Mumbai Court December 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Mahindra Engineering and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT395Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is a Revenue's appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who held that self amalgamating tapes and semi conducting tapes imported under two bills of entry are classifiable under chapter sub-heading 4005.10 of the schedule to the Customs Tariff Act and are therefore freely importable. He rejected the lower authority's contention that they are classifiable under sub-heading 4005.91. Goods covered under 4005.91 are restricted under the import policy as it existed then. The lower authority, after classifying the said goods under 4005.91, confiscated them and imposed a penalty as the importers did not possess a valid import licence.2. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the lower authority on the ground that it had been in an established practice to classify sheets compounded with carbon black under sub- heading 4005.10; the imported sheets are actually used for high voltage cable joints; the order of the lower authority was not a s...

Al-sufiyan Exporters and 5 ors. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals are being disposed off by this common order as they arise from the same order of Commissioner.2. Appellants, in appeal No. C/1051 is the proprietary firm who are exporters of vegetables etc. to Middle East, in appeal No. C/1052 is the sole proprietor in person of the appellant firm in C/1051, in C/1053 is the owner of the vessel "MSV Khwaja Bandhe Nawaj CDR-196", in C/1054 in the power of attorney holder of the owner of the vessel; in C/1055 is the Tindel i.e. Master of the vessel; in C/1056 in the Custom House Agent. The proprietor of the exporting firm and one Dinesh Vyas (vessel broker and chastener) chartered the vessel Kwaja Bandhe Nawaj CDR-19(herein after referred to as vessel) for export of onion and vegetables from Port of Mundra Gujarat to Dubai. Amongst other goods a shipping bill was filed for export of 70 metric tons of onions, by the power of attorney holder (one Ashwin Magithiya) the No Objection Certificate (i.e. NOC) required for exporting onions was ...

Deepak Shriram Tirke Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR143; 2004(5)BomCR837; 2004(1)MhLj444

B. R. Gavai, J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for a writ of mandamus, to declare the election programme dated 11-3-2002, published by the Collector, Washim for the election to the managing committee of Shri Balaji Sahakari Sut Girni Maryadit, Risod, to be illegal and bad in law, being violative of statutory mandate of Section 73-B of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred as the 'said Act'). The petitioner further prays for a direction to the Collector, Washim, to hold the elections afresh by including four additional seats as prescribed thereunder.2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the filing of the present petition are as under.3. The tenure of the nominated board of the respondent No. 4, Shri Balaji Sahakari Sut Girni Maryadit, Risod (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Society') came to an end on 24-3-2001. It appears that, there was certain litigation in this Court, with regard to appointment of an administrator, o...

Narendra H. Khurana and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Police and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004CriLJ3393; 2004(2)MhLj72

P.V. Kakade, J. 1. This proceeding has come to us for adjudication by way of reference made by the learned Single Judge (S. S. Parkar, J.) by the order dated 19-9-2000 wherein he held the question which arose in the said petition was of great and general importance and, therefore, it was desirable that it should be placed for hearing before a larger Bench. The learned Single Judge also raised a question for consideration for this larger Bench and directed the matter be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for referring it to a larger Bench and that is how we are seized with this matter.2. We have heard for Shri A. G. Sabnis with Shri S. P. Dalal for the petitioners and Shri P. Janardhanan, Addl. Advocate General with Smt. P. H. Kantharia, A.P.P. for the State.3. By this petition, the petitioners sought quashing of the F.I.R. No. 206 of 1999 dated 7-7-1999 and all proceedings in Criminal Case No. 18/P/2000 pending in the Metropolitan Magistrate's 37th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai for...

Garware Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2004)BC54; 2004(5)BomCR891; [2004]120CompCas315(Bom); (2004)1CompLJ350(Bom); 2004(2)MhLj707; [2004]55SCL706(Bom)

A.P. Shah, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of the two orders passed by the respondent No. 1 -- Board for Industrial and Financial Re-construction, hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'. The Board has rejected the two references made by the petitioner company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', solely on the ground of limitation. It was held by the Board that Section 5 and other provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, are not applicable to reference made to the Board under Section 15 of the Act since the Board is not a court and, therefore, the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act read with Section 23 of the said Act are not applicable to the proceedings before the Board. The Board in its order dated 28 July, 2003, has also observed that any future reference also will not be maintainable since the earlier references are held to be time barred.2. The facts which give r...

