Mumbai Court October 2002 Judgments

Jai-lax Process Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the liability to duty on the appellant of Rs. 15.50 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 24 lakhs. He has noted that the appellant, a textile processor, did not pay duty that was determined to be payable by it within the dates specified in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZQ.3. The contentions of the counsel for the appellant is limited to imposition of penalty. He does not dispute that duty was paid late, but contends that this took place because of financial difficulty that the appellant faced. The appellant was having short supply of raw material because of recession in the textile market. The position was exacerbated by the detention by the department of processed goods for failure to pay duty earlier. He further contends that the penalty imposable under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 96ZAQ cannot in any case increase the amount of duty that has been short paid within the appropriate time and therefore could not exceed Rs. 15.50 lak...

Commissioner of Customs, Airport Vs. Premier Automobiles Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both parties and taking note of the circumstances mentioned in the affidavit filed by the department, we restore the appeal.3. The question involved in this appeal is whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable to captive consumption of the capital goods. The issue has been settled by the Supreme court in the case of Union of India v. Solar Pesticide Pvt. Ltd. in 2000 (116) ELT 401 in favour of the department. The learned counsel for the assessee respondent pleaded that he will be able to satisfy the learned adjudicating authority about the passing of incidence of the duty.4. We feel that this is a reasonable request and therefore we set aside the impugned order and remand matter back to the Jurisdictional adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication in respect of the above question, in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in the above case.5. Appeal allowed and the matter remanded to the adjudicating authority....

Exide Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant before us is a manufacture of electric batteries. It is stated that about 55% of its production is either purchased by the governmental sector or original equipment manufactures and the price is determined by negotiation. The remaining is sold in wholesale. Of this remaining amount sales at the factory gate account for around 6%, the rest being sold from its depots. The sales from the depots are made to buyer who is described as wholesaler, there being only one in each state. In the Union Territory of Chandigarh, states of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Punjab.However, there are no wholesale in such cases. In these areas the sales are made to one Exide Products Ltd., the appellant's subsidiary. It is not disputed that the sales to the subsidiary are at the same price at which they are sold to the wholesale dealers of the other states. Of the total quantity sold in wholesale (excluding, as we have done, the clearances to origi...

Umesh Sharma, Managing Director, Aristo Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Ranji ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1522; 2002CriLJ4843

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. By these writ petitions under Article227 of the Constitution of India, original accusedNos.3 and 4 challenge the orders passed by learnedChief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad on 14.6.2002,in Criminal Case No. 80348/1997 (earlier CriminalCase No.11 of 1995) and Regular Criminal Case No.179of 1996 (earlier Criminal Case No.675 of 1994) belowExhibits 33 and 34 in the first matter and Exhibits23 and 24 in the second matter. By orders belowExhibits 33 and 23, in the respective criminalcases, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejectedthe applications of petitioners/accused Nos. 3 and 4requesting to recall the process issued against themon the ground that they were not incharge of thebusiness of the company, nor responsible to thecompany for conduct of the business. Since it wasadmitted position that accused Nos. 3 and 4 are theManaging Director and Director respectively of M/sAristo Pharmaceuticals Limited (for short, 'thecompany') (original accused No. 5), the learned C...

Changadeo Jayram Shinde and ors. Vs. Radhabai Balasaheb Shirke

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR575; 2003(2)BomCR601; (2003)1BOMLR861; 2003(1)MhLj480

S.A. Bobde, J.1. This petition is by the tenants against the judgment and order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, upholding the order of both the Courts below that the tenant is not entitled to purchase the land under Section 32F of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', from the respondent.2. The land in question i.e. gat Nos. 453 and 473 situate at village Babhulsar Kd., taluka Shirur, originally belonged to one Bhikubai Yeshwant Chavan. The original tenant was Dattatraya Jayaram Shinde, the father of the petitioners. Bhikubai expired sometime in the year 1971. It was only on 10-1-1980 that a mutation entry bearing No. 190 was effected. Under this mutation entry, Radhabai Shirke, the respondent herein, was recognised as Bhikubai's heir and owner of the land in question.3. On 8-6-1981 the petitioners submitted an application to the Addl. Tahsildar under Section 32F. According to the petitioners, in the course of these procee...

