Mumbai Court February 2004 Judgments

Balaji S/O Ghansham Yarawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR132; 2004(3)MhLj968

S.T. Kharche, J.1. By invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this writ petition is directed against the order dated 25-6-1991 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short, the Ceiling Act), by which he held that 7.20 acres of land from survey No. 106 and 10.00 acres of land from survey No. 64 is uncultivable.Relevant facts are as under:2. The petitioner is owner of the land and he had filed return as is required under Section 12 of the Ceiling Act. The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal (SLDT) had examined the return and declared surplus land by the order dated 29-11-1985. By that order the land admeasuring 7.20 acres out of survey No. 106 and the land admeasuring 10.00 acres out of survey No. 64 was declared as uncultivable land. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the SLDT...

Gaurang V. Merchant and ors. Vs. Madhliso and Co. Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR737; 2004(5)BomCR700; (2004)106BOMLR153

D.G. Karnik, J.1. This motion is taken out by the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 for setting aside an ex parte decree dated 18th December, 2001 passed by this Court in Suit No. 334 of 1982. The facts, as far as they are relevant for the purpose of the present motion, are stated below :-2. In the year 1982, the plaintiff filed the suit bearing No. 333 of 1982 against the defendant No. 1 Company and 4 others. The defendant No. 1 was joined as a formal party as a suit involved the shares in the defendant No. 1 Company which stood in the name of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 which were subsequently purchased by defendant Nos. 4 and 5. Suit summons was served on the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 in April 1982 and they filed an appearance in the Court on 22nd April, 1982 through M/s. Nanavati and Tijoriwalla, Advocates and Solicitors. The defendant Nos. 4 and 5 did not file their written statement but changed their advocates and on 15th September, 1982, M/s. Apte and Co, Advocates and Solicitors filed an appearan...

Rai Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant's appeal is directed against the denial of modvat credit of Rs. 8,781/- and penalty of Rs. 1000/-. Brief facts mentioned in the show cause notice are as under: - "On scrutiny of the RT-12 returns fited by the said assessee, it appeared that they had reversed an amount of Rs. 8,78l/- equal to 8% advalorem on the clearances of the goods other than those specified under Section XV of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 in their PLA/RG-2 3-A-Pt.II/RG-23-C-Pt. II vide different entries as envisaged under Rule 57CC of the Rules as amended and ejfective from 01/03/97. From the subsequent RT-12 returns filed by the said assessee it was observed that they have taken the credit of the amount which has been debited by them in RG-23-Pt.II in view of Notification No. B/42-1/97-TRU dated 10/03/1997 vide Entry No. 705/706 dated 06/09/97. From the above facts it appeared that the said assessee neither filed refund claim for the above credit nor have obtained any permission from compe...

The Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Silver Prints

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT245Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Revenue's appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The allegations made against the respondents was that they had failed to account for certain quantities of Man Made (processed) Fabrics recovered from their premises, in ready to despatch condition. The adjudicating authority confiscated the said unaccounted quantity of goods and allowed the party to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 20,000/-. The respondents were also asked to pay appropriate duty at the time of clearance of the said goods, besides the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the respondents. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that, confiscation was not called for. However, maximum penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Rule 226 for non-entry of the production was confirmed. Penalty on proprietor was set aside since the goods are not held to liable to confiscation.Revenue appeal challenges the correctness of the impugned Order-in-Appeal.2. Heard the Ld. DR. The re...

Terna Shetkari Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT358Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The stay application is for waiver of pre-deposit of an amount of Rs. 3,28,142/-, which is confirmed against the appellants being the amount of additional duty payable under the Sugar Export! Promotion Act, 1958. The grounds for demand are based on the allegation to the effect that, the appellants have failed to meet the export quota in terms of provisions contained in Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958. The appellants are saying that, the competent authority, namely the "export agency" on whom the powers have been vested under the said Act has already certified that, the export quota has been fulfilled.Accordingly, it is pleaded that the question of demanding the said duty does not arise. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) disputed this claim and held that, the export agency could not certify that, the export obligation, in respect of a particular sugar factory had been fulfilled, knowing fully well that the sugar factory had not delivered in full, the export su...

