Mumbai Court July 2003 Judgments

Sau. Ranjana Shivaji Rakhpasare Vs. Shri Shivaji Bapu Rakhpasare and t ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004CriLJ145; II(2004)DMC365

ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. The petitioner is hereby assailing correctness, propriety, and legality of the judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Court No. 9. Pune in the matter of Criminal Misc. Application No. 18/1994, which was set aside by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.2. The facts giving rise to the Misc. Petition can be stated as mentioned hereunder in brief:The present petitioner married with respondent Shivaji Rakhpasare on 29/11/1992 at Pashan, Pune and started cohabiting with him thereafter. She was thereafter left in her parents house by the mother of Shivaji Rakhpasare, her husband. There were attempts to see that these spouses should cohabit as husband and wife amicably but it failed. The petitioner was pregnant, but there was miscarriage and the medical practitioner who examined her, opined that the aid miscarriage was caused on account of lifting of heavy articles. That was correlated by the petitioner with the work of fetching water from water ...

Chandan Anandrao Rangari Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)MhLj120

R.K. Batta, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith.2. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned APP for the respondents. The petitioner seeks direction to set him at liberty and to grant compensation. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted before us that the petitioner is only pressing the challenge on two points, viz. (i) The case of the petitioner is covered under Category 3(b) of the Guidelines and as such, he has to serve only 22 years of imprisonment with remission, instead of 24, as ordered by the Government; (ii) The procedure followed in imposing punishment for overstay is irregular and arbitrary and the punishments imposed are liable to be set aside. The learned counsel has categorically stated that the petitioner does not dispute the dates and data given by the respondent regarding the remissions granted to the petitioner. The learned advocate for the petitioner therefore, does not dispute the remissions at all.3. In support of his first contention, he ...

Special Prints Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT888Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 39,12,986/- confirmed as a result of inclusion of quantity of shrinkage of grey fabrics in the assessable value of the processed fabrics cleared by the assessee during the period 1994 to 1995 and 1995-96 and penalty of amount equal to duty, we found that it was possible to hear and decide the appeal itself at this stage since the complaint of the assessee is that of contravention of principles of natural justice. Hence, after waiving the pre-deposit of the duty and penalty we proceed to take up the appeal for disposal with the consent of both sides.2. We find that the appellants had communicated by the letter dated 6.8.98 to jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner in response to the show cause notice dated 1.11.1996 that the issue in dispute viz. demand of differential duty on shrinkage occurring during the processing of man made fabrics was before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal...

Radha V. Company Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appellant imported a consignment of dry ginger of Chinese origin, declaring a value of US$ 600 per ton. The value has been increased to US$ 1200 per ton by the order of the Assistant Commissioner and such enhancement having been confirmed on appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), the matter is before us in appeal C/630. In the other appeal C/631, the subject matter is the value of pepper that the appellant imported from Indonesia, declaring a value of US$ 1,500 per ton. This value has been enhanced to US$ 1,900 per ton.3. So far as the ginger is concerned, neither the adjudicating authority nor the appellate authority furnished any satisfactory reason for saying why the declared value should not be accepted. They only rely upon some prices repeatedly shown in "market weekly and public ledger." The Assistant Commissioner says that in the absence of information relating to import of similar or identical goods, the value cannot be determined under Rule 5 or 6 of the Valuation Rules...

The Rubber Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 13,53,810/- and equal penalty. The duty has been demanded, and penalty imposed, on the view that the applicant was not entitled to the benefit of the exemption contained in entry 144 of the table to notification 4/97, for the reason that the condition subject to which the exemption was available, that modvat credit is not taken on input, was contravened, as the applicant had taken credit of the duty paid on furnace oil.2. The representative of the applicant contends that since credit has been taken only on furnace oil which is used as fuel, the condition contained in the entry has not been breached. We do not prima facie find it possible to agree. The furnace oil was clearly used as an input, and credit of the duty paid has been taken on input. On merits, therefore, the applicant has prima facie no case. The notice dated 20^th August, 2000 demanded duty on clearance made between 1.4.1997 to 30.6.2000, invoking the extended per...

