Mumbai Court August 2006 Judgments

Voltas Employees Union Vs. Voltas Limited and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR112; 2006(6)BomCR110; [2006(111)FLR1129]

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. A complaint of unfair labour practices was filed by the Petitioner Union under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The dispute in the present case related to a notice issued by First Respondent on 4th December 2001 as a result of which four workmen who had been engaged as drivers were informed that the pattern that was earlier followed by the management of giving weekly offs on Saturdays and Sundays was being altered. Thereafter, on 5th December 2001, the management set down a schedule for the month of December 2001 and informed the four drivers that for January 2002, a schedule would be announced in the last week of December 2001. The schedule which was notified for the month of December 2001 provided that two of the four drivers would have both Saturdays and Sundays as holidays. One of the other two drivers was however, required to work on Sundays and he was given week...

Tata Motors Limited a Company Registered Under the Indian Companies Ac ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR1; 2006(5)MhLj660; AIR2007BomNOC257(FB)(Bom)

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. A sentence in the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Bajaj Tempo Limited v. The Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation 1998 Bom C.R. 745 has given rise to an ambiguity, resulting in this reference to the Full Bench. The dispute focuses upon the interpretation of an entry in the Table of Rates for Octroi, that governed the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation during the period 1991 to 2001. 2. The Petitioner set up an automotive factory at Pimpri-Chinchwad in 1968. At that point in time, the area was comprised in a village designated under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. Some time in the year 1970, a Municipal Council was constituted for the area under The Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965. Under Rule 3 of The Maharashtra Municipalities Octroi Rules, 1968 the Municipal Council is entitled to levy octroi on goods classified in the first schedule at rates not below the minimum and not above the maximum prescribed. A Table of Rates for Octroi...

J. Harkishandas and Co. Vs. Lloyd Triestino and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR93; 2007(2)BomCR211; 2007(2)CTLJ130(Bom)

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. The facts that are relevant and material for deciding this suit are as under:The Plaintiff is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The first Defendant is a Foreign Company incorporated under the Foreign laws. The second Defendant is a Nationalised Bank. According to the Plaintiff, it had in or around June 1998 entered into a contract with one M/s. Arasco Trading B.V. to sell and supply to M/s.Arasco a consignment of 2160 S/Bags of Indian Natural Whitish 98/2 Sesame Seed Crop 1997/1998 valued at US $ 73,560 FAQ Istanbul from Kandla to Istanbul, Turkey. The Plaintiff accordingly delivered the said consignment to the agents of the 1st Defendant M/s. Patvolk at Kandla for carriage and delivery of the said consignment from the Port of Kandla to Istanbul, Turkey. Since M/s. Patvolk were not able to arrange for stuffing the goods into the containers, according to the Plaintiff, they got the goods stuffed in six containers. Those six containers were duly seal...

Ranchhoddas Karsondas Rangwala and Prakash Ranchhoddas Rangwalla Vs. N ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)BomCR147

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Contempt Petition was disposed of on August 20, 1996. Against the said decision, Petitioners carried the matter in Appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by order dated July 21, 1997 has relegated the parties before this Court with direction to examine the issues afresh on the basis of all relevant materials on record. 2. Briefly stated, in the Contempt Petition as filed, the Petitioners assert that the Respondents have wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court dated 19th October 1995 passed in Appeal from Order No. 1140 of 1995. The said Appeal from Order was filed against the decision of the City Civil Court restraining the Petitioners from interfering with the development work undertaken by the Respondents 1 and 2/original Plaintiffs on the plot owned and occupied by them. That relief was granted while allowing Notice of Motion No. 1434 of 1995. 3. The Respondents 1 and 2 had filed Suit before City Civil Court, asserting that they were seized ...

Vasanta Rajaram Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ1377; 2006(6)MhLj374

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. This petition can be conveniently disposed of being governed by settled law as laid down by two Division Bench Judgments of this Court, namely in cases of Ashok Wasudeo Shetye v. State of Maharashtra andOrs. 1988 Mh.L.J. 903 and Kailash Papadas Kuril v. State of Maharashtra Criminal Writ Petition No. 148 of 2002, decided on 2nd September, 2005 on the point of interpretation of the term 'absconded.'3. The case proceeds on admitted facts as follows:(a) The petitioner was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.(b) The story is that the petitioner was involved in the case of murder where it is alleged that his wife had consumed poison.(c) Petitioner was released on furlough. He had reported late, for which jail offence, he has been punished by deduction of remission.(d) Petitioner has completed imprisonment for 23 years, 5 months and 8 days as on 30th June, 2006.(e) The propo...

Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(209)ELT392Tri(Mum.)bai

1.1 The present appeal is against an Order-in-original dated March 23, 2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - V (hereinafter referred to as "the Commissioner") whereby an alleged demand of Rs. 3,02,53,280/- said to be payable under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Cenvat Credit Rules") under Section 11A(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") read with Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, along with interest thereon under Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11AB of the Act. By the said order dated March 23, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "said order") has been confirmed against the appellant. The Commissioner has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs upon the appellant under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The period involved is May 29, 2003 to July 7, 2004.1.2 The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of, inter alia, galvanized wires and standard wires falling und...

Aluplex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1.1 The appellant was issued notice seeking show cause as to why duty should not be determined under the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the erection and installation charges, recovered from the customers, for erection and commissioning of 'Curtain walls', commissioned at the site of the customers building.1.2 The appellant is an assessee, engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium components for Curtain Walls, structural glazing Aluminium Doors & Windows falling under Chapter 76 of CETA 1985. Besides manufacturing and supplying/selling the goods, they also contract to undertake, to execute, from a different premises, erection and installation at site of the "Curtain Walls" from components manufactured by them. The notice issued alleged that Excise Duty is chargeable with reference to Transaction Value, with effect from 1.7.2000, and in terms, as defined Under Section 4(3)(d) of the Act, it appears, that the term Transaction Value would include any amount i.e.recovered from the customers...

Cipla Ltd., Shri S. Radhakrishnan Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC96

1. The applicant in this case is engaged in the manufacture of bulk drugs. The duty on the same was assessed on the basis of whole sale value derived form maximum retail price. They are extending quantity discount in respect of formulation sold by them to their wholesale dealers. As per the scheme 10 units of a formulation were supplied to the wholesalers out of which one unit was supplied free. The appellants' claim this as a quantity discount and accordingly determined the assessable value as per their calculation and paid the duty on the same. They were however issued a show cause notice disputing the manner in which the assessable value was arrived at and sought to demand duty on the basis of assessable value as determined by the department and this duty was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) amounting to Rs. 81,38,965.20. A penalty of equivalent amount was also imposed under Section 11AC alongwith a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 25 and a penalty ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shree and Company and Maniyar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. Shri. Naresh Thacker, ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents states that both the appeals filed by the applicant Commissioner are identical hence both may be decided together.Accordingly, we take up both the appeals and the two connected Cross Objections together for disposal.2. In both the cases, the lower appellate authority has held that the demands are valid for the normal period of six months but has decided that the demands for the longer period are not sustainable. The Department is in appeal against the finding of the lower appellate authority holding the demands to be time barred for the extended period of limitation.3. After hearing both sides and perusal of the case records, we find that in the case of M/s. Shree and Co. the respondents were manufacturing HDPE/PP tapes not exceeding 5 mm thickness and sacks made therefrom since 1980 and they were classifying these products under Chapters 54 and 63 respectively. However, pursuant to Boards Order No.8...

Unique Biochemicals Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC589

1. A very short issue is involved in the present appeal. The appellants imported chemical Triss Hydroxy Methylamine Methane, Laboratory Grade and filed a Bill of Entry for the same. However, the authorities felt mat the said Laboratory grade chemical being specifically covered against entry No. 570 of Appendix 6, List 8, Part I of the policy was requiring a specific licence for import of the same. On the other hand, the appellants had claimed that the laboratory grade chemical would be covered by entry No. 26 of Appendix 6, List 8 Part-II, importable without a licence and under OGL.2. Proceedings were initiated, which resulted in favour of the appellants vide the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs.While holding that the laboratory grade chemical was importable under OGL, the said adjudicating authority took into consideration the decisions arrived at a joint weekly meeting of the Customs authorities, the fact of Customs clearing such goods under OGL and the precedent decis...