Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Narendra Jaywant Dudang

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)140

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal preferred under section 378(1) of the Cr.P.C. the State of Maharashtra impugns the Judgment and order dated 20/8/ 1985 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 153 of 1983 acquitting the respondent for offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 57 of the Bombay Children Act.2. Shortly stated the prosecution case runs as under :-The prosecutrix -Sangita Raghunath Pednekar, aged about 9 years at the time of the incident was living in Building No. 52, Room No. 1662, Tagore Nagar, Vikroli, Bombay - 83 along with her mother Vijaya Pednekar PW 1, her father Raghunath Pednekar (not examined), her brothers Vishwas and Sudhir. At that time, the respondent along with his wife Jayshree Dudang was staying in the adjoining room bearing No. 1661.The prosecutrix and her brothers Vishwas and Sudhir were studying in Vidya Mandir School. On 18.3.1982 at about 7 a.m. the prosecutrix left her house fo...

Samarjit Datta Vs. M/S Pmt Machine Tools Automatics Pvt. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR481; 2001(4)BomCR191; (2001)3BOMLR836

S.A. Bobde, J. 1. This Second Appeal is preferred by the Appellant who seeks a declaration that his termination order is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff and a further declaration that he continues in service of the Respondent Company. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have both dismissed the Appellant's suit. This Second Appeal has been admitted by this Court on the question of applicability of the decision in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and Another v. Brojo Nath Ganguly, and Another, and the decision of the Supreme Court in Sirsi Municipality by its President, Sirsi v. Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis. However, according to the learned Counsel for the Appellant the substantial question of law that needs to be decided in this case is :Whether the declaration sought for in prayer clause (1) can be granted by the Civil Court under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act?This substantial question of law has been therefore framed with the consent of the lea...

Greaves Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001]251ITR190(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J.1. This appeal was on the Board on March 31, 2001, when the following order was passed :'For reasons to be given subsequently appeal dismissed.'2. We now propose to give reasons :The main question which arises for determination in this appeal is as follows : 'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, an amount which is not allowed to be written off as bad debt could be claimed as a business loss ?' 3. Facts :In this appeal, we are concerned with the assessment year 1984-85. The last day of the accounting year was June 30, 1983. On that day, Greaves International Ltd. entered into an agreement with its sister concern, Greaves Cotton Ltd. Under the said agreement, Greaves International Ltd., assigned doubtful debts of Rs. 68,70,943.27 for a price of Rs. 21,33,987 to Greaves Cotton Ltd.--appellant herein. The amount of Rs. 21,33,987 was the recoverable amount out of the total doubtful debts of Rs. 68,70,943.27. This was as per surveyor's report also dated June 3...

M/S. Abhishek Steel Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two applications have been filed for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.5,43,120+Rs.98,395/-+Rs.18,86,262/- and also penalty of Rs.22 lakhs imposed on M/s. Abhishek Steel Pvt.Ltd. and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on the other applicant Shri Rakesh S. Sharma.2. In the appeals, one of the grounds taken is that the Adjudicating Authority had not supplied copies of documents relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority and referred to in the show cause notice. The same has been reflected in the letter dated 4.2.98 written by the appellants M/s. Abhishek Steel Pvt. Ltd. This matter has come up before us several times. The assessees have not appeared. We direct the concerned Adjudicating Authority to file a report to us as to whether they have in fact given the copies of the documents relied upon by the department in the show cause notice at the time of next date of hearing. In case of the failure of the Adjudicating Authority to file a proper report evidencing supply of the docume...

M/S. Virat Ship Breaking Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT311Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants requested for disposal of the appeal on merits. We do so after hearing the ld.JDR Shri J.M. George.2. The appellants imported a ship. Assessment was done on 27.10.95 to total duty of Rs.2,41,65,356/-. On 27.12.95, the jurisdictional officers found that the importer had already started breaking the ship although the cut and broken pieces had not been cleared from the site.The ship was formally seized and released provisionally. On 2.1.96 the importers paid the duty along with interest of Rs. 7,94,477. After issue of show cause notice and after hearing the importers, the Commissioner passed the orders specifying a fine of Rs. One lakh and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. Hence, the appeal.3. During the proceedings, the importers have consistently maintained that the ship was situated in such a manner as to necessitate early lightening of weight. It was submitted that the action of the importer was not motivated. We find that confiscation under Sec.111(j) of the Cust...

