Mumbai Court February 2003 Judgments

thermax Ltd., R.P. Pargaonkar and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Thermax Limited was, at the relevant time, engaged inter alia in the manufacture of boilers. The boilers that the appellant manufactured were either liable to duty or exempted form duty in terms of notification 205/88. Depending upon the capacity, the boilers are manufactured in one of the two divisions of the appellant's factory, the Energy System Division manufactured boilers with the capacity of more than 10 tons, the Process Heat Division manufactured boilers of smaller capacity. The appellant took modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of boilers. Rule 57CC provided that where a manufacturer takes credit of the duty paid on the inputs other than fuel used in or in relation to the manufacture of both exempted and dutiable final product, he shall pay the amount equal to eight per cent of the price of the exempted final product, unless he maintains separate accounts of the inputs used in the manufacture of the exempted final product. With this provis...

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sri Dakshesh S. Shah

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)90ITD519(Mum.)

1. This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A) XIV, Mumbai and it pertains to the AY 98-99. Three grounds were urged by the revenue which are taken up in seriatim.2. Vide ground No. 1, the revenue contends that the CIT(A) erred in deleting Rs. 72,880/- referable to the addition made by the assessing officer on account of interest claimed by the assessee. The facts concerning the issue under dispute are briefly stated. The assessee is a co-owner of flat No. 1005 in Chandanbala, R.R. Thakkar Marg, Off.Ring Road, Mumbai-400 006. While computing the income assessable Under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, the assessee claimed a deduction towards interest payable on the amount borrowed for the purpose of purchasing the co-ownership property.3. The assessing officer disallowed the claim of deduction on the ground that the flat was not owned by the assessee as per the record of M/s. Walkeshwar Chandanbala Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., He, further observed that th...

Indian Petrochemicals Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant imported in 1998 and 1999 at Dahej in Gujarat consignments of polypropylene and ethylene. The goods were assessed to duty provisionally, as their value could not be ascertained in the absence of the invoice issued by the seller. Subsequently, the assessments were finalised on various dates and the duty determined to be payable turned out to be less than the duty that was actually to be paid. It is stated that the authorities who passed the orders with which we are concerned in these appeals were not concerned with the liability to refund arising as a consequence of finalisation of provisional assessment and were only concerned with the application filed by the importer. The refund claims that the importer filed themselves make it clear that what it was claiming was a refund that as a result of finalisation of provisional assessment. It is only the failure on the part of the department to sanction the refund. Paragraph 95 of the Mafatlal Industries on its own that resu...

Mustan Teherbhai Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT472Tri(Mum.)bai

1. M.V. Jagat Priya was built by M/s. Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., in 1975 at Vishakapatanam, which was declared as a Customs Bonded Warehouse.Notification No. 118/59-Cus., dated 13-6-1959 exempted from customs duty vessels manufactured M/s. Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., under Customs Bond. As per the records said ship was cleared under the said notification. The present appellants are in possession of a letter dated 21-12-98 from M/s. Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., to this effect. The ship was initially purchased by M/s. Dempo Steamships Ltd., who plied it for some years. The ship was then auctioned and was purchased by the present appellant M/s. Mustan Taherbhai in February, 1993. A bill of entry was filed by them claiming the vessel to be an Indian built vessel. The Customs assessed the vessel provisionally seeking payment of 5% customs duty. The appellants then went to the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court directed a bond to be filed with security deposit and exempted the appellants from the...

Dinesh Gopal Bhure Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)45; 2003BomCR(Cri)1025; 2003CriLJ3083

Palshikar, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.7.1997passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Thane inSessions Case No. 560 of 1996 convicting the appellant-accusedunder Section 302 of Indian Penal Code tosuffer life imprisonment this appeal is filed on thegrounds as mentioned in the memo of appeal as alsoverbally canvassed by the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the appellant-accused.2. The story of the prosecution stated briefly is that:On 23.1.1996 the police received information thatthere was case of burns in the locality. Therefore, thepolice under intimation to the Mahila Dakshata Samiti,Vartaknagar went to the site, found body of the victimin burnt condition, took the body to the hospital. TheMahila Dakshata Samiti representative accompanied themto the hospital and looking to the condition of thedeceased the police inspector without waiting forMagistrate to come and record the dying declaration,himself recorded the declaration after recording ofwhich the vict...

