Mumbai Court July 2002 Judgments

Gaurav Agro Plast (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(105)LC523Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides on the application for waiver pre-deposit of the duty confirmed we find that the issue involved having already been settled the appeals themselves could be disposed off. We do so on granting the prayer for waiver.2. These three appeals arise out of the common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The issue here is whether reduction claimed on account of cash discount was available to the assessee irrespective of the fact that some of the customers had availed of the same or not. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the Tribunal's decision in the case of Stallion Shox Ltd. v. CCE where it was held that such discount was admissible even where it was not passed on to all the buyers. He, however, followed the Bombay High Court Judgment in the case of Hindustan Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI 1994 (52) ECR 553 (Bombay).In this only that portion of the cash discount was permitted which had actually been off by the customers.3. We find that the Tribunal and the High Cour...

Pandurang Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)464; II(2003)DMC244

R.K. Batta, J.1. The appellant was tried for subjecting his wife Rekha with cruelty as also her murder Under Sections 498-A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In support of the said charges, the prosecution had examined ten witnesses. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 10.1.1997 found the appellant guilty of both the charges. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment as also fine of Rs. 5$0/-, in default R.I. for six months. He has also been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 300/-, in default R.I. for three months Under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The appellant was given benefit of period of detention which was set-off Under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant challenges his conviction and sentences in this appeal.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant had married the deceased, who was divorcee. After marriage, the appellant started...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Lahu Laxman Pabale and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)400; 2003CriLJ1174

A.S. Aguiar, J.1. By this appeal under Section 378(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the State of Maharashtra has impugned the judgment and order dated 4th February. 1986 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 16 of 1985 acquitting all the accused persons of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 449, 427 read with Sections 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case, which is elaborately set out in the judgment at paragraph Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 16, in short, is as under :There were disputes between the residents of Pabalewadi on one hand and Kachare family on other hand over the use of well belonging to one Hinge, located in the Pabalewadi which is the only source of potable water for the residents of the Wadi. These differences culminated in segregation of Keru Kachare and his family members by other residents of Pabalewadi who prevented Keru Kachare and his family members from taking water from the said well. This often le...

Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. Siddharth Overseas

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT389Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondent imported 1500 pieces of calculators, 10 digits, Citizen-Brand, Model No. CT-500. Invoice of the Hong Kong suppliers declared the value at US $ 1.65 per piece (C&F). The container of the goods indicated their Chinese origin. There was a contemporary import of calculators of the same brand at the rate of US $ 3.36 per piece FOB (US $ 4.0560 CIF). The proposal was made for loading of the value. The importers waived issue of a written notice but requested for personal hearing. After hearing the importers the Additional Commissioner passed order enhancing the value. He also confiscated the goods for mis-declaration permitting redemption on payment of fine. He also imposed penalty. The importers then filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the lower order directing consequential benefit.The Revenue have appealed against this order.2. Shri Virag Gupta, D.R., argued the appeal. The respondent were represented by Shri N.D. George, Advocate.3. Shri George cla...

Multimedia Frontiers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of various kinds of CD ROM's that the appellant manufactured. It has claimed classification under sub-heading 20 of Heading 85.24 of the tariff. Show cause notice proposed to classify them in sub-heading 90 of the same heading. The Assistant Commissioner whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), accepted the proposal in the notice demanding duty consequentially required. The Assistant Commissioner's order imposing penalty has been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal.1. Heading 85.24 and the relevant sub-headings, as this stood at the relevant time, are reproduced below:- Records, tapes and other recorded media for sound or other similarly recorded phenomena, including matrices and masters for the production of records, but excluding products of Chapter 37.2. The reason that the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) advanced for classifying the goods in sub-...

