Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

Fattesingh Pancham Ghodke Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2002)DMC378; 2002(1)MhLj491

J.N. Patel, J.1. The appellant Fattesingh s/o Pancham Ghodke, was tried by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur on the charge of having committed murder by intentionally and knowingly causing death of his wife Smt Sharda w/o Fattesingh Ghodke by means of pouring kerosene on her person and setting her on fire on 3-8-1994 at about 2.30 p.m. In Shatabdi Nagar, Nagpur. The learned trial Judge found the accused guilty and by his judgment and order dated 24-11-1995, convicted and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default to suffer R. I. for 6 months, which is a matter of challenge in this appeal.2. It is the prosecution's case that the appellant/accused was married to Sharda in the year 1991 and they started residing in the area known as Vakilpeth, Nagpur. Sharda was ill-treated by the appellant/accused as he suspected her character and was also in the habit of demanding money. On one occasion, the appellant/accused had also injured her...

Smt. Sharadbhai Shankar More Vs. Shri M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Poli ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)23; (2002)104BOMLR413

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who describes herself as mother of the detenu - Anil Shankar More has impugned the order dated 19th February, 2001 passed by the First Respondent Mr. M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay detaining the detenu under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996).2. The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 19th February, 2001, was served on the detenu on 21st February, 2001 and their true copies are annexed as Exhibits A and B respectively to this writ petition.3. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned detention order is founded on one C.R. namely C.R. No. 78 of 2000 under Sections 387, 506 and 34 of the I.P.C. registered on the basis of a complaint dat...

Balkrishna Textile Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Commissioner confirmed duty of Rs. 3 lakhs and imposed penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs. The assessees field an appeal and the stay application.The Tribunal Vide Order no. C-I/1566/WZB/2001 dt. 19.5.2001 directed deposit of Rs. 1.5 lakhs at the time of reporting compliance, the assessees state that much prior to the date of filing of the appeal that is on 4.2.2000 they had deposited the entire amount of rs. 3 lakhs. We have seen the TR 6 Challan and hold that the directions had been complied with....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ujwal Metals Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the includability in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the respondent on job work of the excise duty paid on coils of iron supplied by the customer, which it worked upon to make the finished product. Relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in Dia Ichi Karkaria vs. CCE 1996 (12) RLT 261 the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that since the duty was available to be taken as modvat credit by the manufacturer, it would not be includable in the assessable value.2. The sole ground in the department's appeal to challenge this conclusion is that the it does not accept the correctness of this decision. The Supreme Court has declined to reverse the decision of the Tribunal and, in its judgment in 1999 (112) ELT 353, dismissed the department's appeal against it. There is no ground for interference....

Vasant Maganlal Chokshi, Harish Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Adjournment is requested by the counsel for Harish F. Shah on the ground that he has an appeal today before the Chennai bench. It has not been explained to us why the matter at Chennai should take precedence before the matter here. There are applications of ten persons before us represented by two counsel from out of town. We therefore decline to adjourn.2. Applications are for waiver of deposit of penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Act on each of the Appellants. The department's officers seized from the premises of Kirit Maganlal Chokshi Kirtibhai M. Chokshi, Ramnayan Pandey are partners) gold weighing 997 gms. The Commissioner has ordered confiscation on the ground that this gold was smuggled and imposed penalty on each of the applicants before us for having dealt with the gold.3. The order has been passed by Mr. K.M. Tiwari in his capacity as Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad. Both the counsels present before us claim that on the first occasion on which the matter came us...

