Mumbai Court June 2003 Judgments

Safiyabi Vs. Shafik Mohd. Khan and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2004)DMC182

P.S. Brahme, J.1. Heard Mrs. S.P. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. N. Iqbal, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Mirza, the learned A.P.P. for respondent No. 2.2. This revision application is preferred by the applicant, the divorced wife of respondent No. 1, against the order passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Akola on January 19, 1999 in Criminal Revision Application No. 172 of 1998 rejecting her claim for the amount of Rs. 30,000/- towards reasonable and fair provisions for maintenance for her life.3. Applicant Safiyabi was married to respondent Shafik Mohd. Khan s/o Sadat Meer Khan. After the marriage, though she lived with her husband, she was treated with cruelty and her husband refused and neglected to pay maintenance to her. She had filed Misc. Criminal Application No. 6 of 1996 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Murtizapur under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance as she was unable to maintain her...

Essar Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT362Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal by Essar Steel ltd., formerly Essar Gujarat Ltd., is the inclusion in the value for assessment to customs duty of the charges paid by it to Met-Chem Canada for supply of technical services required for setting up and commissioning a plant for the manufacturing of hot rolled steel coils.2. The appellant had set up in 1990 a plant to manufacture hot briquetted iron. It decided to set up a plant for manufacture of hot rolled coils and strips from out of the iron, and also to increase the existing capacity of the sponge iron plant. The appellant approached Met-Chem Inc, a Canadian company for this purpose, and negotiations between the two resulted in signing of two agreements between them. On 13.4.91 it signed an agreement wit it. The agreement signed on 13.4.1991 provided that in consideration for supply by Met Chem of engineering and other technical services for setting up the plant, it would be paid DM 78,950,000. By a subsequent amendme...

Sadhu Vaswani Medical Complex Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT1040Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed upon the applicants herein, who are a charitable hospital, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai. The penalty has been imposed upon on the ground that the applicants contravened the conditions set out in Clause 2(a) and 2(b) of the table annexed to Notification 64/88-Cus dated 01/03/1988. Clause 2(a) stipulates that the hospital shall provide medical, surgical or diagnostic treatment free on an average to at least 40% of their outdoor patients while Clause 2(b) stipulates free treatment to all indoor patients belonging to families having income less than Rs. 500/- per month, keeping for this purpose atleast 10% of the hospital beds reserved for such patients. The charge against the applicants is based upon the fact that they did not maintain any register showing the income of the families but the show cause notice itself accepts the fulfilment of the condition of indoor pa...

The Executive Engineer, Vs. Commissioner, Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT569Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These two appeals namely Appeal Nos. E/3792/2001 & E/3270/2002 have been filed by the Irrigation Department, State of Maharashtra and the Department. This two appeals have been field by both parties against an Order-in-Original No. 25/CEX/2001 dated 5.10.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I in and by which he has confirmed the duty to be paid by the Irrigation Department Gate Manufacturing Division A, Gate Manufacturing Division B, Sluice Gates Manufacturing Division, Hoist Design and Manufacturing Division, Mechanical Works Engineering, Workshop division Pune. The order also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 lacs on the assessee. Appeal No. 3792/01 has been filed against the said order only by the assessee and Appeal No. 3270/02 has been filed by the department for enhancement of penalty.2. On 26.4.01 a show cause notice was issued to the assessee appellant (appellant in Appeal No. 3792/01) alleged non-payment of duty on various items that has been manufactured ...

Glaxo Smith Kline Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT612Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These two appeals have been filed against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad made in Order-in-Original No. 17/CEX/2001 dated 24.10.2001 confirming show cause notice dt. 3.4.2000 and demanding duty of Rs. 19,33,473/- and demand of reversal of modvat credit of Rs. 10,37,930/-; imposing penalty of Rs. 25,51,294/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, and Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. The other appeal is filed by the Manager of the office of the assessee against imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules.2. The appellant is manufacturing Pharmaceutical products and has its factory at Nasik. It availed modvat credit on various inputs used in the manufacture of medicines. Manufacture and sale of drugs is controlled in India by the Act known as the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules framed thereunder. In terms of Rules 71(7), 74(o), 76(2) and 78(p) of the Dru...