Bhiva S/O Gangaram Landge and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR549; 2004(3)MhLj609

A.B. Naik, J.1. By this petition, the order dated 2nd February, 1985 passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, is challenged by the petitioners.2. The present petition is filed by the original defendants. The respondents 3, 4 and 5 original plaintiffs 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff) instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 112/1977 against the present petitioners/original defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') for the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land and the defendants be restrained permanently from obstructing their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land. It is contended by the plaintiffs that Gangaram, the father of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1, was in possession of land Survey No. 274 admeasuring 20A 20B and 275 18A 33B situated at village Neknoor Tq. and Dist. Beed, (hereinafter referred to as 'suit land') as tenant of the suit lands and has cultivated the land as te...

Ahilyadevi Vyayam Krida Va Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs. State of Mahar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR136; 2004(4)BomCR755; 2004(3)MhLj554

B.R. Gavai, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. Grant of permission to open a school, in favour of respondent No. 4, at village Khandala, by the respondent No. 1, State of Maharashtra vide its order dated 3rd July, 2003 and the consequential orders passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 dated 10th July, 2003 and 14th July, 2003 respectively, overlooking the claim of the petitioner, are the subject-matter of challenge in the present petition.3. The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of the present petition, are as under:--4. By an advertisement published in newspaper namely 'Daily Deshonnati' in its issue dated 24th March, 2000, master plan was published by the respondent No. 1, State Government, for Akola district for grant of permission to open new Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools. Applications were invited for grant of permission for opening Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools at the villages notified in the said advertisement. One...

Suresh G. Kewalramani and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of predeposit of duty and stay of operation arose out of the order of the Commissioner (A) who rejected the appeal of M/s. Jaisu Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. Kandla and partly allowed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs Kandla before him. He also ordered that show cause notices be issued under Section 128A for enhancement of penalty on M/s. Jaisu Shipping and for imposition of penalties on one Shri Suresh Kewal Ramani and M/s ACT Shipping Pvt. Ltd. 2. The facts are that a Tug by name MT Rubby 11 came to Kandla Port on 23/12/98 and was engaged in port operations. Its agents of the tug are M/s. ACT Shipping Pvt. Ltd.. The tug during its stay from 23.12.98 to 14.04.2000 enjoyed duty free bunkers & stores in terms of Section 86 and 87 of the Customs Act. During this period the vessel on several occasion was used by M/s. Jaisu Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. The Chairman and M.D. of M/s. Jaisu Shipping Pvt. Ltd. is one Suresh Kewal Ramani M/s.Pinkiman Shippi...

Orient Cerlane Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal of the appellants is directed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) where under the order of the adjudicating authority was confirmed. In the Order-in-original the seized goods, namely "Ceramic Fibre Part Blanket" were confiscated, redemption fine of Rs. 25,000/- imposed. A demand of Rs. 44,320/- plus Rs. 1,08,027/- was confirmed holding that the appellants had clandestinely removed Ceramic Fibre Rolls and Ceramic Fibre Blankets.Further, penalties of Rs. 44,320/- under Section 11AC and Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 173Q were imposed. In the instant appeal the findings of the lower authorities are under challenge.2. Heard both sides. So far as the seizure of the "Ceramic Fibre Part Blanket" is concerned, the appellants submit that though the goods were detained on 25/02/2000, the show cause notice was issued on 14/09/2000, which is beyond the period of six months stipulated in Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, which has been made applicable to ...

Shri Suresh Kumar Raisoni, Shri Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC129

1. The facts of the case are that, personal search of one Shri Jabbar Singh Thakur who entered the premises of M/s. K.K. Chains, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai on 19.8.97 during the course of search of the above mentioned premises, resulted in recovery of 42 Foreign Marked Gold Biscuits valued at Rs. 22,26,000/- which were seized under the reasonable belief that they were liable to confiscation as per the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 as Jabbar Singh Thakur could not produce any legal documents to prove the licit import of the gold or give any satisfactory explanation regarding the possession of the same.In his statement of the same date, he deposed that he was employed with one Shri Suresh Jain (Suresh Kumar Raisoni) of M/s. Rajendra Textiles, Grant Road, Mumbai; that as directed by his employer he had visited M/s. K.K. Chains to deliver foreign marked gold biscuits to Shri Phoolchand K. Jain on 10-15 occasions; that he had delivered foreign marked gold biscuits to Shri Phoolchand K. Jain; t...