Raju Balkrishna Bhise Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1017; 2003CriLJ2000

Palshikar, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.10.1999passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune inSessions Case No. 303 of 1995 convicting the appellant-accusedunder Section 302 of Indian Penal Code to sufferrigorous imprisonment for life this appeal is filed onthe ground as mentioned in the memo of appeal as alsoverbally canvassed by the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the appellant-accused.2. The prosecution story stated briefly is that:On 27.3.1995 around 11.45 p.m. near Jan MohamedStreet, Lashkar, Pune the accused Raju launched amurderous attach on deceased Razak Makbul Maniyar byknife as a result of the injuries the victim died in thehospital. On a complaint being filed which wasregistered as First Information Report investigation wascommenced and the accused was prosecuted for the offenceof murder. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses toprove its case. The Investigating Officer and otherpolice involved have also been examined amongst those 11witnesses to pro...

Puran Babu Chavan Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)46; 2003BomCR(Cri)996; 2003CriLJ4684

Palshikar, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.8.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 482 of 1994 convicting the appellant-accused under Section 302 and 498A of Indian Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life this appeal is filed on the grounds as mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally canvassed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-accused.2. The prosecution story stated in brief is that:That the deceased was wife of the accused. The accused is a leper and suffering from leprosy. He was suspecting the character of his wife. The suspicion was the root cause for the accused to ill treat his wife. The accused was addicted to consumption of liquor.3. On the fateful day there was quarrel between the accused and the deceased. At that time accused had consumed liquor. He poured kerosene on the person of deceased and set her on fire due to which she sustained burn injuries and was admitted in the hospital ...

Shri Ramchandra Shankar Randive, Vs. Shri Uttam Marutrao Randive,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR541; 2004(1)BomCR338; 2003(3)MhLj797

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners.Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioners challenge the order passed by the lower appellate Court on 29.7.2002 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 15/2002 whereby the lower appellate court has dismissed the appeal while directing the court below to dispose of the main suit as early as possible. The said appeal was filed by the petitioners against the order of the trial court dated 11.3.2002 whereby the petitioners were restrained from transferring the suit land or any portion thereof to any third person or to create any third party right on the suit land till disposal of the suit.3. Upon hearing the learned Advocates and on perusal of the record the only point which arises for consideration in the matter is whether during the pendency and disposal of the suit, the courts below could have restrained the petitioners from alienating the suit land in view of materials placed on record disclosing dis...

Deputy Regional Transport Officer and anr. Vs. Yashwant Narayanarao Th ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2003Bom327; 2003(3)ALLMR548; 2003(5)BomCR832

J.N. Patel, J. 1. Heard Mr. Loney, the learned A. G. P. for the Appellants and Mr. S.N. Bhattad, learned counsel for the respondent.2. The Appellants are the Deputy Regional Transport Officer. Akola and State of Maharashtra, who were the original defendants and have preferred this appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 2nd May, 2001 passed by the District Judge, Akola in Regular Civil Appeal No. 431/2000, under which the lower Appellate Court quashed and set aside the Judgment & Decree dated 14-9-2000 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 824/1997, between the parties and remanded the matter to the lower Court with a direction to readmit the suit in its original number in the register of Civil Suits and after giving the opportunities to both the sides on the application at Exh. 22, under Order'39, Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, dispose of the same according to law and also decide the suit according to law.3. The Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration an...

Chetana Harish Awari Vs. Harish Wamanrao Awari

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR675; 2003(6)BomCR310

R.G. Deshpande, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties.2. In spite of many chances, having been given to the petitioner-wife to put her defence through her written statement, the petitioner failed to make the most of the opportunities, and it is abundantly clear from the record that Exhibits 18, 19 and 20 were filed for seeking time to file written statement and time was granted, but no written statement came to be filed. Ultimately, last application, Exhibit 27, which was filed on July 1, 2002, also came to be rejected by the learned Judge of the trial Court specifically observing that: in view of the amended provisions of Order VIII, in any case written statement was supposed to be filed within 90 days. The petitioner hopelessly failed to make the most of the opportunities available to her.3. It is also pertinent to observe that in the proceedings, initiated by the respondent-husband, under section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1...