Mumbai Court December 2001 Judgments

Sukhdeo Ragho Deore Vs. Chairman, Gram Shikshan Samiti, Umrane, Dist. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)2BOMLR529; 2002(1)MhLj885

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and propriety of the order dated 8th anuary, 1991 passed by the Director of Education, Pune (respondent No. 5), by which he has allowed the review application, setting aside the order passed by the Joint Director of education dated 8th January, 1982. The Joint Director, by this order had quashed and set aside the appointments of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as head masters holding that the same were made in utter violation of the seniority principle, denying the claim of the petitioner who was quite senior to them on the dates of their appointments. The challenge to the impugned order is of two folds. Firstly, that the appointments of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the post of head masters in two different schools of the respondent No. 1 institution are not in conformity with the provisions of Rule 61.2(a) of the Secondary School Code (for short 'Code'). Secondly, that the Director of Education has no power to review order dated ...

Mohammed Shabir Shaikh Bhikan Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR820

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. In all four accused were prosecuted under the N.D.P.S. Act before the Special Court, Bombay in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 280 of 1992, one of them i.e. accused No. 4 was absconding. However, accused Nos. 1 to 3 came to be convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, by his judgment dated 22.9.1997. Therefore, these accused have preferred and filed three separate appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 733 of 1997 is filed by original accused No. 1 Mohammed Shabir Shaikh Bhikan; Criminal Appeal No. 651 of 1997 is filed by original accused No. 2 Sharifkhan Rashidkhan; and Criminal Appeal No. 685 of 1997 is filed by original accused No. 3 Sampat Tukaram Sangle. Accused No. 1 is important for the prosecution, both for his personal role as well as for leading police party to accused Nos. 2 and 3.2.The prosecution case, in brief, is as under:Shri S.B. Pujari (P.W. 3) - Sub-Inspector at Narcotic Cell, Bombay received information that accused No. 1 is manufacturing ...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Rajkumar Kunda Swami

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR567

V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. This is an application by the State for cancellation of bail as well as for granting of Police Custody Remand for a period of seven days.2. Brief facts relating to this case, are as under :The complaint was lodged by Shri Yuvraj Patil. The Assistant General Manager, Abhyudaya Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Vashi 'Branch, Sector 17, Navi Mumbai on 28.7.2001. The F.I.R. was registered against the respondent/accused wide C.R. No. 1-210/2001 under Sections 409, 420, 463, 464, 471, 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 43, 65, 66 and 73 of Information Technology Act, 2000. It has been stated by the complainant in the complaint that respondent/accused Rajkumar K. Swami was working as a clerk in Abhyudaya Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Vashi Branch, Sector 17, Navi Mumbai and looking after the maintenance and repair of the computers in the said Bank since 1997 and all the accounts and transactions were computerised in the Bank since 1995. The complainant has further stated that resp...

Shriram Rayon Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT427Tri(Mum.)bai

1. M/s. Shriram Rayon Ltd. had imported a consignment of goods declared as "one complete 600w ultrasonic sealing plus score cutting for industrial fabrics with two ultrasonic devices" claiming the assessment under heading 8451.50 read with Notification 61/94-Cus. The functioning of the machine was explained and it was found to be capable of performing two functions viz. cutting as well as sealing and hence has ruled out the classification of the machine as cutting under heading 84.51. The authorities below confirmed classification under Customs heading 8479.89 and the benefit of Notification was not extended because it was not claimed for the goods falling under the heading confirmed by the authorities below. In appeal before the Tribunal, it is argued that the benefit of Sr. No. 56 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 61/94 should be made available to the goods in question.2. We have considered the submissions. Sr. No. 56 covers all goods falling under heading 84.79 other than th...

