Mumbai Court April 2003 Judgments

Shital Sudhir Sonavle Vs. Group Gram Panchayat and 11 ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR19; 2003(4)BomCR31; 2003(3)MhLj565

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By this petition, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 31.10.2002 passed by the learned Additional Collector, Raigad and also the subsequent order dated 30.12.2002 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner in an appeal confirming the order passed by the learned Additional Collector.2. Brief facts are that the Petitioner herein was elected as a sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Waghoshi on 4.2.1999 and she was to remain as a sarpanch upto 3.2.2004. It appears that some of the members of the said Gram Panchayat wanted to move a resolution of no confidence motion against the Petitioner herein as per Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. In accordance with the requisition, the Tahsildar, Sudhagad had convened a special meeting for that purpose on 7.10.2002. On 7.10.2002, the Tahsildar held a special meeting of no confidence motion wherein the Petitioner was given a fair opportunity to defend herself with regard to the motion of no confidence. ...

Kishore Ramanna Pujari Vs. the Commissioner of Police,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)917

1. Heard Mr. S.R. Pasbola for the petitioner-detenue and Mr. B.R. Patil, Acting P.P. for the State.2. The detenue is detained by an Order dated 22nd August 2002 under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootledggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981. The grounds of detention are of the even date and the detention is challenged on number of grounds. However, Mr. Pasbola restricted himself to ground Nos. 13 and 18 and therefore we are considering the said grounds only because the petition has to be allowed on the said grounds.3. It is mainly contended by the petitioner - detenue on the basis of the aforesaid two grounds that when the detention order was passed it was necessary for the detaining authority to find out whether the detenue was in custody or was at large and if he was in custody whether there was likelihood of his getting bail in order to enable him i.e detenue to continue with his prejudicial activities in future. Accor...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Pandit Ganpat Tare and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003CriLJ4712; 2003(4)MhLj540

ORDERS.S. Parkar, J.1. This application is filed for setting aside the conditional order dated 16th April 2002 and for restoring criminal appeal on file and to permit the applicant-State to file application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. This matter and many other such matters bring to fore the callousness and irresponsible way in which the office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bombay is functioning.2. Against the Judgment and Order dated 28th September, 2001 delivered by IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 177 of 2001 acquitting three accused persons of the offence of murder under Section 302 of IPC, the State had presented appeal in this Court belatedly without filing even the application for condonation of delay which is required under law. The memo of the appeal is undated. From the proceeding we are unable to know the date on which this appeal came to be filed. Only thing we know from the proceeding is that there was delay of ...

Kashinath S/O Laxmanrao Ghate Vs. Kisan S/O Ramaji Khanke

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR773; 2004(2)BomCR405

V.M. Kanade, J. 1.The appellant is the original plaintiff and the respondent is the original defendant. This second appeal has been filed by the original plaintiff challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the trial court dismissing his suit, which order has been confirmed by the District Court by dismissing the first appeal filed by him. The second appeal was admitted on 12th September, 1991 and the following order was passed :'Heard Shri Manohar. Admit. The substantial question of law which arises for decision is point no.1 in the memo of appeal.'2.Brief facts are as under :The appellant-original plaintiff had filed a suit for possession of the suit property which consisted of Room No.518. It is the case of the plaintiff in the plaint that Lahanubai Paikaji Wairagade had taken the said plot from Chandrapur Municipal Council as a tenant and she had constructed a tin shed on the said plot and she continued to be in possession till her death in the year 1952-53. Her son Shrawan prede...

Babul Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time, we find that it is possible to dispose of the appeal at the stay stage itself. Accordingly, we dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit and proceed to hear the main appeal.2. Shri V. Sridharan, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the order in original has been passed without issue of Show Cause Notice. In this context he cites the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Metal Forgings v. U.O.I. - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.).He further states that the appellants were eligible to modvat credit as per the amendment made in the Notification No. 21/99 w.e.f.01/03/2000.He states that the appellants verified the stock of inputs and intimated the same to the department. Yet, the department has denied the credit on the said inputs which the appellants are entitled to under the amended provision of the aforesaid notification through the order in original which is in the form of a letter.3. He further states that under Rule ...