Yogesh Korani Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR122; 2003(159)ELT3(Bom); 2003(1)MhLj916

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench (CEGAT), Mumbai dated 11th March, 2002 insofar as it purports to confirm the penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/= levied upon the petitioner by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai under the order in original dated 11-9-1995.2. The facts relevant for deciding the issues raised in the present petition are as follows:3. Petitioner is a Proprietor of M/s Mahavir Export and Import Company and inter alia carries on business of buying and selling imported and indigenous goods on brokerage/commission/premium.4. M/s Choice Laboratories, a Partnership firm had obtained two advance licences from the Licensing authority which permitted them to import specified quantity of raw materials duty free with the corresponding export obligation. The said licences were with actual user conditions and could not be sold to third parties and the duty free goods impo...

Maroti S/O Undaraji Wankhede Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1531; 2003CriLJ778; 2003(1)MhLj900

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Mr. Patwardhan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sonare, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 2. The criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment and order, dated 4th February, 2002, passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, in Sessions Trial No. 152 of 1994, whereby the present appellant is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell is as follows :-- 3. The appellant-accused had started his brick kiln in the field of the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix-Ku. Sandhya, in the year 1994. Father of the prosecutrix, the complainant-Madhukar Mahadevrao Thakre, was working on that brick kiln of the accused. The accused, at the relevant time, was residing at the house of the complainant-Madhukar Mahadev Thakre. The accused some time prior to the incident of rape in question tried to outrage the modesty of prosecutri...

Karbhari S/O Marotirao Lad Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)MhLj416

B.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. The order dated 10-11-1994/26-12-1994 passed by the Agriculture Development Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed and the letter dated 23rd December, 1994, addressed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, to the Accountant General, Maharashtra State, Nagpur, have been assailed in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner was initially appointed under the Agriculture School at Ambajogai as an employee of the Zilla Parishad, Beed, and he worked on the said establishment from 22-8-1973 to 28-1-1975. He was deputed to the State Bank of Hyderabad branch at Beed for the period from 5-1-1974 to 10-1-1975. The Agriculture School at Ambajogai was detached from the Zilla Parishad and came to be attached to the Marathwada Agriculture University at Parbhani and, therefore, the petitioner was allotted to the Zilla Parishad service. 3. From 29-1-1975 to 3-12-1979 he proceeded on extraordinary leave and by order 1-12-1979, he came to be ...

Kisan Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2003)DMC759

R.K. Batta, J.1. The appellant was tried for the murder of his wife under Section 302 of I.P.C. The prosecution, in all, had examined 10 witnesses. The Trial Court by judgment dated 12.11.1997, which is the subject-matter of this appeal, held the appellant guilty under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced the appellant to undergo life imprisonment as also fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default R.I. for one month. The appellant was in detention in connection with this case from 4.11.1996, which was ordered to be set off under Section 428, Cr.P.C.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant and the deceased were married for about 22 years. On 3.11.1996 at about 2.00 p.m., the appellant was demanding money for liquor from his deceased wife, who was reluctant to give money, upon which, the appellant beat his wife and poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire, as a result of which, she suffered 93% burns. The incident was witnessed by Sushila, P.W. 6, who stays just opposite to ...

Crown Maritime Co. (i) Ltd. Vs. Econ Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2003Bom163; 2003(1)ALLMR717; 2003(1)ARBLR580(Bom); 2003(1)BomCR488; 2003(1)MhLj193

D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. In these proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a declaration is sought by the petitioner that the invocation of a Bank Guarantee by the first respondent on 11th September 2002 is not in accordance with the terms of the guarantee and is mala fide, fraudulent and unlawful. Besides, a permanent injunction restraining the Bank of India, the second respondent, from paying over the proceeds of the Bank Guarantee to the first respondent is sought. In the submissions urged before the Court, no case of fraud or irretrievable injustice has been pressed and the only contention is that the invocation is not in terms of the Bank Guarantee.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Petronet India Ltd., a Government Company had upon invitation of tenders, awarded a contract for the construction of an LNG terminal at Dahej to a consortium consisting of a foreign Company by the name of Ballast Nedam International (BNI) along with two other Compani...