Asmaco Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 2,17,989/- and penalty of equivalent amount.2. Applicant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have read the stay application and heard the departmental representative.Virtually the sole basis for demanding duty is that, by virtue of note 7 to Chapter 48 of the Explanatory Notes to the harmonized System of Nomenclature, crape paper of a certain width is classifiable under heading 48.23 of the tariff and paper of another under that heading.Applying the notes, it has been concluded that the slitting of crape paper amounts to manufacture. However this note is not present in the tariff. On the other hand, note 10(A) to the Chapter provides that slitting of thermal paper does not amount to manufacture. This, prima facie , gives rise to the conclusion that slitting of any other paper does not amount to manufacture.3. Accordingly we waive deposit of the duty demanded and penalty imposed and stay their recovery....

Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The common questions which these four applications seek to refer to the Gujarat High Court are as follows:- "1. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal was right in law in not accepting the identity of bottles received from job worker after completion of job work on the ground of it not being beyond doubt? 2. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in adopting the yardstick of identity beyond doubt in respect of bottles received from job worker after completion of job work. 3. Whether in facts and circumstance of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in interpreting the earlier Tribunal decision dated 21-5-90 as implying a condition of proving the identity beyond doubt in respect of bottles received from job worker after completion of job work? 4.Whether in facts and circumstance of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in rejecting the reasoning given by the Appellate Commissioner in or...

Sunil Chemical Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner had demanded duty on his conclusion that the goods that the appellant had imported were not entitled to the benefit of exemption contained in notification 203/92, for the reason that modvat credit had been taken in the course of manufacture of exported goods, thus contravened one of the conditions subject to which the exemption in the notification is available.3. Representative of the appellant contends that the appellant had not received the notice to its own address from which it operates. The Commissioner himself records that the notice has bene returned by the postal authorities as undelivered. He says that the demand is barred by limitation, and the appellant was the transferee of the licence.4. On the facts of this case, we think that the appellant should be given an opportunity to explain these facts to the Commissioner.5. Accordingly we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.The Commissioner shall consider the...

Sarthi Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT221Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 11,00,555/- and penalty of equal amount arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Surat who has confirmed the duty demand on clandestine clearance from the applicants' EOU to DTA. It is the contention of the ld. counsel for the applicants that clearances to DTA were with the approval of Development Commissioner, Kandla Free Trade Zone and that being so, the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Winsome Yarns Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh (2001 (94) ELR 457) which held that in the case of clearance from 100% EOU to DTA, although the measure of collection of duty may be under the Customs Act, the nature of duty required to be paid by 100% EOU is Central Excise Duty if good are cleared to any other place in India will apply. The next submission of the ld. counsel is that the applicant did not import any raw materials but procured them indigenously and hence the question of levy of customs duty does not arise. On ...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Intellect Components Company

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Revenue seeks stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner(Appeals) who has set aside the Order-in-Original passed by the Dy.Commissioner, loading the value of the subject goods from US $ 0.150 under Bill of Entry dated 2.3.2000 to US $ 618 PMT after allowing discount.2. On hearing Shri Sarkar, the ld.department representative and perusing the impugned order which has been passed on the ground that the burden cast upon the department to prove under valuation so as to justify loading of the declared value has not been discharged by the Revenue, we hold that prima-facie there is no infirmity in the impugned order so as to warrant any stay. We, therefore, reject the application....

Haribhau Ramchandra Ghadage Vs. Pandharpur Municipal Council and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR892; 2002BomCR(Cri)81; (2002)1BOMLR212; 2002(2)MhLj535

R. M. Lodha, J. 1. Heard.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner prays for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw or cancel the circular dated 20-4-1990 issued by the Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration (respondent No. 2) and the notice dated 11-7-1990 issued by Pandharpur Municipal Council to the petitioner.3. The petitioner claims to be engaged in the business of flour mill at Pandharpur within the municipal limits of the Pandharpur Municipal Council. In this flour mill, the petitioner grinds various kinds of grains which, according to him, are brought by customers. The petitioner claims that he only charges grinding and labour charges and neither purchases nor sells any grain or flour nor does he manufacture or sale anything. It is the case of the petitioner that only food grains are brought to the flour mill which are grounded and given back to the customers and no item which is not food grain is brought to flour mill and, therefore, there is no...