Khan Carpets Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventing), Mumbai, confirming the liability of the appellant to duty of Rs. 12,95,257/-, imposing a penalty on it of Rs. 2 lakhs under Section 112 of the Act, and ordering confiscation under Clause (d) of Section 111 of four consignments of formic acid imported by the appellant but permitting them to be redeemed on payment of fine.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented. By a telegram it has sought adjournment on the ground that the manager, who is conversant with the case, is till.3. The matter was adjourned at the request of the appellant earlier on the following occasions: 4. If the manager was ill for three months, as would be evident from the above, there would be evidence to support his hospitalisation. The ground as given seeking for adjournment does not impel us to grant on the claim that it made. We therefore decline to adjourn. We have read the memorandum of appeal and other relevant papers and also he...

Municipal Council Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR171; (2003)1BOMLR445; 2002(4)MhLj737

A.B. Naik, J. 1. As the law and facts in both the petitions are identical, we propose to dispose of both the petitions by this common judgment.2. These writ petitions are filed by the petitioner i.e. Municipal Council, Jalna for the following relief:'A) By issuing the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction of like nature to the reference Court to hear and decide the reference after giving opportunity to lead evidence and opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.B) By issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction of like nature, the provision to Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act be quashed being violative of the provisions of Constitution of India and be held that the acquiring body is having right to file reference or appeal under Section 54.C) By issuing an appropriate writ or order or direction it be ordered that the acquiring body has independent and district right of appeal under Section 54 of the Acquisition Act being person interest...

Shiv Builders and ors. Vs. State Bank of India

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR97; 2002(6)BomCR742; 2002(4)MhLj826

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. This First Appeal is directed against a Judgment and Order dated 11th October, 2000, of the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur. By the impugned judgment and order, the suit filed by the respondent-bank for the recovery of its outstanding dues, has been decreed. The appellants are original defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to the suit. The Trial Court while decreeing the suit has directed all the 5 defendants to the suit, including the appellants, to jointly and severally pay a total amount of Rs. 6,22,133.85 along with future interest @ 16.5% p.a. from the date of suit until payment. While referring to the dale of institution of the suit in clause 2 of the operative order, the learned Trial Judge has referred to the date as 27th February, 1995. Both the learned counsel are agreed that this is an inadvertent typographical error and the correct date from which interest would have to be paid, as the date of institution of the suit is 27th February, 1998. The...

Surjit Singh Gyansingh Aurora Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)370; 2003(1)MhLj415

V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1. Through these appeals, the appellants are challenging the common judgment and order dated 26th February 1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Brihanmumbai in sessions Case No. 1271 of 1992 and sessions case No. 292/95. By the said judgment and order, they have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of Anand Dadu Waghmare and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- i. d. R. I. for 1 month.The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 247 of 1997 is original accused No. 1 and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 1997 is original accused No. 3. For the sake of convenience they shall be referred as accused No. 1 and accused No. 3 respectively.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as under:One Anand Dadu Waghmare (deceased) was residing at Room No. 1 Sunkabai Chawl, Karve Nagar, Vikkroli along with his family. On 26-3-1992 at...

M.A. Shrimankar Vs. A.P. Enterprises and S.J. Ajbani

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR445; 2003(1)MhLj736

D.G. Karnik, J.1. This Chamber summons is taken out by Sanjay Jivanlal Ajbani the applicant herein who was inducted as a tenant in premises bearing room No. 8, German Silver Building No. 16/20, 2nd Bhoiwada Lane, Mumbai-2 (hereinafter referred to as the said premises) by Arvind Nemchand Vakilwala and others (hereinafter referred to as Vakilwala) who was the landlord of the said premises, for vacating the attachment and removal of the seal put by the Sheriff of Bombay on the said premises in Execution Petition No. 426 of 1999 in execution of a decree passed in favour of Mukundrai Amrutlal Shrimankar (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) in Summary Suit No. 4113 of 1997.2. None of the parties have chosen to adduce any evidence and the learned counsel for the applicant and the plaintiff have argued the matter on the basis of affidavits filed on record. The facts which are necessary for the purpose of decision are stated below :3. The plaintiff filed a suit bearing Summary Suit No. 41...