Mumbai Court November 2003 Judgments

Gajanan Eknath MaraThe Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004CriLJ987

ORDER1. Rule returnable forthwith.2. Heard Mr. Jaiswal, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Loney, learned A. P. P. for State.3. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 6-5-2003 passed by the competent authority whereby the request of furlough leave made by the petitioner was rejected in view of Sub-rule (4) Rule 4 of Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is nothing to show that the release of the prisoner on furlough leave could result in breach of public peace and tranquillity. It is contended that the adverse police report dated 1-4-2003 was submitted, fn view of the functions of the Dr. Ambedkar Jayanti as well as Mahavir Jayanti which were scheduled to take place at the relevant time and therefore the opinion was expressed by the police that there was likelihood of breach of peace and tranquillity. However, that situation no more exist and therefore, that cannot be a ground now to reject the reque...

Vimalbai Vs. Divisional Manager

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2004)ACC796; 2004(3)ALLMR465

S.T. Kharche, J.1. Heard. This appeal can be disposed of at the admission stage as the short question involved in the appeal is regarding existence of the employer and employee relationship between the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.1.1999 passed by the learned joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gadchiroli in Workmen's Compensation Case No. 1/97 rejecting the claim of the appellants for grant of compensation on Account of death of Jairam Joga Veladi.3. It is not in dispute that Jairam Joga Veladi died as a result of Accident, when he was engaged in loading of bamboos in truck No. MTG 9511. The appellants are the legal heir of Jairam Joga Veladi and their application seeking compensation was rejected on the sole ground that there was no employer and employee relationship in existence.,4. Mr. Anthoney, the learned Counsel for the appellants contended that though Jairam Joga Veladi was working as a casual labour on the truck, his legal heirs would be ent...

Krishna Laxman Bhatkar (Since Deceased by Lrs) and Etc. Vs. Vithal Gan ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom418; 2004(1)ALLMR406; 2004(3)BomCR835

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard counsel for the appellants and the respondent.2. This second Appeal is filed by the original defendant. The Plaintiff had filed a suit against him for getting possession of the half of the land vide Suit No. 10 of 1985 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ratnagiri. This suit was decreed with costs and the defendant was directed to deliver possession. The defendant preferred appeal against the said judgment and decree before the District Judge, Ratnagiri. His appeal was dismissed and the decree of the trial Court was confirmed, hence this second Appeal.3. At the time of admission of this appeal ground Nos. 24 and 25 which appear to have been added were considered grounds involving substantial questions of law. Thereafter Justice Chitre, passed an order dated 18-3-2002 found that no substantial questions of law were formulated, he therefore formulated three questions as substantial questions of law. They are as under :1. Whether in the facts and circumstan...

Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Mahyco Seeds Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(182)ELT163(Bom)

B.B. Vagyani, J.1. Heard.2. The judgment, dated 23-8-2002 passed by the CEGAT in appeal filed by the respondent allowing the appeal, is the subject-matter of challenge of this Reference Application filed by the applicant.3. The relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of this Reference Application are as under:The respondent is engaged in manufacture of hybrid seeds. According to the applicant, the respondent is also engaged in manufacturing of cotton cloth bags. The hybrid seed is the non-excisable product whereas the cotton cloth bags are excisable product under Chapter Heading No. 6305.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. According to the department, the respondent uses to purchase cotton cloth and undertakes printing of cotton cloth. This cotton cloth is cut to the specified size of bags. The printed and cut cloth is then supplied for the purpose of stitching, as per the specifications supplied by the respondent. According to the department, the entire process is monitored ...

Navpad Textile Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Navpad Textile Industries Ltd, Surat is a 100% export oriented unit licensed for the manufacture of polyester textured yarn. A visit to the premises of the unit by the Central Excise officers and the descripancies that they found therein led to the issue of a notice issued to it. The notice demanded duty on quantities of polyester textured yarn, and rejects and waste of such yarn manufactured by the appellant and cleared to various buyers in the domestic tariff area, without payment of duty and on the quantity of untextured polyester yarn, the manufacture's raw materials which it had purchased from indegenuous buyers exempted from duty in terms of notification 8/97 used in the manfuacture of the domestically cleared textured yarn.Penalty was also sought to be imposed on the manufacturer and on Ketan Shah, its director.2. The manufacturer and its director contended in the reply to the notice that in terms of the provisions of the import policy, the manufacturer was entitled to sale ...

