Mumbai Court March 2006 Judgments

Unimark Remedies Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The Id. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the penalty of Rs. 40,000/- has wrongly been imposed on the appellants for the simple reason that the appellant has availed the balance 50% credit in the subsequent financial year and there were no requirement of capital goods being in the use during the relevant period. He submitted that the Cenvat credit was availed under Rule 4(2)(b) in 2002. Subsequently on 10-9-2004, the Rule 4(2) (b) as amended provided for only the possession of the capital goods and the requirement of use was dispensed with. Therefore, his contention is that the appellant has not contravened any provisions of the Rules and as such no pelalt is imposable on the appellants.3. The Id. JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that though an amendment subsequently provided for possession of the capital goods but at the time when they availed the credit the requirement for possession and use was there and the appellants has contravened the provisions of th...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Tas Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The short issue involved in this appeal is that the respondents have taken Modvat credit on duty paid by them in respect of goods sent for job work on the basis of old Cenvat Rules, which was not legal in instant case as there were no requirement of debit the duty from RG 23A for goods which were sent for job work during the relevant period. The respondents, however, by mistake paid the duty and took credit of the duty on the basis of Annexure-2 Challan on return of the finished goods in their factory.2. The learned SDR contents that the only documents on the basis of which credit can be taken are invoices issued by the manufacturer or first stage dealer or the Bill of Entry and that the Anexure-2 challan is not a valid document for taking the credit. The respondents could not have take the credit on their own. Reliance in this regard was placed on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Maruti Foam (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut , wherein the Tribunal has held that suo motu credit is n...

Kay Kay Embroideries Pvt. Ltd. Represented by Mr. Kishore R. Jagasia V ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)BomCR66; (2006)IIILLJ824Bom

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Principally two questions of law have arisen for the determination of this Court in these proceedings:-(i) Whether the expression 'unprotected worker' means (as the Petitioner submits), a worker not protected by labour legislation or whether the expression means a manual worker who is engaged or to be engaged in any scheduled employment as defined in Section 2(11) of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969; and -(ii) Whether a Mathadi worker who has been engaged directly by an employer would fall outside the purview of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969. 2. We shall in the course of the order briefly advert to the relevant provisions of law having a bearing on the subject matter of this case and of the precedents in the field. For the reasons which we would indicate, we are respectfully of the view that the interpretation placed i...

Sushant T. Karwarkar Vs. Mormugao Port Trust and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR493; 2006(2)BomCR915; [2006(110)FLR905]

Britto N.A., J.1. The petitioner, in this petition filed in a representative capacity on behalf of himself and other 59 persons, as per list annexed, is espousing their cause to be appointed as gang workers on compassionate grounds based on a Resolution No. 1395 dated 24-2-1998, of the Mormugao Dock Labour Board (MDLB, for short) relevant portion of which reads as follows:Further resolved to appoint the dependants of the registered workers who were compulsorily removed from the services of the Board, on attaining the age of 45/50 years (to keep the Board alive on account of surplus labour force in the year 1982) on the resultant vacancies of registered workers subject to fulfilment of required conditions of the Recruitment Rules. 2. The petitioner/s are the sons of their fathers who on or about 19-5-1982 were declared surplus and retired at premature age of 45/50 years as against the retirement age of 58 years, with all consequential retirement benefits.3. The case of the petitioner/s ...

Govind Anant Goltekar and ors. Vs. Dasharath Deoba Goltekar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom174; 2006(3)ALLMR487; 2006(2)BomCR910

Britto N.A., J.1. This is plaintiffs Second Appeal arising from Civil Suit No. 207/ 84. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the said Civil Suit.2. The plaintiff (since deceased) and now represented by his legal heirs had filed the said Civil Suit praying therein for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and also for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the haystack put by the defendant in the suit property 'BV3. The subject-matter of the suit were two properties namely, property 'A' known as 'Cumbiocho Kundgo' having land registration No. 37956 of Book No. 97 and survey No. 278/40. The defendant raised no dispute as regards this property and consequently the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit in respect of suit property 'A'.4. The property 'B' according to the plaintiff was known as 'Goulan' and had registration No. 17 of Book B45, page 76, and...

