Mumbai Court December 1998 Judgments

D.J. Vora Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC219

1. These appeals arise out of common order dated 2-1-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Surat. The appellants are manufacturing excisable goods falling under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 for which they are receiving inputs falling under various chapters of CETA. They were availing of Modvat credit of goods used in the manufacture of their final product. Show cause notice was issued to them on 17-3-1992 covering the period 1-4-1988 to 31-3-1989 and the charges were that they had taken Modvat on inputs which had not been included in the declaration for Modvat purposes under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. A statement was given by the appellant D.J. Vora, Deputy General Manager (Finance) of the company on 9-1-1991 and 11-2-1991 wherein inter alia he stated that the unit had filed this declaration for Modvat purposes under Rule 57G of the inputs by describing them in broad terms. The show cause notice sought to recover Modvat credit of Rs. 27,64,259...

S.S. Phogat Vs. the Chief of Naval Staff and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR3; 1999(1)BomCR688

ORDERS.S. Parkar, J. 1. Petitioner who was holding the rank of Chief Petty Officer (Signal) in Navy has filed this petition seeking writ of mandamus to promote him to the post of Master Chief Petty Officer II. 2. Brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows :The petitioner joined Indian Navy as Sailor (Signal Branch) on 13th September, 1974. After completion of training at Signal School in Cochin in September, 1975 he was promoted to the rank of Leading Signal Man on 5th November, 1982. On 15th January, 1985 he was further promoted to the rank of Petty Officer (Signal) and thereafter to the rank of Chief Petty Officer (Signal) from 1-10-1990. It appears that during his tenure as Chief.Petty Officer the petitioner had incurred disqualification because of some negligence on his part on 12th March, 1993 when he did not notice and, therefore, did not report about the theft of a TV from the place of which he was in charge. Under the rules of Navy a minimum of continuous period...

Open Sea Maritimes Inc. Vs. R. Pyarelal International Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(2)BomCR158; 1999(2)MhLj1

ORDERP.S. Patankar. J. 1. This petition has been filed under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1996') for enforcing the foreign award dated 25-2-1997 passed in favour of the petitioners.2. There was Charter agreement entered into between the petitioners and the respondents whereunder the petitioners' Vessel M.V. VINTA was chartered to the respondents for carriage of bagged rice and wheat from Calcutta to Dar-Es-Saleem.3. Dispute arose between the parties in respect of the said contract. Clause 24 of the charter party provided for reference to Arbitration and the English Law to apply in that event. In spite of the notice to the respondents the respondents failed to appoint the Arbitrator. The petitioners appointed the arbitrator in accordance with Clause 24 of the Charter Party. As the respondents failed to appoint their arbitrator, the Arbitrator appointed by the petitioners acted as Sole Arbitrator in view of section 7(b) ...

Sou. Rukmini Alias Mangal Mahadeo Gaikwad Vs. Shri Mahadeo Maruti Gaik ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR260; II(1999)DMC105

ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Anturkar for the applicant and Mr. Bandivadekar for the respondent No. 1.2. This application is filed by the wife against the order of the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Satara (R.D. Jadhav), by which he allowed the revision filed by the husband and set aside the order of the J.M.F.C., Wai, granting maintenance at Rs. 500/- per month to the wife.3. It appears from the record that the wife petitioner had earlier filed petition for maintenance under section 125 of the Cr. P.C. vide Criminal Application No. 2 of 1989. That application was dismissed in default and thereafter she filed the Misc. Application No. 109 of 1992. It was the contention in the second application that she was legally wedded wife of the respondent-husband but he was ill-treating her and driven her out of the house and therefore she had claimed maintenance. The husband filed a reply, completely denying the contentions of the wife. He not only denied the marriage but also having deni...

Krishna Murari Poddar and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Ano ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR259; 1999(5)BomCR432; 1999CriLJ1094

ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J. 1. All these petitions involve a common question, though they are arising from the different orders of issue of process under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, they were heard together. 2. Mr. Mundergi who appeared for the petitioners in all these petitions raised three contentions. Firstly, that the Directors i.e. the petitioners of the accused - company had resigned before issuance of cheque. Secondly, the complainant did not prima facie prove that the petitioner Directors were responsible for the day to day business of the company as required under section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thirdly, he contended that complaint was filed without getting acknowledgment from the postal department in respect of the notices served upon the accused under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and hence there was nothing before the complainant to show that the complaint was filed after the ...

