Mumbai Court August 2006 Judgments

Jose Assuncao Afonso Vs. Deputy Collector and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR883; 2007(3)BomCR965

Kakade P.V., J.1. Heard the Advocates for both the parties in both the proceedings. While Civil Revision Application No. 288 of 2000 is filed against the impugned order dated 29.1.2000, passed by the District Judge, Margao in Execution Application No. 7 of 1987, Civil Revision Application No. 216/ 2001 is preferred by the applicants against the impugned order dated 31.3.2001 in Execution Application No. 14 of 1988.2. Both the applications arise out of the dispute regarding calculations and the amount of compensation to be disbursed to the present petitioners in the course of land acquisition matters. The references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act were disposed of by the courts below against which the appeals were preferred, wherein the order came to be modified and therefore, fresh calculations were required to be made. The Execution Court after making calculations of the amount payable to the claimants, came to the conclusion that the calculations made by the respondent S...

LupIn Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Exise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to confiscation of goods seized from the premises of M/s. Lupin Laboratories Ltd and cleared from one M/s. Treatwell Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. with an option to the appellant to pay a redemption fine of Rs 5.00 lakhs.2. After hearing both sides, duly represented by Ms Aparna, Id Advocate for the appellants and Shri S.N. Prasad, the Ld D.R. for the Respondent, we i find that the goods were cleared by M/s. Treatwell Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. under cover of original gate passes showing full duty payment and such gate passes were found in the hands of M/s.Lupin Laboratories Ltd. On comparison of such original gate passes, with the duplicate and triplicate copies available with the manufacturer, it was found that debit entries, shown in the original gate passes, were not actually made. The appellant's case is that they have received the goods under original gate passes, showing appropriate payment of duty on the goods and in fact such duty amount was...

K.K. Arora Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(212)ELT33Tri(Mum.)bai

2. In all these appeals, the appellants have raised a common question about imposition of penalty for not fulfilling the export obligation.3. M/s. Pharmed Chemicals Limited, having their factory at Sipcot Industrial Area, Hosur, Tamilnadu and their office at Pharmed Gardens, White-field Road, Bangalore have imported several consignments of chemicals have imported 1050 kgs of Pivaloyl Chloride vide Bill of Entry No. 006662-IMP-B, dated 18-9-1995 a Mumbai against Advance License No. 1533488, dated 2-8-1995. They have failed to fulfil export obligation in respect of Advance License and instead diverted the duty free imported material into local market and also to their own sister concerns M/s. Medicare Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Pharmed Limited. A case was made out by DRI, Zonal Office Bangalore against the importers. A show cause notice was issued under Section 124 and Section 24 of Customs Act, 1962 by the Joint Director of DRI on 30-9-1999 to all concerned including two Directors of M/s. Phar...

Gauri Plasticulture (P) Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC571

1. Referral Bench, after taking note of divergent views of the Tribunal's various decisions, on the issue as to whether duty debited in RG-23A Part-II, can be refunded in cash, when the refund becomes otherwise due, has referred the said question to the Larger bench.2. We have heard Shri A.V. Naik, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri Ajay Saxena, Ld. SDR appealing for the revenue.3. We have taken note of various decisions of Tribunal in the case of DCM Data Products v. CCE, New Delhi involved was as regards the allowing of proforma credit, which the revenue delayed and the subsequent transfer of the same to RG 23A Part-II. In the meanwhile duties were paid by them through PLA. On subsequent success of their appeal, the Tribunal in para 6 of their judgment observed as under: The appellants seek recasting/readjustment of RG-23 and PLA as the necessity for paying duty through PLA arose entirely due to the delay on the past of the department in allowing proforma credit in t...