Atv Projects India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(78)ECC791

1. These two appeals are filed by the same appellants and involve a common issue. These are therefore being disposed of together vide this single order.2. The appellants manufactured Thermo Plastic Elastomer Synthetic Rubber and Thermo Plastic Elastomer Synthetic Rubber Compound claiming classification under sub-heading 40002.00 and 40005.00 respectively.Show cause notice dt. 12.9.96 was issued alleging classification of the substances under sub-heading 3902.90. The notice relied upon the opinion of the Dy. Chief Chemist and also extracts from a textbook. In the copy of the show cause notice, reference was made to the number of letter in which the opinion was given by the Dy. Chief Chemist. Show cause notice doe snot show whether copy thereof was sent to the assessees. Shri MH Patil submits that the report was not furnished along with the notice. Curiously in the reply dt. 5.10.96, protests were made as the non-supply of the report and in fact no comments were made thereupon. Samples ...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Power Engg. Corpn., J.K. Group of

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These four appeals from the Revenue have common facts and are disposed of vide this single order. None of the respondents was present.2. Certain manufacturers were receiving parts of I.C. Engine without payment of duty in terms of a notification, following the provisions of Chapter X. That notification having been withdrawn, duty was demanded and confirmed on such goods lying in stock at the recipient manufacturer's factory. The Commissioner (appeals) upheld the confirmation but permitted the modvat credit to be utilised of the duty paid on such inputs, when used in the manufacture of final goods. In these appeals Revenue is agitating this permission on the ground that assessees would not be eligible to do so unless they had filed declarations under Rule 57G which was mandatory in terms of Tribunal Judgment in the case of P.G.Conductors Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur [1996 (81) EIT 336 (Tribunal)].3. One of the respondents has placed before us Tribunal's order No.C-1/503-1...

M/S Suresh Synthetics and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides on the stay applications in appeared that a pint of law, the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. This was done by granting waiver as prayed for in each case.2. Since the two appeals arise out of the common order these are being disposed of vide this common order.3. M/s. Suresh Synthetics are a 100% EOU. Shri M.G. Sharma is the Director thereof.4. In terms of paragraph 9.10 of the relevant EXIM Policy, such EOU's wee permitted to sell part of their production in the Domestic Tariff Area against payment. The appellants removed the goods totally valued at Rs. 26,83,311 against such payment but without discharging the burden of duty. Show cause notice was issued on 14.7.2000 demanding Customs duty of Rs. 23,85,684 in terms of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Allegations were made that the EOU was liable to penalty under Section 72 and 114(A) of the Customs Act, and that Shri M.G.Sharma was liable to penalty under Section 112(b) and 117 of the Cust...

J.K. Steel and Alloys Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. We had passed an order dated 22.3.2001 in Application E/S/2037/2000 directing the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,62,222 within eight weeks of receipt of the order or 12 weeks from 22.3.2001, whichever is earlier. The present application, that is, the Miscellaneous Application 536/01 has been filed praying the Tribunal to modify the stay order on the basis of a judgement of the Tribunal made in the case of Agrasen Engineering Works Vs. CCE reported in 1990 (47) ELT 90. Sri A.D. Maru, Ld. Counsel is unable to explain to us as to why the said decision was not cited before the Tribunal. The said order is made on an application filed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act under the peculiar circumstance of that particular case. Therefore, it is not binding on us for determination of the application for stay. We therefore dismiss the instant Miscellaneous Application but however grant further time of four weeks for complying with our order dated 22.3.2001. In case of failure t...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. A.Z. Electronics and Electronic

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT689Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Two questions arise for consideration in this appeal by the Commissioner against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise.The respondent to this appeal A.Z. Electronics and Electronic Entities, notice issued to them proposed denial of the benefit of notification 175/86 which each of them availed of on the ground that there was "mutuality of interest" between the two firms. The factors relied upon in support of these assertions were these: M.K. Gujarati and A.C.Pendse were partner of A.Z. Electronics and therefore their respective wives and the father of Gujarati were partners in Electronic Entities; Electronic Entities did not have a separate factory; the correspondence between each of these firms and customers sometimes referred to the other firm as a "sister concern". The Collector has not found it possible to deny the exemption on these grounds and has cited decisions of the Tribunal to say that each of these factors does not constitute sufficient justification. The appea...