Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

Shantaram Nilkantha Meshram Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)39; (2002)1BOMLR647; 2002(1)MhLj260

1. The applicant challenges concurrent findings of two courts below in this revision. The applicant was tried and held guilty ,for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and pay fine of Rs. 300/-, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for fifteen days.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant came from behind and caught the breasts of the prosecutrix. The courts below have believed the prosecution case.3. Learned Advocate for the applicant urged before me that there are contradictions in evidence whether the prosecutrix knew the applicant inasmuch as she first stated that she was knowing the applicant/accused before the incident, then stated that she knew the applicant by face and ultimately stated that she knew him by name. It is also urged by learned Advocate for applicant that though she stated that she was weeping and narrating the incident while going to the house of applicant/...

Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Chandrakant Maganlal Shah ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2002Bom203; 2002(1)ALLMR1021; [2003]113CompCas502(Bom); 2002(1)MhLj581

Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The facts involved in all these appeals are the same and, therefore, it would be convenient to decide them together. Appeal No. 518 of 2000 and Appeal No. 519 of 2000 are directed against the judgment of the Company Judge allowing Company Application No. 517 of 1999 in Company Petition No. 588 of 1991 requiring the Official Liquidator to hand over vacant possession of the land and factory premises of the Company in liquidation to the landlord. Letters Patent Appeal No. 125 of 1993 is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4th August 1993 in Writ Petition No. 2369 of 1993 dismissing the Writ Petition summarily.2. Appellant in Appeal No. 518 of 2000 and Respondent No. 3 in Appeal No. 519 of 2000 is the Saraswat Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'). Appellant in Appeal No. 519 of 2000 and Respondent No. 3 in Appeal No. 518 of 2000 is the Special Recovery Officer. Receiver for M/s. Delmot Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Res...

Union of India (Uoi), Through General Manager, Central Railway Vs. Sub ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR61

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Union of India challenges an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal dated 12th April, 1996 in a reference to adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The First Respondent Was employed as a casual worker by the Central Railway on 24th March, 1978 and was assigned the work of a 'casual painter'. There is no dispute about the fact that the First Respondent worked with the railways between the following periods viz.24th March, 1978 to 18th June, 1978.21st June, 1978 to 18th August, 1978.25th September, 1978 to 18th January, 1985.According to the workman, he had also worked during the period 26th August, 1985 and 29th July, 1986. On the other hand, the case of the railway administration was that the workman had left services on his own on 19th January, 1985 and was subsequently engaged on 26th August, 1985 and that he was in service until 5th August, 1986. Be that as it may, the grievance of the workman was that on 30th July...

M/S Welldeep Metal (India) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for early hearing of the appeal against he order of the Commissioner of Custom, Mumbai by which the appellant has been penalised by imposition of penalty of Rs. 1.5 lakhs. In this case goods namely S.S. Coils were seized from the premises of M/s. Sahiwala Metal Industries. Proprietor of the applicant before us has stated before the adjudicating authority that he placed an order for purchase of the SS Coils. Ld. Counsel has not been able to make out a satisfactory case for out of turn hearing. Having regard to this fact as well as small amount of penalty involved, we are of the view that the application is required to be rejected, and order accordingly....

Amit Prakash Alloys Pvt. 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. 51,55,960.The applicant is absent and unrepresented. The matter has been adjourned twice before at the applicant's request. No request for adjournment has been received.2. The Commissioner has demanded the duty on the ground that the applicant did not pay the duty determined on the annual capacity of its induction furnace. The first ground in the application is that Commissioner's order is passed in contravention of principles of natural justice, as the contentions in the applicant's reply were not considered and it was not heard. The applicant has however produced no material to rebut the contention. The Commissioner in the order says that the applicant did not submit any written submission and did not attend any hearing fixed on three occasions.3. It is next contended that the claim for abatement should have been allowed by the Commissioner. The Commissioner has found that the claim for abatement was filed on 23.11.98, where...

