Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1996)(88)ELT190Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All the appeals are directed against the same Order-in-Original No.S/14-5-136/86 Pint., dated 3-12-1987 of the Collector of Customs (P) Bombay. They are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Though the order impugned relates to confiscation of Gold and imposition of penalties on several parties, these appeals are confined to imposition of penalties of Rs. 15,00,000/- each, under the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, and the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 on each of the two appellants.3.1. Because only a portion of the order is under challenge, the facts as are necessary to appreciate the contentions raised in these appeals, are highlighted.3.2. Based on the specific information received, Truck No. PAT 1812 was intercepted on 25-3-1986. The occupants thereof were (i) Driver Darshan Singh, (ii) Conductor Lakha Singh, (iii) Gurbhaj Singh and (iv) Surjit Singh, both of whom were believed to be the local contacts. Search of the truck resulted in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1996)(88)ELT398Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Today only the stay petitions were listed for hearing. However, for the reasons mentioned hereinunder the matter calls for a remand and hence both the appeals are taken up for hearing and disposal on merits, by granting waiver of pre-deposit.2. Both these appeals arise out of the order-in-appeal No. 124/96BCH, dated 15-2-1996 setting aside the order in original No.S/10-45/PK/94SIIB, dated 7-7-1995.3. The facts in brief are that the appellants imported a consignment declared to contain synthetic acrylic tow waste. Some proceedings were initiated in relation to the quality of the goods imported and the order of confiscation with the option of redemption fine was passed.Subsequent thereto, the investigations revealed that there was a misdeclaration and undervaluation of the goods and in respect of declared quality as waste, they were of prime quality. The order was appealed against and Collector (Appeals) set aside the said order and directed for de novo adjudication. Pursuant thereto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1996)(87)ELT731Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This Appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 622/95 BCH, dated 5-9-1995 of the Commissioner of Customs Appeal Bombay, confirming with minor modification, the Order-in-Original S/10-76/95 IR, dated 2-5-1995 of the Dy. Collector of Customs Gr. I, Mumbai. The appellants imported used lubricating oil and sought clearances as an OGL Item, they did not have any import licence. The department, objected to the clearance on the ground that the said goods were hazardous waste as laid down in Para 156 (H) Entry No. 8 of EXIM Policy, 1992-97 (as modified upto 31-3-1995). The objection was also raised that the import was not valid vide Para 5 of the said Policy Book, as the Shipment of the goods had taken place on 10-4-1995 and 11-4-1995 and that there was no confirmed contract entered into before the import of hazardous wastes was prohibited by an amendment dated 31-3-1995. The appellants pleaded that this was not the hazardous waste and was no covered under the prohibition and also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1996)(88)ELT111Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is moved by the revenue against the aforesaid order of the Collector (Appeals) allowing Modvat credit in respect of CTD end cuttings and CTD bar cuttings. The department's objection was that the declared input is ferrous waste and scrap (remelting scrap) classifiable under Heading 7203.20, whereas the goods received are CTD end cutting and CTD bar cuttings of steel classifiable under Heading 7214.90. The Commissioner took note of the fact that the goods brought in are nothing but remelting scrap and effective rate of duty in respect of both the items remain the same namely Rs. 500/-. He observed that no objection should be taken and in that view allowed the appeal.2. After hearing both the sides, I find that there is no dispute that the inputs have been received only for the purpose of melting and not for the purpose of rerolling. Their intention in their declaration is clearly evident that they are to bring ferrous metal scrap. Tariff heading pertaining to such type of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1996Bom382; 1997(2)BomCR515
ORDERPatankar, J.1. Rule. The learned counsel for the respondents waive notice. By consent heard forthwith.Respondent No. 5 was a Specified Co-operative society governed by the Goa, Daman and Diu Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1978. It has 592 Societies as its members and 2664 individual members. However, on 30th May, 1987, Goa was declared as a State and Daman and Diu remained as Union Territories. Respondent No. 5 came to be governed by the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984.2. The present Board of Directors came to power on 22nd July, 1992. The term of office is three years. The Central Registrar -- respondent No. 1 -- on 22nd June, 1995 directed that a general meeting for elections be held on 31st December, 1995 and by which date the process of amendment to bye-laws and framing of election regulations should be completed. Bye-laws came to be amended in a General Body Meeting on 5th December, 1995. However, respondents Nos. 6 to 9 filed Wri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997(1)ALT(Cri)23; 1997CriLJ954