M/S. Chaudhary Steel and Alloys Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both the sides on the stay application it became clear that since the law point was settled, the appeal itself could be disposed of. This was done after granting waiver of pre-deposit of the duty of Rs.9,90,855/- 2. The appellants were manufacturing bars and rods out of ship breaking scraps. They claimed benefit of Notification No.202/88 dated 20.5.88 which was extended by the order of the Asstt.Commissioner. When this order was challenged before the Commissioner, the Commissioner held that the interpretation of Not.No.202/88 should be that the duty must have been paid on the inputs and that credit of such duty must not have been taken. He ruled that when the inputs had suffered nil rate of duty, the benefit was not available.3. We find that this issue stands settled in the Tribunal judgement in the case of CCE vs Haldyn Glass Ltd[1999(114)ELT 835]. Reference was also made to the Circular of the Board and also to the Supreme Court judgement in the case of CCE vs Usha Mar...

Mr. Jaywant Yellappa Nadurkar Vs. Commissioner of Customs(P),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT87Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against decision of the Commissioner of Customs (A), Mumbai dated 7.2.2000 where under he confirmed the order passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Customs(P) made in Order-in-Original No.15/99 dated 25.3.99 where under he had confiscated the goods of foreign origin valued at the Rs.1,05,650/- consisting of one Colour T.V.set, Triniton Model No.KV-2197 M.3; One C.D. Deck Stereo Cassette Receiver of AIWA Company; One Air-Conditioner Machine of Fuguist General Ltd.; One Wrist Watch of Raddo Co.; One Micro Cassettes Tape Recorder of Sony Model; One gold chain of 72.450 gms having a pendant of 20 gms fine gold having mark SUISSE-20 gms.fine gold 999.9 valued at Rs.33,650/-. He has also imposed penalty of Rs. One lakh.2. The appellant was a Senior Inspector of Police in the Maharastra State Police. he was working at ulhasnagar. On 24.1.97, the Anti Corruption Bureau, Thana searched the appellant's premises and seized the above goods along with certa...

C.C. Mumbai Vs. M/S. Sahir Overseas Corpn.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The departmental representative points out that the goods have been already cleared out the customs. The stay application therefore is rendered infructuous and is accordingly dismissed....

M/S. Upper India Tannery Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both the sides, the appeal itself was taken up for disposal on granting waiver of Rs.14,03,150/- confirmed as duty and Rs.1,40,000/- imposed as penalty.2. The appellants exported goods manufactured using inputs imported free of duty under Not.No.203/92. Show cause notice dated 29/1/99 was issued alleging that in the export products inputs stage modvat credit had been availed of, that the condition of the Notification had been violated and that the duty was chargeable in terms of the provisions of Sec. 28 of the Customs Act. The appellants filed reply to the Commissioner of Customs, Behard Estate, Mumbai. The case was, however, adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs, Airport. The Commissioner held that the appellants were not present and passed orders ex-parte.Shri Willingdon submits that on receipt of the intimation of the personal hearing, they were unable to relate the same to the earlier document and had, therefore, asked for the connected papers.3. We have seen t...

Commissioner of Cen. Excise, Vs. M/S. D.C.L. Polyster Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC400

1. This appeal from the Revenue was argued by Shri A.K.Jain, JDR. The assessees were represented by Shri Lilapat, Dy.Manager.2. The assessees are manufacturing Polyster yarn from 1989. In March, 1994, they filed a declaration under Rule 57T. The capital goods were received in March/April 1994. The credit was taken in April 1994 and utilised, although, the capital goods were installed later. Show cause notice was issued alleging that the credit could not be taken until the capital goods were installed and utilised and that in taking and utilising the credit, the assessees had cleared the goods without payment of duty. The Collector dropped the proceedings on perusal of certain instructions given by the Board to the effect that in such circumstances the assessees could take credit. The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against this order. The sole ground made in the appeal is that the credit could not be taken before installation of the goods. We, however, find that the Central Boa...