Kuldipkumar Girdhar Das and Co., a Registered Partnership Firm Through ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR77; 2003(6)BomCR594; 2004(1)MhLj71

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. In all these petitions, common questions of fact and law have been involved. It is, therefore, appropriate if all the matters are decided by a common judgment.2. Rule, Mr.S.G. Aney, learned Special Counsel, instructed by Mr. C.R. Sonawane and Mr. P.I. Khemani, learned Assistant Government Pleaders, appears and waives services of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.3. In the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of parties, all the matters are taken up for final hearing.4. In all these petitions, the petitioners have approached this Court for an appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to forthwith unseal their godowns and to release jaggery contained therein.5. To appreciate the controversy raised in the present group of petitions, facts in the first petition (Writ Petition No. 3433 of 2003) may briefly be stated.6. The petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. It is a member of the Fed...

Marmo Classic Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003LC662(Bombay); 2004(1)MhLj18

1. The petition, makes a complaint that the respondents have arbitrarily and illegally withheld the amount of refund in the sum of Rs. 1,35,39,000/- due and payable to the petitioners which is in defiance of the order of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (West Zonal Bench) at Mumbai ('Tribunal' for short) and, constitutes breach of principles of judicial discipline which require that the orders of the higher authorities are required to be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities.The Facts :2. The facts of the case in short are that the petitioners, a partnership firm imported various consignments of rough marble blocks. Two adverse adjudication orders; dated 31st August 2001 and 13th September 2001; came to be passed by the Commissioner of Customs, the respondent No.4 against the petitioners imposing redemption fine of Rs. 1.01 crore and Rs. 42,84,000/- with penalty in the sum of Rs. 29.40 lakh and Rs. 4.00 lakh on 16 consignments plus 1 consignment r...

Mars Enterprises Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR107; 2003(5)BomCR463; 2003(4)MhLj352

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the complaint filed under Section 163 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, hereinafter called as 'the said Act' was presented one day beyond the period within which the same was required to be presented as the concerned officer attending to the legal matters of the petitioners had to proceed to Baroda on account of serious illness of his mother. However, the respondents did not entertain the complaint as the provisions contained in Section 163 of the said Act specifically provides for 15 days period and there is no power given to the authorities to condone the said delay. Though the provisions of law contained in Section 163 of the said Act specifically provide for 15 days period and there is no specific provision for condonation of delay by the authorities in cases where the complaints...

AustIn Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR286; 2003(90)ECC785; 2003(157)ELT254(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. The short point raised in this petition is whether the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) was justified in entertaining the appeal filed by the Revenue against the refund of excise duty granted by the Assistant Collector of Excise to the Petitioners without passing an appealable order? In other words, the issue is, whether an appeal was maintainable under the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 against a communication issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise ?2. The facts having a bearing on the subject matter of the petition are as follows:The Petitioners are engaged in the manufacture of needle roller cages ('the said goods' for short) which are component parts of bearings. In the year 1977, the Petitioners filed classification list in respect of the said goods under Tariff Item 49 of the Excise Tariff which was accepted. Accordingly, the Petitioners continued to pay the excise duty on the said goods under Tariff Item 49 of the Excise Tariff. On 16th Ju...

Madanlal Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR216; 2004(1)MhLj581

B. H. Marlapalle, J.1. In this third round, the petitioner - a freedom fighter, has assailed the decision dated 15-11-2002, of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, in rejecting Miscellaneous Application No. 182 of 2002, as well as, Transfer Application No. 4 of 1996 (Writ Petition No. 941 of 1987).2. On obtaining graduation degree in Arts, the petitioner came to be appointed as Social Education Organizer in the Community Projects and National Extension Service Blocks, by order dated 12th July, 1954 passed by the Secretary - Development Projects, Hyderabad State. He came to be absorbed under the new Bombay State with effect from 1-11-1956 consequent to the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, as he was prior to the said date, working in the Marathwada Region of the erstwhile Hyderabad State and consequent to the Bombay Reorganization Act, 1960, he became an employee of the State of Maharashtra with effect from 1-5-1960. On formation of the Zilla Parishads pursuant to the Maharas...