Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002BomCR(Cri)746; (2002)2BOMLR492; 2002(2)MhLj867
R.K. Batta, J. 1. The appellant was tried for murder of Prakash Narayan Padavale under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as also for causing injuries on Mainabai under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution had in fact examined 9 witnesses in support of the said charges. By impugned judgment dated 31st December, 1998 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, has convicted the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him imprisonment for life. The appellant was also convicted for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo 3 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer R.I. for 7 days. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant challenges his conviction in this Appeal.2. The F.I.R. in this case was lodged by the appellant himself. The incident is reported to have taken place at 9.00 p.m. on 2nd July, 1998 and the appellant lodged the F....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(4)BomCR645
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged certain actions, including the action of acquisition of land by the Nagpur Improvement Trust on the ground mentioned in the petition. Identical petitions are filed by 14 more persons by nine more writ petitions. All of them complain of the same set of circumstances and raise identical questions of fact and law. In fact, all these petitions arise from out of one improvement scheme framed by the N.I.T., execution and implementation of which is assailed in all these petitions. The details of other petitions are mentioned in the schedule attached to this judgment, which will form part and parcel of this judgment. Since all these petitions raised identical questions of fact and law, all concerned parties agreed that all these petitions can be disposed of conveniently by a common argument and judgment. We, accordingly, have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners; learned Counsel for the N.I.T. and learned Counsel f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)LC881Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal has come up for hearing before me on the question of refund. The appellant mixes phenol formaldehyde and melamine formaldehyde to produce resins which fell under item 15A(1) of the then existing Schedule I to the Central Excise Act. The question involved is whether the mixing of phenol formaldehyde and melamine formaldehyde would amount to manufacture and the resultant product is marketable or not. The said issue was decided in favour of the appellants as reflected in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. etc. v. CCE, Civil Appeal No. 80 of 1988 [1995 (76) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.)]. When the matter was disposed of Rs. 63,201.60 was paid by the appellant before me to the department. It should be mentioned here that the amount was paid by an adjustment from the refund claim of the appellant pending before the adjudicating authorities. The question before me is that after the disposal of the case by the Supreme Court by its order dated 14-2-199...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)(144)ELT194Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal before him on limitation. In his order, the Commissioner finds that the appellant did not file an application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal of about two months in excess of the prescribed period of three months. Since that is the case, the Commissioner should have given an opportunity to the appellant to show cause why the application is not filed on the grounds of limitation. In point of fact the Commissioner records in his order the fact of the hearing by him of the representative of the appellant on merits, but does not record that they were informed that the appeal was delayed.3. Counsel for the appellant draws our attention to a letter dated 6-9-2001 addressed to the Commissioner (Appeals) in which there is a sentence "We also tried to file appeal but the same was not accepted since there is no appealable order." He says that the staff concerned in receiving the appeals in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)(151)ELT346Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These appeals are against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeals filed before him on the ground of limitation.2. After reading the papers and hearing the departmental representative, the applicant being absent and unrepresented despite notice, we have decided to take up the appeals themselves for disposal, after waiving deposit.3. In his orders, the Commissioner (Appeals) notes that nobody appeared for the hearing which was fixed on 28th August, 2001. The contention of the appellant is that the notice of hearing was not deceived by it. The appeals are silent as to why no one attended the three earlier hearings which, the Commissioner says, were fixed. On this ground alone, we might not have interfered. However, we note that the order in each case is stated to have been passed on 20th August, 2001. If that is so, the hearing that was fixed for 28th August, 2001 would be meaningless since the Commissioner had already passed the order.4. In the light of this co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)LC125Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the connecting rod and the crank-case manufactured by the respondent. In the classification list that it filed, in respect of these goods, it classified both of them under Heading 84.83 of the Tariff. Following issue of notice, the Asstt. Collector classified both these under Heading 84.09. On appeal from this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the classification that the assessee claimed. Hence this appeal.2. The departmental representative explains that the crankshaft is in the nature of transmission shaft used to convert the linear motion imparted to the connecting rod by the movement of the cylinder in the engine rod to rotary motion. The connecting rod itself is used, as its name suggest, to connect the piston to the crankshaft. It is therefore separate from and independent of the crankshaft. Heading 84.83 is specifically for transmission shafts and cranks and other goods mentioned therein and will ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)(144)ELT202Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Hagel Capsule Industries Ltd., the respondent to this appeal, was engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products on orders placed on it by Glaxo India Ltd. After manufacture, the respondent sent these drugs to the sales depot of Glaxo India Ltd. for sale therefrom by the latter. In the price list that it had filed for these goods, the respondent had indicated the price, including excise duty, at which Glaxo India Ltd. was to sell these goods at its depot to its dealers and applying the discount that Glaxo India Ltd. gave to its dealers as well as the excise duty payable, and arrived at the value for assessment in terms of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. Twelve notices issued to the respondent proposed to disallow the discount on the ground that it has not been offered by the manufacturer to the respondent, to its sole buyer, Glaxo India Ltd. In its reply to the notice, the respondent accepted that it was not passing on this discount. It pointed out that at the same time, that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)(161)ELT268Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This batch of applications covers 3 different adjudication orders captioned above in respect of 3 different assessees. The facts of the case and the allegations made in the show cause notices as well as the findings are common in the above orders in respect of the assessees. On hearing both the sides, we find that the appeals themselves could be taken up for disposal together in this single order. Both the sides agreeing, this was done after granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty indicated against each applicant:2. Name of the party Duty (in Rs.) Penalty Gupta Cranes & Storage 3,00,000 C.T. Jain 15,00,000 Emtee Poly Yarn 1,27,53,988 1,27,53,988 Lata Polyster Ltd. 51,57,899 51,57,899 R.H. Agarwal 5,00,000 A.No.E/1813/01 3,70,000 A. No. E/1923/01 1,00,000 3. Although, the facts are common we will take one order as illustrative of the facts i.e. Order-in-Original No. 10 of 2001 dated 26-2-01 issued on 5-3-2001.4. M/s. Emtee Poly Yarn Ltd. (M/s. EPY) were engaged in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(5)BomCR177
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society. It is aggrieved by the impugned order of the Minister for Co-operation, State of Maharashtra. By the impugned order dated 3rd January, 2002, the Minister was pleased to cancel the orders dated 17th October, 2001 and 3rd November 1999 passed respectively by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and the Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mumbai by which orders the petitioner society was allowed to be registered as Co-operative Housing Society under section 9 read with sections 4 and 6 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioner along with its 28 members had submitted a proposal for registration of the petitioner society. The application for the registration complied with all the prescribed requirements and, therefore, by his order dated 3rd November, 1999, the Deputy Registrar had issued registration certificate to the petitioner s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002BomCR(Cri)490; (2002)104BOMLR739
A.S. Aguiar, J.1. Rule. Shri Thali waives service on behalf of the respondent. By consent of the learned Advocates taken up for hearing forthwith.2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 6.6.2001 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Revision Petition No. 66/2000 arising out of the order dated 3.11.2000 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Panaji on Application Exhibit 26 in cases No. 56 and 57/1997. The application Exhibit 26 was filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for adding Shri Madhusudhan Bhangui as accused in the said cases. By order dated 3.11.2000, the learned J.M.F.C. dismissed the said application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.3. Briefly, a F.I.R. was registered under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and 5(1)(d), read with 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 against one Shri. M.S. Bhangui and one Vijay Nanalal, the petitioner herein. After investigation, two charge-sheets were filed in th...
Tag this Judgment!