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

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR476; 2006(3)BomCR45

1. The Petitioner appeared for the Higher Secondary certificate examination conducted by the Respondent in March, 2005. Upon publication of his results, the Petitioner was certified as having received 61% marks in the subject of Information Technology. The petitioner applied for verification of his marks. According to the Respondents, by a communication dated 22.6.2005, the Petitioner was informed that upon reverification, the marks had not been found to be changed. This petition was therefore, instituted. The relief sought is the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the communication by the respondents on 22.6.2005. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to reassess the answer papers and to allot to the petitioner such marks as are found after the papers are reassessed. 2. When this petition came up for admission, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the judgment of a Division Bench in (Akshay ...

Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR345; 2006(3)MhLj713

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 waives service. The presence of respondent No. 2 is not necessary for the purpose of disposal of this petition, as he is a formal party.2. The basic challenge in the Petition is with regard to two orders passed by respondent No. 2-Estate Officer dated 26-8-2005 being Exhibit 'M' and another order dated 12-1-2006 being Exhibit 'Q' to the petition. The petitioner also seeks inspection and better particulars. The brief facts are that the petitioner is a lawful monthly tenant of Flat No. B/27 on the 5th floor of the building known as Mayfair Gardens, Little Gibbs Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai - 400 006, (hereinafter referred to as the 'said premises'). It appears that the petitioner was lawfully inducted in the said premises on 1st October, 1972 as a genuine lawful tenant. The petitioner has been regularly paying all the rent and pe...

Vishwanath S/O Parshuram Kuduchkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR531; 2006(3)MhLj817

S.P. Kukday, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of his dismissal from service dated 29th April, 1994, order dated 3rd September, 1994 passed by the Technical Director dismissing the first appeal; and intimation dated 3rd July, 1995 by the Technical Director (Dist.) that his Second Appeal is infructuous. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to the present petition, are that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer sometime in December, 1977. He was held eligible for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer and was granted pay scale applicable for the said post w.e.f. from 1-4-1988. The petitioner worked as Executive Engineer at Osmanabad Division No. 2 from July, 1989 to August, 1991. During the course of inspection by the Inspection Wing, Nanded in the month of January, 1991, it was noticed that certain payments were made to contractors Shri A. M. Garje, G. M. Garje and L. R. Ghule without any justification and bypas...

Delferooz Darius Dorabjee Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)BomCR609

Rebello F.I., J. 1. Rule. Heard forthwith. The petitioner herein had filed a petition for divorce against respondent No. 3 being Marriage Petition No. 6 of 2001 which is pending before the District Court, Pune under the provisions of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 hereinafter referred to as the Act. The respondent No. 2 is the Poona Parsi Panchayat, a registered charitable Trust in the city of Pune. By the present Petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the Government notification dated 10.2.2005. By that notification, the State Government under the purported exercise of its powers under Sections 24 and 25 of the Act, has appointed 11 persons as delegates for the period of 10 years from the date of publication of the notification, to aid in the adjudication of cases arising under the provisions of the Act, in the Parsi Matrimonial Court, at Pune. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the said n...

Krishnakant Sakharam Ghag Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)BomCR599; 2005(183)ELT419(Bom)

Devadhar J.P., J.1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration to the effect that the Notification No. 48/97-CE dated 2/9/97 amending Notification No. 68/63-CE dated 4/5/63 is ultra vires Section 12 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, that the order in original dated 24/12/1991 to the extent it demands interest on delayed payment of duty is illegal and contrary to law and a declaration that even if interest is recoverable pursuant to an order passed by the Delhi High Court, the revenue cannot seek to recover such interest by initiating recovery procedure prescribed under the Act. Accordingly, the petitioner seeks an order for lifting the attachment levied on the property belonging to the petitioner.2. The basic contention of the petitioner is that, Section 12 of the Excise Act does not empower the Central Government to import the recovery provisions contained in the Customs Act, 1962 and, therefore, Notification No. 48/97 issued by the Central Government empowering the excise au...