Crosslink Ship Breakers Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 7,94,269/-arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The demand has been confirmed on fuel oil, bunkers and foodstuff. The Deputy Commissioner has applied paragraph 2(d) of the Circular No.37/96-Cus dated 03/07/1996, according to which remaining fuel and oil (other than that contained in the vessel's machinery and engines) and other ship stores including drink and foodstuffs are separately classifiable in their own appropriate heading. Differential duty amount has not been quantified by the Deputy Commissioner, but in the appeal along with the pre-deposit waiver application before the Commissioner (Appeals), the applicants calculated the duty payable by them as a result of the Deputy Commissioner's order to be Rs. 7,94,269/-. The application for waiver was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals); for non-compliance with his direction for deposit he dismissed the appeal of the importer/applicant. Hence this application....

Piramal Spinning and Weaving Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT484Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant was engaged in doubling of yam that it manufactured in its factory. Cleared such doubled yarn without payment of duty. Notice issued to it proposed to demand duty on such doubled yarn on the ground that doubling is a process of manufacture specified in note 4 to chapter 55 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the finding of the Deputy Commissioner, that the appellant was liable to pay duty on such doubled yarn since doubling was a process deemed to be manufacture specified in Note 3 to chapter 54 and note 4 to chapter 55 of the tariff.2. The counsel for the appellant raises a contention before us that if the duty is payable on the doubled yarn, credit of the duty paid on the single yarn should be available for discharging that duty. This point, which was raised before the Commissioner (Appeals), was dismissed by him on the ground mat the appellant did not pay duty on the doubled yarn despite knowing tha...

Trans Shipping Service Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT484Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai has revoked the licence of the appellant, who is a CHA, for a period of four years from the date of issue of his order. The revocation was ordered for the reason that CHA sublet his licence to one Govinddhar Pandey for a monetary consideration of Rs. 15,000/- p.m., and for the reason that CHA has not obtained authorisation letters from the clients, thereby violating Regulations 13 and 14 of the CHA Licensing Regulations, 1984.2. In view of the above the order of revocation is sustainable.However, noting that the CHA has been out of business since February, 2002, when the licence was suspended, we are of the view that loss of business till date is sufficient punishment and therefore order that the revocation shall stand terminated w.e.f. 31-17-2003 and that the CHA licence will be restored w.e.f. 1-1-2004....

Commissioner of Customs Vs. M.M.K. Jewellers and ors.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Gowri Shankar, Member (T) 1. Accepting the department's application, we modify the order, that in the first page of the Tribunal's order, the details of the number and date of the order impugned in the appeal as indicated below be added: LIST OF THE APPELLANTSSr.No.Name of the UnitFile No./Adjn.Order No./Appeal No.Commodity & Weight1M/s. Gemplus Jewellelry India Pvt. Ltd.S/14-5-26/95 P COMMR/CS/46/01 C/1146/2001-MUMGold 17402.240 GM2M/s. MMK JewellersS/14-5-16/95P COMMR/CS/36/01 C/1142/2001-MUMGold 2252.761 GMs3M/s. Ornamentations India Pvt. Ltd.S/14-5-21/95P COMMR/CS/57/01 C/1232/2001-MUMGold 2252.761 GMs4Fabrigem Creations Pvt. Ltd.S/14-5-19/95 P COMMR/CS/35/01 C/1056/2001-MUMGold 3000.000 GMs5M/s. Intergold (I) Ltd.S/14-5-3/97 P COMMR/CS/38/01 C/1065/2001-MUMPlatinum 5720.968 GMs6M/s. Shrenuj & Co. Ltd.S/14-5-11/95P COMMR/CS/55/01Gold 6292.780 GMsC/1066/2001-MUM7M/s. Inter Jewels (India) Ltd.S/14-5-17/95 P COMMR/CS/37/01 C/1013/2001-MUMGold8M/s. C.I. Jewels Pvt. Ltd.S/14-5-...

The Commissioner, Central Excise Vs. Bombay Neon Signs and Sign Crafts

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT102Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is a Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner of Central Excise's order dated 29.4.95. The facts are: M/s Bombay Neon Signs is a SSI unit, working under SS1 Notification 175/86 manufacturing illuminated Neon Signs (ch.9405) and non-illuminated neon sign (ch. 8311.00). It is a proprietary firm owned by one Lalit K.Soni situated in the same building is another firm M/s Sign Crafts owned by his wife engaged in similar activity enjoys exemption under Notification 11/88 (NT) as its turn over is below the exemption limit. A perfect set up for Central Excise officers' visit and investigation. They did and the allegations are: 4. Since M/s Sign Crafts is a dummy unit, its clearances are liable to be clubbed with the ones of M/s BNS for the purpose of calculating the exemption limit under 175/86.2. These allegations are based on some incriminating documents and some statements recorded during the course of investigation. They are: a) goods worth Rs. 9,000/- seized from the premises of...