Mumbai Court January 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Maharashtra Insecticides Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in which he has held that the process undertaken by Maharashtra Insecticides Ltd., the respondent to this appeal, of dilution of pesticides into formulation does not amount to manufacture. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Kissan Chemicals v. UOI 1996 (14) RLT 629 and the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Indichem and Ors. v. UOI 1996 (14) RLT 820.2. After hearing the departmental representative, the respondent being absent and unrepresented, we are unable to interfere.3. The appeal merely repeats the factor that the Commissioner (Appeals) has already considered the circular that has been issued by the Board under Section 37B of the Act that the process undertaken by the respondent amounts to manufacture. This view has already been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) who noted that the circular has been struck down by the Delhi and Gujarat High Courts in that decisions c...

Blue Blends (India) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Canara Bank and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2004)BC250

1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellant/original defendants being aggrieved by the order dated 4.6.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai on Exh. No. 16 in Original Application No. 2518/2000. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer, directed to implement the order passed on 7.2.2001, which required the appellants to disclose their assets on affidavit, when the appellant No. 1 Company namely M/s. Blue Blends (India) Limited was before BIFR.2. I have heard all the Advocates at length and also have gone through the proceedings including the impugned order and in my opinion, the learned Presiding Officer was not justified in directing the appellants to disclose their assets on oath, when the appellant No. 1 company was before BIFR. The learned Presiding Officer, however, has stayed further proceedings of the Original Application, but all the same insisted that affidavit disclosing their assets be filed and warned of taking act...

Smt. Chhabubai Shankar Bhande, Since Deceased by Her Heirs: Nivrutti S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR235; 2003(2)BomCR475; 2003(2)MhLj925

S.A. Bobde, J.1. This petition is by the heirs of the original tenant Chhabubai Shankar Bhande. They have challenged the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by which the Tribunal has held that the transfer of the land in question, by the original landlord i.e. original respondent No. 2 Pandurang Balwant Bhutkar is not in contravention of Section 37 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has held that the landlord has ceased to use the land for the purpose for which he had obtained possession within a period of 12 years from the date on which he took possession.2. The petitioner Chhabubai Bhande now deceased is the wife of the former tenant of agricultural land bearing survey No. 80/2-A/1, admeasuring 2 acres 20 gunthas, situate at village Bhongali, taluka Bhor, dist. Pune. The possession of the land was resumed by the former landlord Balu Pandharinath under Section 31 read with Section 29 of ...

Shri Chandrakant Dhondiba Kolavale, Chief Promoter, Proposed Dipak Aba ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR562; 2003(4)BomCR649; 2003(2)MhLj635

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned Advocate for the parties,Perused the record. Rule. By consent rule is madereturnable forthwith.2. The petitioner challenges orders dated27.11.2001, 31.1.2002 and 7.2.2002 passed by the lowerauthorities acting under the provisions of theMaharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960,hereinafter called as 'the said Act', rejecting theapplication filed by the petitioner for registrationof the proposed Society, viz. Dipak Aba VikasKaryakari Sahakari Society Ltd., Ajnale, TalukaSangola, District Solapur.3. The facts in brief are that the petitionerbeing an agriculturist, with the help of some of thevillagers, who are also agriculturists from the villageof Kolavale, proposed to form Vividh KaryakariSahakari Society in the said village for catering theneeds of agriculturists and as Chief Promoter of thesaid proposed society applied for the registrationthereof. The request for registration was turned downby the respondent No. 4, without even giving anopport...

Anil Lala Saundade Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)820; 2003(2)MhLj403

ORDERS.S. Parkar, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the convict seekingrelease from the prison on the ground that the has undergoneactual imprisonment of more than 14 years for the offence ofmurder punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The petitionhas been field in the following circumstances.2. The petitioner was convicted on 16.4.83 in SessionCase No. 267/82 and was sentenced to life imprisonment.While undergoing sentence in Yerawada Open Prison, heescaped from the lawful custody on 24.5.98 and wasthereafter rearrested on 9.8.98. Since he had escaped fromlawful custody, he was prosecuted under Section 224 of IPCand sentenced to one year imprisonment which was to runconsecutively after he undergoes life imprisonment. For thesentence of life imprisonment, the convict was put in thecategory under which he had to undergo sentence for a totalperiod of 28 years, of course, with remissions. The prisonauthorities took disciplinary action against the prisonerunder Rule 22(2) of the Maharas...

Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited Vs. Union of India (Uo ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)BomCR129; (2003)4BOMLR129; 2003(89)ECC53; 2003(159)ELT129(Bom); 2003(2)MhLj37

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. In this petition, the petitioners have inter alia challenged the validity of provision of Rule 57H(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as well as the validity of order dated 3-10-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, insofar as it pertains to rejecting the claim of the petitioners for transfer of the accumulated credits on inputs such as oils and coolants, after the introduction of the MODVAT scheme on 1st June, 1986,2. The petitioners manufacture motor vehicles, machines etc. The petitioner, at the relevant time, had two factories one situated at Pimpri and another at Chinchwad.3. Notification No. 201/79 CE dated 4th June, 1979, issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under. Sub-rule 1 of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 gave exemption to all excisable goods on which the inputs, components, parts, raw materials falling under the erstwhile Tariff Item 68 had been used, from so much of the duty paid on such in...

Kopran Ltd., S.R. Petty and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Kopran Ltd., the assessee, was, at the relevant time, engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products - ampicillin trihydrate, amoxycillin trihydrate and cloxacillin sodium. The maximum retail price fixed for these three products was specified in the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1987. The assessee therefore declare the value for assessment of these goods for the period 1.4.1990 to 31.3.1992 at such prices that were fixed in terms of notification.2. Notice issued to the assessee subsequently alleged that it actually recovered from its buyers for sale of the goods amount in excess of the maximum price fixed and proposed to apply actual sale price as the assessable value. It also proposed penalty on the appellant and on its two employees S.R. Petty and Sellappan, for the evasion of duty. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner in which he confirms the liability to duty and penalty on the assessee and its two employees.3. The common representative of the appellants co...

Chitralekha R. Gupta and ors. Vs. the Dhanlakshmi Bank Ltd. and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2004)BC42

1. These two Misc. Appeals are filed by the appellants/original defendants being aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai on Exh.Nos. 50 and 52 in Original Application No. 11/2002. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellants for dismissal of the Original Application and directed the defendants to file written statement on or before 14.1.2003. Being aggrieved, the present Misc. Appeals are filed.2. I have heard Mr. Shah for the appellants and Mr. Kaisar Merchant for the respondents. I have also gone through the proceedings, including the impugned order and in my opinion; the impugned order is correctly passed by the learned Presiding Officer.The appellants were arraigned as defendants in the Original Application in their status as guarantors to the loan transaction between the applicant Bank and M/s. Lloyds Finance Ltd. respondent No. 2. The loan was adm...

Narendra Jagannath Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR803; 2003(3)BomCR54; 2003(2)MhLj168

S.A. Bobde, J.1. This petition is by the owners of agricultural land in question. They challenge the order of the Additional Commissioner under the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 i.e. Act No. 14 of 1975 by which the Additional Commissioner has rendered a finding contrary to the findings rendered under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act in an order from which no appeal is filed and which has become final.2. The petitioner is the landlord, being owner of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 60/4 of Village Bavade, Tal. Dahanu. Apparently the lands were in possession of one Jivan Vithu Habali, the predecessor in interest of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The said Jivan died in the year 1968. Since record of rights in form VII-XII showed him as a tenant for the period from 1959-60 to 1974-75 proceedings under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, the 'Bombay Tenancy Act' for short were commenced. On 5th December, 1979 those p...

Godrej Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT626Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri R. Ravindran, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted that the issue involved is the valuation of the intermediary product viz. soaps noodles, which comes into existence in the process of manufacture of finished soaps. Such soap noodles were cleared by the applicants to job workers who in turn took credit of duty paid on noodles and paid excise duty on the full value of the soaps. As the goods at all times belonged to the applicants, it is the applicants who had borne the duty on the noodles as well as the duty on finished products. The valuation of soap noodles, since it was not sold was determined on the basis of cost construction method under the then Rule 6(b)(ii) of Valuation Rules.2. The Department took a view that during the period October, 1995 to November, 1999, the applicants did not value the soap noodles correctly even though there was some increase in the value of the finished products. The Show Cause Notices were issued. The first show ca...