Engee Industrial Services Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit, we find that it is possible to hear and decide the appeals themselves at this stage. Hence after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 2 crores imposed upon M/s.Engee Industrial Services Ltd., and Rs. 1 crore on its Director Shri Vinod Goyal, we heard both sides on the appeals and pass the following order.2. By the impugned order the adjudicating authority has held that the goods in question, namely, the vessel for ship breaking is liable for confiscation and has also imposed penalties as set out above on the importer and on the Managing Director of the importing company. The plea of the appellants before the Tribunal is two fold: i. That the order is an ex-parte order as although notice of hearing fixing the cases for hearing on 27/08/2001 was issued, the appellants sought adjournment under the cover of a letter of the same date but the adjudicating authority has proceeded to d...

Vasant Sahakari S.S.K. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are manufacturer of sugar and were allotted export quota for export of sugar by the Directorate of Sugar, Ministry of Food, Govt. of India from time to time. This was required to be exported thought M/s. Indian Sugar and General Industry, Export Import Corporation Ltd., New Delhi (herein after referred to as SIECL), the export agency nominated as Agency for Export of Sugar by Government of Indian notification. They out of total 29,404 Qtls. Of sugar allotted as export quota affected exports of only 2100 Qtls. The remaining quantity was diverted in the domestic market. The export quota was fixed as per the provisions of Section 5 of Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958 Section 7(1) of the said Act, providers that if the sugar delivered by the manufacturer falls short of the export quota fixed, a duty was to be levied as duty of excise at rate of Rs. 45.55 per quintal which was to be collected on so much of the sugar despatched for consumption in India Sub-section 7(2) of ...

Rex Arts Castors Pvt. Ltd., Rex Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT179Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This bunch of six appeals (Appeals E/4596 to 4601/95) have been filed by the assessee against the decision dated 18.4.1994 made by the Collector of Central Excise-II, Mumbai-I, in Order-in-Original No.53/1994, confirming the duty. By the said order, he has confirmed the duty and penalty as indicted below:- 2. Four appeals (Appeals E/1405 to 1408/00) have been filed by the department against the common order by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai, made in Order-in-Appeal Nos.GKP(2340)31-M-IV/2000 (43 M-IV/98), GKP(2341)32-M-IV/2000 (44-M-IV/98), GKP(2342)33 M-IV (45-M-IV/98) and GKP(2343)34/M-IV-/2000 (46-M-IV/99) dated 20th January, 2000 allowing appeals of the assessee made against Order-in-Original No. K-III 752-771/98 dated 9.11.1998 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Div. K-III, Mumbai-IV, in and by which he denied the exemption claimed by the assessee under notification 1/93 (SSI Exemption).3. A show cause notice dated 6.12.1991 was issued...

Tex India and ors. Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank, Body Corporate Constitute ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2003Bom444; 2003(4)ALLMR99; 2004(2)BomCR250

C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. Rule. Mr. Rajesh Nagory, learned Advocate instructed by M/s. Haridas & Co., appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1- contesting respondent. No notice to respondent No. 2-tribunal is necessary. 2. In the facts and circumstances, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 3. This petition is filed against an order passed by the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai, on June 19, 2002 in order below Exhibit 49 in Original Application No. 457 of 2000 and confirmed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, on April 4, 2003 in Misc.Appeal No. 295 of 2002. 4. Application, Exhibit 49, was filed by the present petitioners for rejecting certain documents produced by the Bank on the following rounds:- '1) Those documents which are stamped are bearing adhesive stamps of date prior to six months of their use. 2) Demand promissory note (exh.17) bearing revenue stamp of Re.1/- cannot (be) said to be duly stamp...

Hari Balasaheb Yadav, Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1562

Palshikar, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 4th April 1987 passed by the learned III additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No. 217 of 1986 convicting the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for offence under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC and also convicting the accused Nos. 1 and 2 only for offence under Section 324 read with 34 of IPC, and for the offence of murder the accused have been punished to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of 1000/-, the appellants/original accused have preferred this appeal. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel Shri Ramrao Adhik appearing on behalf of the accused and the learned A.P.P. Ms. Kantharia, for the State we have scrutinised the record and re-appreciated the evidence therein. Mr. Adhik the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused took us through the evidence of two eye witnesses and pointed out that it is not liable to be accepted because of several contradictions and omissions ...