Krushna Ganpat Duhijod Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR780; 2004(4)BomCR177; [2004(101)FLR479]; 2004(2)MhLj844

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution petitioner challenges the order passed by respondent No. 2 dated 29-11-1995 (Exh. Q) terminating his services during probationary period.2. The petitioner passed his Bachelor of. Veterinary Science Examination in 1974. After having worked in several capacities with Indian Agro Industries Foundation, Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Maharashtra and with Co-operative Milk Producer's Society, he came to be appointed as Farm Manager by respondent No. 2 by order dated 9-3-1990. He joined the said post on 4th March, 1990 at Gokhale Nagar, Pune on basic salary of Rs. 600/- per month. It is his case that he was appointed on probation for a period of six months only commencing from the date of his joining the service of respondent No. 2.3. Respondent No. 2 is undertaking of Government of Maharashtra under the control of respondent No. 1. It is a State Instrumentality, according to petitioner, it i...

Smt. Zaibunnisa Muttalib Ali Khansonde Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Th ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)106BOMLR757

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Mr. Khan for the Petitioner and Mr. Salpute, Central Government Counsel, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Mhaispurkar, A.P.P. appears for respondent No. 4.2. This petition seeks to challenge the order dated 25th January, 1996 passed by respondent No. 2 detaining the petitioner under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'P.I.T.N.D.P.S. Act' for short). The petition is filed by the wife of the detenu. The petitioner was arrested at the Mumbai Airport on 28th June, 1995 on way to Canada. It was alleged against him that he was a conduit for dealing in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. When he was in judicial custody after this arrest, the impugned order dated 25th January, 1996 came to be passed under Section 3(1) of the P.I.T.N.D.P.S. Act which was served on the petitioner on 30th January, 1996. The petitioner all throughout remained in custody during this per...

Shri Vijay Ramchandra Angre Vs. Shri S.M. Shangari and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)106BOMLR740

S.S. Parkar, J.1. This petition has been filed challenging the detention order issued by respondent No. 1 detaining the petitioner under the provisions of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, hereinafter referred to as M.P.D.A. Act.2. The detention order was passed on 24.12.2002 under Section 3 of the M.P.D.A. Act to prevent the petitioner from carrying on dangerous activities. The said order of detention was served on the petitioner on 27.12.2002 and he was taken into custody. At the time of his detention the petitioner was served with the order of detention, the grounds of detention and the documents relied on by the detaining authority. Though the order of detention has been challenged on number of grounds this petition can be allowed on the ground taken in ground 9(I) of the petition. In the said ground it is pointed out that though the in-camera statements of two witnesses have been served along with th...

Rajesh S/O Ramchand Wadhwani Vs. Nirmalabai Wd/O Gyaniram Bhonde and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR494; (2004)106BOMLR960

S.T. Kharche, J.1. Heard.2. This appeal arises out of the order passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.3. In view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. Jalgaon v. Bapu Onkar Chaudhary : 2004(3)BomCR186 the appeal against the order passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable and as such the present appeal stands dismissed with no costs....

Hindustan Trading Corp. and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(113)LC224Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Since the facts of all the above three appeals are same and the issues involved are also same, these appeals are being disposed by this common order.2. All the three assessee's are engaged in manufacturing of diesel oil engine and centrifugal pump sets falling under chapter 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. For manufacturing of centrifugal pump sets, they are purchasing centrifugal pump from the open market and are coupling the same on a common base plate along with the diesel oil engine manufactured within the factory. The department was of the view that the diesel oil engine is exempt under Notfn. No.8/96, 4/97 and similar other notifications, when used in manufacturing of centrifugal pump sets and therefore, invoked the provisions of Rule 57CC. The diesel oil engine does not get any exemption under the notifications referred and therefore, the provisions of Rule 57CC are not applicable. After considering these facts, this Hon. Bench had allowed unconditi...