Hari Leela Process House Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question that arises int he appeal is whether the applicant is disentitled to abatement of the duty determined to be payable by it as determined under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processor Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 2000 by the fact that during the period under consideration only one stenter was non-functioning. The Joint Commissioner held the abatement not permissible as Sub-rule (7) of Rule 96 ZQ required that during the period for which the abatement is claimed the processor should not produce or manufacture any goods.The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal in that order for failure to deposit entire duty failing due as a result of its order the penalty imposed on the assessee for not paying the duty.2. We are concerned with the period between 1^st March 2000 and 1^st April 2000. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 96ZQ as it stood on these dates refers to a case where processor "does produce or manufacture the process fabrics specified in Sub-rule (1) dur...

De-nocil Crop Protection Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicant clears pesticides that it manufactures from its factory by payment of duty directly or buyers or to its depot The goods cleared to the deposit may be sold at price lower or equal to or higher than the price at which it cleared from the factory. This happens because there is a interval between the clearance between the depot and clearance from the factory and the seasonal factor which come into effect in between have an effect n the prices. The clearances were assessed provisionally. In the order finalising the assessment, the Dy.Commissioner has accepted the price at the depot whenever they were not lower than the price at the factory gate, and where they were lower applied the higher price at which they were cleared from the factory.He also added to the value the cost of transportation from the factory to the depot and from the depot to the buyers' premises. He has not accepted the deduction from the sale price for interest on delayed payment charged by the applicant...

Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT119Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applicants were not present they requested decision on merits appeal was allowed and taken up for disposal. On perusal of the facts and the arguments made.2. The appellants destroyed time-bar medications, on securing remission of duty in terms of Rule 49(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and reverse the Modvat credit on the inputs gone into the destroyed product. Later on they filed the refund claim citing Rule 57D of the rules which permits Modvat credit to be returned on inputs which have gone into by-product waste etc. The initial and the first appellate authorities having denied the relief, the present appeal has , been filed.3. The first grievance made in the appeal memorandum is that the impugned order is not a speaking order. I do [not] find any substance in this plea. The reliance on Collector of C. Ex. v. Srichakra Tyres Ltd. [1990 (50) E.L.T. 314 (Tribunal)] is misplaced since that case is related to classification of product. For the same reason the Collector of ...

Commissioner of Customs and Central Vs. Lans Metals Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The show cause notice dated 28/02/96 proposed penalty on the assessee on the ground that they had wrongly utilised modvat credit. No reversal of the credit was however sought. The Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty, which was set aside by the Commissioner. The revenue is in appeal against this order.2. The penalty provisions are normally invoked in addition to reversal of credit wrongly taken or duty short levied. Nothing in the proceeding shows that duty was demanded or was in fact paid earlier by the assessee. In that situation, the Commissioner was justified in setting aside the orders of penalty. In the appeal memorandum, thee is no explanation why the peculiar procedure was adopted....

Kadi Re-rolling Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeal 4291/99 is against the order 1331/99 dated 8.9.99 of the Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal 1056/02 is against the order 1057/02 dated 7.1.02 of the Commissioner (Appeals). In both these orders each of these, the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of an appeal against order 3/Addl.Commr./98 dated 11.12.97. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed his first order 1331/99 on the appeal filed by the assessee on this order. He dismissed the appeal for failure on the part of the assessee to deposit entire duty and penalty. The assessee appealed this order and the Tribunal, by its order on 12.4.01 allowed the stay application filed by the assessee waiving deposit of the duty and penalty and staying recovery.2. The file of the Commissioner (Appeals) which has been made available by the departmental representative indicates that thereupon the assessee approached the Commissioner (Appeals) drawing attention to Tribunal's order saying that it had not heard from him the consequence of the order. The...