Batta, J.1. The appellant was tried for rape on a minor girl aged 15 years and criminal intimidation under Ss. 376 and 506(I) IPC. He was sentenced to suffer 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default R.I. for six months under S. 376, IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- in default R.I. for one month under S. 506(I) IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. A sum of Rs. 4,000/- was awarded as compensation to be paid to the prosecutrix in case of realisation of the fine. The appellant challenges the said conviction and sentences in this appeal. 2. We have heard Advocate Shri Menino Teles for the appellant and P.P. Shri G. U. Bhobe for the State. 3. The contentions advanced by Advocate Shri Teles are :- that there has been inordinate delay in filing the FIR; that except for the version of the prosecutrix, there is nothing to connect the accused with the crime and that even the belated version of the prosecutrix was totally dis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)ILLJ496Bom
1. The petitioners herein seek to quash the prosecution pending against them under Section 48 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter called 'the Act' for the sake of brevity). Following is the factual panorama. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is a Super Class-I Officer of IAS Cadre and is on deputation to the post of i the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation; while petitioner No. 2 is its Regional Manager for Nagpur Region. Respondent No. 2 is the Union of workers employed with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called 'the Corporation' for the sake of brevity), and according to the petitioners, it is not yet recognised under the Act. According to the petitioners, talks were going on between the Corporation and its Unions, though some of the Unions were not recognised, and these talks were regarding the revision of pay-scales. According to the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1996(74)FLR2474]
1. The petitioners herein seek to quash the prosecution pending against them under section 48 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter called 'the Act' for the sake of brevity). Following is the factual panorama. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is a Super Class-I Officer of IAS Cadre and is on deputation to the post of the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation; while petitioner No. 2 is its Regional Manager for Nagpur Region. Respondent No. 2 is the Union of workers employed with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called 'the Corporation' for the sake of brevity), and according to the petitioners, it is not yet recognised under the Act. According to the petitioners, talks were going on between the Corporation and its Unions, though some of the Unions were not recognised, and these talks were regarding the revision of pay-scales. According to the petitioners,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997(1)BomCR57; 1996(2)MhLj787
B.U. Wahane, J. 1. The petitioner-Udaysingh s/o. Ganpatrao Naik Nimbalkar who was a member of the Maharashtra Judiciary working as a Civil Judge, Senior Division, questioned the order of dismissal from service dated 31st July, 1993 (Annexure XX) issued under the signature of the respondent No. 2, in the name of the respondent No. 1. The Government of Maharashtra, as also the enquiry proceedings and south directions to the respondents to reinstate him in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits. 2. The facts giving rise to the institution of enquiry proceedings resulting in dismissal from the service of the petitioner, in brief, are as follows : The petitioner was selected by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission for the post of Judicial Magistrate, First Class and Civil Judge, Junior Division and he came to be appointed on the said post on 21-7-1980. At the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.M.F.C. at Nasik. He was t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997(1)BomCR303
B.U. Wahane, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Shirishkumar Rangrao Patil, has questioned the legality, propriety, justifiability and bona fides of the order dismissing the petitioner from the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate, First Class, passed on 2-3-1994, by the respondent No. 1.2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner after obtaining the Degree of Bachelor of Law from Marathwada University at Aurangabad, enrolled himself as an Advocate and started legal practice at Parola in District Jalgaon from 9th June, 1980 till 19th February, 1984. He was appointed as Police Prosecutor and worked as such from 20th February, 1984 to 30th April, 1988 in Jalgaon District in the courts at Yawal and Ravel as also in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jalgaon. On being selected by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division-cum-Judicial Magistrat...
Tag this Judgment!