Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Raghupati Janardhan Kathale (Since Deceased, Through His L.Rs.) and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR248; 2002(3)BomCR281

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. The appellants in Appeal No. 63/1977 are the original plaintiffs and appellants in Appeal No. 308/76 are the original defendants.2. The plaintiffs filed the suit on the basis of Will dated 19-3-1949 (Exhibit 36), whereas the defendants set up will dated 7th February, 1958 (Exhibit 66). The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs in toto whereas the Appellate Court partly allowed. The appeal and modified the decree. Therefore, against the Appellate Court's judgment, both the appeals have been filed by the plaintiffs and the defendants.3. The suit property was originally owned by one Pralhad Ramkrushna Upadhye of Taroda. Respondent Pundlik is his brother. Pralhad had no issue and he owned the suit property i.e. he had half share in that property. Pralhad died on 7-5-1958 and Pundlik died in 1956. Pralhad lost his sight five years prior to 1949. He and his wife used to keep always ailing and were not keeping good health. Pralhad executed Will dated 19-3-1949, g...

Parwatibai W/O Namdeo (Died. Her L.R.) Anna S/O Sheku Chavan Vs. Ramra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR788; 2002(3)BomCR318

B.B. Vagyani, J.1. Heard.2. This civil revision application filed by the petitioner (original applicant) is directed against the order dated 24-12-1998 passed by the District Judge, Aurangabad in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1994. In brief the facts giving rise to this civil revision application are as under :Namdeo Patilba owned and possessed immovable properties. He had two wives (1) Drupadabai and (2) Parwatibai. Namdeo died issueless. After the death of Namdeo, both the widows could not pull on well. Parwatibai started residing with her brother Sheku. Drupadabai resided with Ramrao, nephew of Namdeo. Parwatibai filed Regular Civil Suit No. 94 of 1975 against Ramrao and Drupadabai for partition and separate possession of the property of her 1/2 share. The trial Court decreed the suit.3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, Ramrao and Drupadabai filed regular civil appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the District Judge, Aurangabad. Without there be...

Rehemankha Kalukha Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)2237; 2002BomCR(Cri)395; 2002CriLJ24

S.K. Shah, J. 1. In this reference, we are required to answer the issue referred to the Full Bench by the learned Single Judge. The issue referred for consideration of Full Bench is no more res integra and stands squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, reported in : 2001CriLJ1832 .2. The learned Single Judge made a Reference for answering the issue as under :Whether the accused is vested with the right of being released on bail at the expiration of limitation stipulated in Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and that the same cannot be qualified or stand extinguished as soon as the charge-sheet is filed under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code?3. Brief facts would be necessary to understand the controversy involved and the question referred. The applicant/accused Rehemankha Kalukha came to be arrested by Kholapuri Gate Police Station, Amravati on 7-7-1993 for the offence punishable under...

Uni Deritend 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. 50,523/-, and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.2. The duty has been demanded, and penalty imposed, on the finding of the authorities that the applicant was not entitled to take modvat credit of duty paid on switches and other electrical items which were utilised by a electrical contractor carrying out work in its factory.3. While the representative of the applicant emphasises the delay by the department in disposing of its application for credit under Sub rule (3) of Rule 57T, that is not the ground on which credit has been denied. It has been denied on the ground that the provisions of rule and the trade notice issued in this regard has not been complied with.The contention that the trade notice is not valid in law because it is issued by the Additional Commissioner, whereas Sub rule (3) of Rule 57T specifies the Commissioner to lay down the condition requires examination. Prima facie , however, I am not prepared to accept that the ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Sun Earth Ceramics Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT1011Tri(Mum.)bai

2. Appeal taken up for disposal with the consent of the departmental representative, after condoning the delay of 14 days in its filing.3. The notice issued to the respondent proposed to recover modvat credit that it had taken compressors, condenser and solenoid valve, used for air conditioning on the ground that the goods were excluded from the purview of capital goods as specified in Rule 57Q. A penalty was also proposed. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the Notice. The Assessee appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed order disposing of a batch of appeals which he said had a common issue. He said that the goods were capital goods as specified in the Rules and therefore credit could rightly be taken.Hence this appeal by the Commissioner.4. Entry number 2 of Table to Rule 57Q specified all goods falling under Chapter 84 to be capital goods, other than those specified in that Entry. Among the exclusions are compressors falling under Heading 84.14, exp...