Spentex Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,39,30,620/- on DTA clearance of cotton yarn and polyester cotton yam and penalty of equal amount together with a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adj.), Ahmedabad. The demand arises as a result of denial of benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 8/97, dated 1-3-97 as amended which exempts finished products, rejects and waste or scrap specified in the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and produced or manufactured, in a 100% EOU wholly from the raw materials produced or manufactured in India and allowed to be sold in India in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) & (f) of paragraph 9.9 or 9.20 of the Export and Import Policy, 1997-2002, from so much of the excise duty leviable thereon under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act as in excess of an amount equal to the aggregate of the excise duties leviable under Section 3 ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Decora Ceramics Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals are being disposed of after hearing the ld. D.R. for Revenue and the Respondent being absent.2. The issue involved is Modvat credit eligibility on Saggers and Setters used in the manufacture of tiles. These items are used for segregating the green tiles when they are to be baked in the furnace; after certain use, they loose their efficacy. The other item on which the Credit has been denied is fuel storage tanks purchased by the assessee from' the material obtained from ship breaking company at Alang and was falling under Chapter sub-heading 72.30 and that heading; since it does not apply to machinery or tanks and therefore fuel storage tanks received under said invoices were not to be treated as capital goods.3. The issue of eligibility on inputs which get used up after the repeated use like wire mesh has been settled by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd v. CCE , following the law laid down by this Larger Bench decision, we find ...

Krishna Vishnu Deshmukh and ors. Vs. Revenue Minister, State of Mahara ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)MhLj515

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 17th October, 2002 passed by the Hon'ble Revenue Minister of State of Maharashtra being respondent No. 1 herein.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The respondent No. 1 though duly served, remained absent. The brief facts are, that the petitioners are claiming that their ancestors were the owners of lands Survey Nos. 138 and 154 at village Nandgaon, Taluka Maval, District Pune. It appears that the lands were allotted to forefathers of the petitioners in the year 1885. Sometime in the year 1922, the names of the ancestors of the petitioners were deleted and the suit lands were shown as Government lands. However, it appears that no notice was given to the ancestors of the petitioners. Being the ancestral property, the petitioners continued to cultivate the said lands and even in the year 1956, the ancestors of the petitioners were shown...

Rama Anandrao Khobragade Vs. Maharashtra Water Supply and Sewerage Boa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR550; 2007(3)BomCR984

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner-employee has challenged the order dated 14.7.1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati directing the employer (present respondent Nos. 1 to 3) to give promotion to the present respondent Nos. 4 to 7 (complainant before Labour Court) as. Fitter with retrospective effect from 22.7.1993 with all incidental monetary benefits. This Court has, while admitting the matter, issued Rule on stay but it appears that no interim orders are passed thereafter. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he is not aware about the present position and status of the petitioner. Advocate Kakani, who appears for employer states that the petitioner is already reverted and is working on the lower post.2. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 here filed complaint ULP No. 509/1993 under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act and claiming the relief of direction to their e...

Kariya Builders Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2007(114)FLR181]; (2007)IIILLJ1052Bom

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Palshikar the learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation has referred to the provisions of Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and submitted that against the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court a remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under the said Section. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the remedy of appeal under Section 82 of the Act is available only on substantial questions of law and as the petitioner has not raised any substantial questions of law against the impugned order, the petition is required to be entertained.2. The very same issue has been considered by me in Writ Petition No. 1363 of 2005 and rejected and more particularly in the following words:When an appeal is presented before the, Court under Section 82 of the E.S.I. Act, the issue of substantial questions of law would be considered on the lines of the observation made in Santosh H...

Shri Shahu Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Sakhar Kamgar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)BomCR180

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Both these petitions assail the reasonableness, justifiability and fairness of the award passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court at Kolhapur in Reference (IC) No. 17 of 1985 on 12/12/1988 and hence they are being decided by a common judgment. 2. The Respondent-Union in the first petition i.e. Sakhar Kamgar Sabha had submitted a notice of change on 19/6/1984 and claimed for implementation of the recommendations of the Central Wage Board for Sugar Industry as well as the independent Committee constituted by the State Government viz. Shri Shankarrao Patil Committee. There is no dispute that the Karkhana had implemented the recommendations of the Second Wage Board from 1/11/1982 and the recommendations of the Patil Committee from 1/5/1983. It is also admitted that the Karkhana had started sugar production from 17th November 1980. The Management, therefore, did not respond to the demands submitted by the Union and consequently the following demands came to...