Mumbai Court January 2004 Judgments

Rajesh @ Khanna S/O Devidas Choudhari Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)MhLj180

P.S. Brahme, J.1. Heard Mr. R. G. Janbandhu, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Fulzele, A.P.P. for the respondent-State.2. The appellant-Rajesh @ Khanna s/o Devidas Choudhari was tried for murder of Ramchandra Mul under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. At the trial prosecution examined in all 7 witnesses including - Hari Mul (P.W. 4), Gangubai Gajghate (P.W. 5) sister of deceased Ramchandra, Sumitra Dhanvijay (P.W. 6) niece of deceased Ramchandra, Dr. Praful Chahande (P.W. 2) who was Medical Officer attached to Rural Hospital, Umred, who examined the weapon i.e. blade of spear (article 3) and Purushottam Dubey (P.W. 7) who conducted investigation in the matter. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and by his judgment and order dated 14th March, 1997 convicted him and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for said offence. The appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence passed again...

Bata India Ltd. Vs. Sunilkumar S/O Shamsundar Chaudhari

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR426; 2004(6)BomCR957; 2004(3)MhLj702

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the impugned order, dated 17-10-2002, passed by learned Single Judge, whereby Writ Petition bearing No. 1282 of 2000 filed by the appellant came to be dismissed.3. Mr. Dastane, learned counsel for the appellant, states that the appellantis original tenant and the Rent Controller, vide Order dated 31-10-1998, fixed thefair rent on the application of respondent-landlord. It is submitted that the saidorder was challenged by appellant-tenant before Additional Collector, Nagpur,by filing an appeal bearing No. 112/A-71 (2)/98-99, and Additional Collector,vide Order, dated 27-2-2000, dismissed the appeal filed by appellant. Beingaggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed a Writ Petition bearing No. 1282of 2000, wherein the order, dated 27-2-2000, passed by Additional Collector, aswell as order, dated 31-10-1998, passed by Rent Controller were impugned.Along with the said Writ Pet...

Mahak Cosmetics and Credit (i) Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT431Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for waiver of pre deposit of duty of Rs. 15,30-802 and penalty of Rs. 13 lakhs arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Surat who has upheld the duty demand and penalty by holding that the cost of corrugated carton in which talcum powder manufactured by the applicant was cleared is required to be included in the assessable value of the talcum powder.2. The appellants who are represented by their counsel drew our attention to the fact that containers were durable and returnable as seen from the purchase order and agreement and he submits that what has been held against the appellant is that there was no actual return which he submits is not required by law. Further he submits that once the container was shown to be durable and returnable as per agreement by the customer and supplier that is sufficient to hold that the cost of such container is not to be included in the assessable value of the final products. He also raises plea of time bar.3. The prayer...

Nandlal Kishandas Khemani Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Adj.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT346Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Vide the Stay Order No. C-I/2736/WZB/2003, dated 5-11-2003 the applicant was directed to deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs within a period of six weeks. The applicant seeks modification of the order by waiver of pre-deposit, relying upon earlier order of the Tribunal Nos.C-I/1652-54/1999-WZB, dated 7-7-1999 in which in similar circumstances and on the basis of same evidence the bench had granted waiver of pre-deposit of payment duty but declined to grant stay of recovery. He submits that although this order dated 7th July, 1999 was cited before the bench at the time when it passed the stay order it appears to have been overlooked while directing amount to be deposited.2. Prayer for modification is opposed by the learned JDR on the ground that no plea of hardship was raised and therefore no ground has been made out for modifying the earlier order.3. On a careful consideration of the submissions of both sides and noting the earlier order dated 7th July, 1999, we are of the view that the same o...

4r Health Care Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT469Tri(Mum.)bai

1. For reasons recorded below we waive pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,53,849/- confirmed on the product Godrej Hair Tonic and penalty of equal amount imposed under Rule 173Q(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules and proceed to hear and decide the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. The demand has been confirmed on the ground that the product in dispute falls for classification under CETA sub-heading 3305.90 attracting duty @ 30% ad valorem instead of under CETA sub-heading 3305.10 attracting duty @ 18% ad valorem, as claimed by the assessees.We find that there is no dispute that the product in question was exported by the appellant herein, therefore the question of classification is not relevant for the purpose of this case and the demand cannot be sustained as the goods on which the demand has been confirmed are goods which are exported by the appellants. The question of classification is left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings.3. In the light of the above discussion...