Banco Products (India) Ltd., V.K. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT375Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.4.91 passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara whereunder the adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 8,31,034. In that said order, there was confiscation of 111 numbers of radiator assembly core fixing redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh and imposition of penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs on the assessee under Rule 173Q.The order also imposed penalty on six directors under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules ranging from an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs on one person (V.K. Patil) and Rs. 5 lakhs each an other directors. The plant and machinery was also ordered to be confiscated on a redemption fine of Rs. 7 lakhs.2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of automobile components namely radiator assembly, radiator core, gaskets etc. of various shapes, size and varieties. It is stated by the appellant in the grounds of appeal that there are 6550 varieties in the range of products manufactured by them ...

Amar Amit Jalna Alloys P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The common applicant is absent and unrepresented. There is no request for adjournment. The applications were earlier adjourned twice at the request of the applicant.2. The applications are for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 79,08,523/- demanded on the ground that the applicant did not pay the duty determined by the Commissioner based on the annual production capacity of its induction furnace. Application E/Stay-2661/00 is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 33,86,963/- demanded for the year 1997-98, and application 2660 for the year 1998-1999 3. The ground in application E/Stay-2661/00 is mainly that the Commissioner's order is not in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Commissioner has not considered the submissions made by the applicant and has not given an opportunity of being heard.The Commissioner records that the applicant did not file written submission on merits, and did not attend the hearings fixed on three occasions, each separated by a month. The a...

M/S Vyankatesh Patra Udyog Vs. Commissioner (Appeals) Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT135Tri(Mum.)bai

1. For reasons recorded below we waive the predeposit of Rs. 4.5 lakhs directed to be paid as differential duty on finalisation of provisional assessment and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself after hearing the Ld.DR.2. The final assessment order dt. 10^th May 2000 was passed by the Commissioner for finalisation of provisional assessment by the period 1998-99 of the appellants herein who are manufacturers of Galvanised Corrugated Sheets of various gauges. The assessee, during the period 1997-98 was working under the SSI exemption under Notification No.38/97 dt. 27.6.97 and intend to avail of the benefit of Notification No. 9/98 dt. 2.6.98 for 1998-99. However, value of clearances for 1997-98 in addition to clandestine removal of goods involving duty of about Rs. 25 lakhs increased the total value of clearances to a figure beyond Rs. 3 crores, and therefore it was held that the benefit of Notification No. 9/98 was not available and that differential duty was required to be paid by...

Commissioner of Customs (Prev), Vs. Gujarat State Export Corporation

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Gujarat State Export Corporation, the respondent to this appeal, imported 102 tonnes of ABS resin in January 1995. The resin was manufactured by Lucky Goldstar International in Korea and was supplied by a seller at Dubai. The department was of the view that the price declared for the goods of per tonne was too low. It noted the import of two consignments each of 51 tonnes from the same manufacture in Korea at US $1080 per tonne in August 1994 and US $1130 in October 1994.Notice was therefore issued proposing to increase the value of the goods to US $1080 per tonne CIF. The Asst. Collector confirmed the proposal in the notice. On appeal from this order, the Collector (Appeals) found that there was insufficient justification not to accept the transaction value. He therefore set aside the asst. Collector's order, directing acceptance of the declared price. Hence this appeal by the department.2. The department's appeal itself points out that the import made by the respondent of 102 ton...

Shri Indur B. Kriplani Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. We have heard both sides on the application for waiver of predeposit of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed in terms of Section 112(a) of the Customs act.2. The applicant had imported certain goods consisting of mobile phones, faxes etc. as personal effects. These goods wee seized on 20.4.99. The show cause notice was issue don 6.10.1999 and the impugned order passed on 19.12.2000 by which the Commissioner confiscated the seized goods; however since the goods were not available for confiscation he confiscated their sale proceeds and imposed a penalty.ld. Counsel Shri SN Kantawala submits that the goods under seizure cold not be sold by the Customs authorities an there is gross impropriety and illegality in these action of sale by the department during the period of seizure.3. We find that in the case of wife of Shri Indur B. Kriplani that is Smt. Chandra I. Kriplani, the Bench has passed the order of unconditional waiver vide order No. C-1/1625/WZB/2001 dt. 14.6.200, in an identical sit...