellants have deposited the entire duty amount of Rs. 4,62,827/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Seven only) much prior to issue of the Show-Cause-Notice. Far her, the appellants dispute imposition of penalty amount compositely under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.3. The Commissioner (A) has reduced the penalty, still aggrieved by the Impugned order, the appellants have preferred this appeal. The appellants placed the reliance - Both decisions evolve the principle that when entire duty amount has been paid much prior to the issue of the Show-Cause-Notice, no penalty can be imposed.4. The ld. DR vehemently contends that the above decision is not followed in the case of Saheli Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., by this Tribunal order recently.5. On perusal of the judgment in earlier cases of similar nature and still followed in the Larger Bench decision of Machino Monetel (I) Ltd. On the ground that M/s. Saheli Synthetics Pvt....

Sudhakar Raghunath Deshpande Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(3)SLJ384CAT

1. The OA is filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 5.5.2005 regarding the recovery of Debit amount of Rs. 54,888 from settlement dues of applicant by deducting the same from dearness relief on pension, the order dated 20.9.2004 addressed to Bank of Maharashtra to recover the-amount from dearness relief on pension and remit the same to Chief Cashier, Central Railway, Mumbai CST and order dated 15.10.2004 and also directing the respondents to respondents to restore the full pension as per original PPO with direction to bank authority to restore the pension as if recovery is not ordered and refund the amount already recovered.2. The applicant's case is that he is a pensioner from Central Railway, Mumbai Division. He retired on superannuation on 31.7.2001. He was working as a Station Master at the time of retirement. He was required to control Operational system. It is contended that the commercial staff such as cashier, Booking clerk, etc. were working under direct Commerc...

Shri Imran Son of Shri Mahmudmiya Ibrahim Shaikh Through His Father Vs ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR588; 2006(2)BomCR3; 2006(2)MhLj830

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Aggrieved by the denial to him of a certificate of 15 years' residence and a consequent denial of a medical seat in the quota set apart by the Union Government for the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, the Petitioner has moved these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The Petitioner was born on 12th September 1987 in the village of Kilvani which falls in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. The Petitioner's mother is a Hindu and his father is a Muslim. In the course of these proceedings, it emerged that the Petitioner's father had a previous marriage with one Zulekhabibi. The relations between the parties to that marriage were strained and Zulekhabibi had moved the Court of the JMFC at Pardi in Misc. Application No. 151 of 1986 with a claim for maintenance. That proceeding was compromised by an order dated 30th July 1986. The Petitioner's father is stated to have divorced Zulekhabibi. He married Urmilaben on 25th January 1983 a...

Tejas Dattaguru Pendurkar Vs. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR726; 2006(2)MhLj410

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. The learned Division Bench of this Court, consisting of F.I. Rebello and Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, JJ., in Writ Petition No. 6395 of 2005, by order dated October 7, 2005, made a reference of the following question to a larger Bench for adjudication since they were unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Division Bench at Aurangabad, consisting of R.M.S. Khandeparkar and S.P. Kukday, JJ., in Akshay Dilip Bhalerao v. The State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 4484 of 2005 decided on 21-7-2005 [since reported in : 2006(2)BomCR721 ]Whether after the validity of Regulation 104 has been upheld by the Apex Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth (supra), is it open for the Court to order revaluation on the ground that there are cases which amount to an exception to the rule, as held by the learned Division Bench at Aurangabad in Akshay (supra).?2. In Akshay Bhalerao's case, after consider...

Hsbc Bank Vs. Silverline Technologies Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom134; 2006(2)ALLMR409; 2006(5)BomCR753; 2006(3)MhLj107

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present notice of motion has been taken out for a decree on admission for the sum of US$ 17,919,603.68 with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the suit till payment and/or realisation. Some of the material facts of the present case briefly enumerated are as under:2. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for the recovery of aforesaid amount based on foreign judgment and decree dated 18-9-2002 passed by the United States District Court, Southern District of New York in Case No. 02 CV 4007 (LLS). The plaintiffs are a bank and are inter alia constituted and having their operations in New York, U.S.A. The defendant No. 1 is a company which is incorporated in India and carrying on business at Bombay. Defendant No. 2 is a Chairman of defendant No. 1. There is a company known as Silverline Technologies, Inc, a company incorporated and constituted under the laws of Delaware, U.S.A. The said company Silverline Technologies Inc. was indebted to the plaintiffs for a large a...

N.T. Deshmukh and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR512; 2006(5)BomCR367; 2006(3)MhLj220

J.N. Patel, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners till derecognition of the school at Belora run by respondent No. 4 society were in employment as its staff. The petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 were employed as teachers in the high school whereas petitioner Nos. 6 to 8 were employed as teachers in middle school and petitioner Nos. 10 to 13 are the non-teaching employees who have approached this Court for seeking appropriate writ, order or direction of this Court to the respondent Education department to consider their case for absorption in some other aided school with all the consequential reliefs.3. Initially the petitioners have pressed their prayer Clause (i) to the petition which was to strike down Rule 25(A) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (hereafter referred to as 'the MEPS Rules') being ultra vires but in the course of hearing of the petition, this has been given up in view of the decision of this Court rend...

Kamala Shivcharan Khairkar and ors. Vs. Chandrabhagabai Wd/O Durjan Ja ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR861

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. Heard Shri Bandre, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Sathe, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The challenge is to the order of Rent Controller dated 7.6.1993 granting permission to present respondents to terminate tenancy of petitioners under Clause 13(3)(vi) of C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as Rent Control Order). The said order of Rent Controller was challenged by the petitioners in appeal under Clause 21 of Rent Control Order and the Appellate Authority has on 22.2.2001 dismissed that appeal.3. The premises in question are about 90 sq. ft. and located at Abhyankar Nagar, Road in Dhantoli area. The premises appear to be a structure which is being used for running a Saloon shop by petitioner No. 2. Jaiwant. The premises were let out to father of petitioner No. 2 by name Shri Shivcharan by husband of Respondent No. 1 and father of Respondent No. 2. Durjan. The said Durjan. initiated procee...