Dynamic Global Link Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT583Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner finding that the processed pulses rendered for export by the appellant were liable to confiscation under Clause (d) of Section 113 of the Act, and permitting to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 2.50 lakhs.2. The departmental representative agrees that the export of moong dal, which is under consideration, was not prohibited or restricted. It did not require a licence from any authority of government. Nor does the commissioner find this to be the requirement. He finds the export to be unauthorised only for the reason that the applicant sought to export the goods, as in fulfilment of the obligation required for an advance licence, contrary to a condition subject to which the licence was issued, that import must take it before export can be made.3. If the export was not in accordance with the conditions specified in that licence, the Commissioner would be justified in concluding, as he has, that the export could not be counted t...

D.S. Kothari Hospital and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Customs Acc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(79)ECC667

1. D.S. Kothari Hospital, Mumbai, imported two consignments of medical equipment, consisting of gastro fibrescope with accessories and fibre optic endoscope with accessories in 1991 and August, 1993. The hospital claimed and was granted benefit of Notification 64/88. The notification exempts medical equipment from payment of duty subject to conditions prescribed therein. Consequent upon reports of vide spread misuse of the notification, a committee referred to as the Rosha Committee was appointed on the orders of the Supreme Court to enquire into various aspects of the matter. The Committee by its letter dated 7.4.1998 requested the Commissioner of Customs to institute an enquiry regarding fulfilment by the appellant the conditions subject to which the exemption was granted to it. Enquiries were taken up by the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, through which the goods are imported. In the course of enquiry the hospital submitted a statement of patients treated by it for the ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Century Rayon

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the respondent was entitled to be granted permission under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 57F for sending craft paper to job worker for conversion into boxes, which it required for packing the yarn that it manufactured.2. The provisions of law requiring such permission are no longer in force. The respondent, at the present time, does not require such permission. Commissioner (Appeals) allowing or denying such permission would not be relevant for either side. However, I not that, in any event, the Commissioner (Appeals) order is correct. She has rightly applied the ratio of the decision of the Madras High Court in Ponds (India) Ltd v. CCE 1993 (63) ELT 3 on the identical issue. While the department's appeal talks at length what the intermediate product is, it does not even seek to answer this point....

Parkson Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeal admitted and taken up for disposal, with the consent of both sides.2. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant was correct in taking modvat credit in July 1994 of the duty paid on gate passes issued prior to 30.3.1994. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the provisions of notification 16/94 resulted in such gate passes ceasing to be valid on 30.6.1994 and hence credit could not be taken by the assessee.Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CCE (appeal 2584-85/96), going by an earlier decision of the Tribunal, that these gate passes were valid even after 30.6.1994. The ratio of that decision would apply to the fact of this case....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Steelage Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondent to this appeal received six years after it first cleared them on payment of duty, a consignment of steel cabinets stated to be for repairs. The first proviso under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 173H requires that these goods are brought into the factory for such purposes as specified in sub rule within a period of one year from the date of their initial removal from the factory or warehouse or within the period of warranty or guarantee provided for the goods by the manufacturer, whichever is greater. The second proviso under this sub rule empowers the Commissioner (earlier the Collector), on sufficient cause being shown, to extend this period. The goods were received by the respondent sometime in May, 1992. It wrote a letter to the Collector in the month asking for extension of the period. The Collector advise it to approach the Assistant Collector. The respondent did not approach the Assistant Collector. It is contended that it did not receive the letter. The respondent remi...