Gurukripa Resins Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Overruled

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT277Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal arose out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who in the impugned order upheld the classification of rosin and turpentine oil ordered by the Deputy Commissioner. The lower authority held that power is used in the manufacture of the above products and therefore the products do not qualify for nil rate of duty.2. The facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of rosin and turpentine oil. They filed a classification declaration effective from 1.4.2001 classifying the goods under chapter sub-heading 3806.19 and 3805.19 respectively and claimed nil rate of duty as the goods are manufactured without the aid of power. The Deputy Commissioner however decided that the products are not entitled to 'nil' rate as power is used in their manufacture. This he seemed to have done without giving any opportunity to the appellants to put forth their case.3. The Commissioner (Appeals), before whom the dispute came up, upheld the decision of the Deputy Commissioner after going i...

R.C.F. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri A.Hidyatullah, Sr. Advocate along with Shri K.K.Shroff, Advocate and Shri M.S Bodhanwalla, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri K.M.Mondal, Consultant along with Shri K.M.George, Ld. JDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue.2. Heard both sides. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the issue involved is whether Naptha under Chapter X is eligible for the benefit of exemption contained under Notification 4/97 as amended from time to time. They submitted that there is no dispute of receipt of Naptha and its use in the following manner:- (a) Steam generating plant for steam where natural gas was also used. (b) Total steam production through Naptha was not sufficient and as such natural gas had to be used.3. They interalia contended that intended for use has to be given a liberal meaning as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. reported in 1996 (88) ELT 314 (SC). They contended that the adjudicating authority has dealt with the is...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. N.R. Jet Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Both the appeals involve identical issues and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. As the issue in dispute, namely, classification of Unsterilized Absorbable Sutures (Catgut), hereinafter referred to as UAS) stands settled against the manufacturers by Tribunal's order in the case of Johnson and Johnson Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai reported in 2003 (154) ELT 729, holding that the product falls for classification under CETA Chapter heading 42.01 as contended by the Revenue, and not under Chapter heading 05.10 as claimed by the assessees, we waive the pre-deposit of duty, of Rs. 1,12,76,346/- confirmed on the product manufactured by M/s. Johnson & Johnson Limited and cleared during the period 04/10/1999 to 18/12/2000, and proceed to hear and decide their appeal along with appeal No. E/1431/2001 filed by the Revenue.4. In the case of Johnson & Johnson Limited cited supra the Tribunal has held that Unsterilized Absorbable Sutures (Cafgut) are classifiable unde...

Bhavya Apparels P. Ltd., Harish Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The stay application for waiver of predeposit of duty and penalties and stay of recovery thereof arose out of the impugned order of the Commissioner. The appellant is a 100% EOU manufacturing garments. They imported Polyester Fabrics under Notification No. 53/97 from time to time and also procured fabrics under CT3 without payment of duty. On a stock taking conducted by the officer of Central Excise, it was revealed that the appellant failed to account for 1026762.03 L. Mtrs.Of imported and fabrics procured under CT3. When asked to explain the shortage of the above quantity of fabrics the director of the Company Shri R.C. Agarwal who was present at the time of stock taking stated that the fabrics found short were disposed of to two persons at the rate of Rs. 51 Per L. Mtr. Later the two persons named by the Director denied, having purchased any fabrics from the appellant company. The person in charge of the day to day affairs of the factory and also a power of attorney holder, Shri...

Ramesh Kanji Maskai and ors. Vs. State Bank of India

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: II(2005)BC139

1. This appeal is sought to be filed by the appellants/original defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5 being aggrieved by the Order dated 22.1.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-Ill, Mumbai in Original Application No. 567/1999. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application filed by the Bank and ordered that the defendants were liable to pay to the applicant Bank sum of Rs. 10,03,74,766/- with future interest at the rate of 13.5% per annum with yearly rests from the date of the suit till realization of the amount.The learned Presiding Officer also gave certain consequential reliefs.Being aggrieved the original defendant Nos. 3, 4, 5 were jointed as party defendants in their capacity as guarantors have sought to be filed this appeal.2. Today application for waiver of deposit as per the mandate of Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 is being argued. Provisions of Section 2...