Ramnath Sadashiv Koltharkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR255; 1999BomCR(Cri)255; 1999(2)MhLj743

ORDERD.G. Deshpane, J.1. Heard Mr. Bichu for the applicant and A.P.P. for the State.2. The petition is filed for quashing the order of the Special Judge (U.D. Salvi), Mumbai, dated 4-12-1997 by which he rejected the application of the accused petitioner which was filed for discharge.3. Mr. Bichu contended that the accused was charge-sheeted for offences under the provisions of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1989'. The alleged offence took place on 3-4-1997. F.I.R. was filed on 28-4-1997. Investigation was completed and last statement was recorded on the same date i.e. 28-4-1997 and charge sheet came to be filed in August, 1997. According to him the accused had claimed discharge on a purely legal ground arising from the provisions of the Act of 1989 itself. He urged that under section 9 of the said Act of 1989, it was for the State Government to appoint any officer of the Government with powers u...

Desh Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kulgaon Badlapur Municipal Council and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR67

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Advocates Mr. S.K. Shinde for the petitioner. Mr. Abhay Oak for respondent No. 1 and learned A.P.P. for the State/respondents. In the group of all these petitions the petitioner is same, respondents are same and the question involved is also same. From the facts narrated, it appears that the petitioner is a small scale industry having its manufacturing unit at M.I.D.C. Badlapur. The petitioner manufactures and processes chemicals of many types and main amongst its products are Sodium Lauryl Sulphate, Sodium Lauryl [Ether Sulphate, Reaction Initiators, etc. for the aforesaid products the petitioner has to purchase number of chemicals as raw materials. By processing and reacting these raw materials, the aforesaid chemicals are the produce. The petitioner's unit is situated within the territorial limits of Kulgaon-Badlapur Municipal Council, the respondent No. 1, and therefore, bringing the raw materials to the unit turns out to be an import of them within the l...

Weston Electronics Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(83)LC435Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri Rajiv K. Garg, Advocate at the very outset submits that as per his instructions the bank guarantee filed in pursuance of the High Court's order is alive. He undertakes to submit proof of the same with the Registry. Subject to the undertaking given by the ld. Advocate, we proceed to hear the matter.2. In this appeal filed by M/s. Weston Electronics Ltd., the matter relates to the customs valuation in respect of the 500 pcs of Tape Deck Mechanism for Video Cassette Player and 500 sets of Moulded Cabinet and accessories of the Video Cassette Player imported by them under Invoice No. 6102 dated 15.6.1990 and No. 6093 dated 5.6.1990. The Customs sought to reject their declared value on the ground that the similar goods had been imported by M/s. Krison Electronics systems Ltd. at the higher prices. The matter was adjudicated by the Addl. Collector of Customs, who imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 4 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 80,000/-.3. Shri Rajiv K. Garg, Advocate appearing for the ...

Gujarat State Fertilizers and Vs. Commr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)LC17Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appeal taken up for disposal after accepting the prayer made for early hearing on the ground that the amount of refund exceeds Rs. 1.48 crores.2. Appellant was sanctioned refund of Customs duty paid on several consignments of phosphoric acid imported by it from Tunisia. The refund arose because at the time of initial clearance it was not able to satisfy the department that the benefit of Notification No. 236/89, which provides for concessional rate of duty to goods imported inter alia from Tunisia was available. The Assistant Commissioner held that the benefit of notification was available and refund payable; he however noted that the appellant had not shown that the incidence of duty already paid had not been passed on to any other person or that the goods shown, as claimed, that the imported goods were captively consumed in appellant's factory as claimed. Therefore, he sanctioned the refund and ordered the amount of refund credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.3. The appellant ap...

Ram Gopal LachminaraIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is party's appeal against the above captioned impugned order dated 1-12-1986 of Collector of Customs, Mumbai praying for setting aside the same, and to hold REP licence produced for clearance of 160 cartons containing 1920 rolls of PVC sheets valued at Rs. 1,02,653/- CIF imported from U.K. is valid, and for a direction to Department of issue detention certificate from the date of filing of Bill of Entry till the clearance of the above goods and for any other deemed relief in the facts and circumstances of the case.1. The facts of the case are that the Appellant, as importers, of above goods have claimed clearance against REP licence as per the product group C11.4 of Appendix 17 of AM 1984-85 under Bill of Entry No. 742/81 dated 4-4-1986 through their CHA 11/278. The goods were examined on first check basis and sample of goods were called for inspection.Marking of description as mentioned in the invoice were not found on the goods labels found on them described as "Prepasted Vi...