Mumbai Court February 2004 Judgments

Juhu Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR740; 2004(2)MhLj779

R.M.S Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. The respondents waive service. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and taken up for hearing.2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 21-11-2002 passed in the Revisional Application No. 234 of 2001 by the respondent. No. 2 whereby the matter has been remanded to the respondent No. 3 on the ground that the respondent No. 3 has passed two contradictory orders -- one in favour of the petitioner and the other in favour of the respondent No. 4, the two orders being dated 10-4-2000 and 30-3-2001.3. Upon hearing the learned Advocates and on perusal of the records, it is apparent that the order dated 10-4-2000 was to the effect of rejection of the application under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 solely on the ground that the application filed by the petitioner did not disclose the necessary details regarding the claim and with the observation that 'Actually it is necessary for the Society to provide the complet...

Prabhakar Madhavrao Mule Vs. Bhagwan Mitharam Choudhari

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR568; 2004(2)MhLj1058

B.B. Vagyani, J.1. Heard.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing.3. The point involved in both the writ petitions is similar in nature and, therefore, both the writ petitions are disposed of by common judgment.4. The respondent Sahebrao Dagaduba Khandwe, r/o Shindephal, Tq. Sillod, District Aurangabad (respondent in Writ Petition No. 4700 of 2003) has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 77 of 2003 against the petitioner claiming specific performance of agreement and actual possession of the suit property. Bhagwan Mitharam Chaudhari, r/o Bahadurpura, Tq. Parola, District Jalgaon (respondent in writ petition No. 4688 of 2003) has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 76 of 2003 against the very petitioner claiming specific performance of contract and possession of the suit property. The suit summons in Regular Civil Suit Nos. 77 of 2003 and 76 of 2003 were duly served on the original defendant Prabhakar Mule (petitioner in both the writ petitions)...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Dilip Aatmaram Auti

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)MhLj236

D.S. Zoting, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment and order dated 31-5-1983, passed by the learned Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No. 46 of 1983, whereby the accused has been acquitted of offence charged under Sections 354 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The respondent/accused (hereinafter referred to as, 'the accused') was charged for having committed offence punishable under Sections 354 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that on 21-3-1983 at about 10.30 p.m. in the night at the Vasti in the field known as, 'Umbaracha Mala' situated at village Malunja Bk. Shivar, Taluka Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar, assaulted or used criminal force to Miss. Rajani daughter of Sukhdeo Badakh a woman intending to outrage her knowing it to be likely that he would thereby outrage the modesty of said Miss. Rajani by such assault or criminal force. Charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was framed...

Afloat Textiles (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR733; 2004(170)ELT138(Bom)

ORDERJ.P. Devadhar, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By the consent of the parties both the matters are taken up for final hearing.2. Since common order passed by the CEGAT, Mumbai, dated 22-4-2003 is challenged in these two petitions, the same are being heard together and are disposed of by this common Judgment.3. The basic issue in these petitions are, whether the CEGAT, Mumbai was justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Customs without deciding the issues canvassed before it. It is also contended that passing of the order after four months of hearing has seriously prejudiced the case of the petitioners, because, vital documents which go to the root of the matter has not been considered in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.4. In the year 1993, the petitioners were granted three Quantity Based Advance Licenses under the Duty Exemption Scheme contained in Chapter VII of the Export-Import Policy for April, 1992 to March, 1997. The said licences carried an obliga...

Gulab Lahanu Dorge Vs. Namdeo Ramkrishna Katkar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR882; 2005(1)MhLj149

S.T. Kharche, J.1. Rule, made returnable forthwith by the consent of the parties.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's father had entered into sale transaction of the suit land for Rs. 50,000/- in contravention of the provisions of Section 57 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short, the tenancy Act). He contended that, therefore the petitioner, after the death of his father instituted an application before the Naib Tahsildar for declaring the sale deed as void. He contended that the Sub Divisional Officer, by his order dated 24-2-1999 held against the petitioner and rejected the said application. The petitioner being aggrieved, went in appeal before the Additional Collector and the Additional Collector recorded his findings in favour of the petitioner by an order dated 27-8- 2000 and declared the sale transaction as void by virtue of Section 57 of the Tenancy Act. He contended that the respondent No. 1, who...

Sound Tracks Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC522

1. The appellants were registered with the Central Excise Authorities as a manufacturer of "Recorded Audio Cassettes" and was clearing the same on payment of Customs Excise Duty. The officers pursuant to an 'intelligence gathered' (SIC), visited the appellant's premises on 16.05.1997. It was revealed, after the checks, that basic raw material i.e. Pancakes (Magnetic Tapes), Plastic Bodies without magnetic tapes and inlay covers (I.C. Plastic Covers) were purchased by the appellants directly from the suppliers. The original sound track i.e. master copy of the programme and inlay cards were supplied by the various music companies, who reserved and owned the quality control and inspection rights. The entire production of a particular cassette programme was to be sold to the said music company and there was no liberty to the appellants, as an independent manufacturer, to sell audio cassettes to any other class of buyer. The music company had the right to reject the products. The relations...

Uni Deritend Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC265

1. The prayer in the appeal is to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 3,43,472.00 and personal penalty of Rs. 3,06,000.00. The above demand of duty has been confirmed against the appellants for the period 18.3.90 to 30.7.97 on the ground that the product manufactured by the appellants was not classifiable under Heading 7508 .00, as contended by the appellants but the same was properly classifiable under Heading 8607.00 as part of Railway Locomotive.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned orders has observed as follows :- "In the instant case, I appreciate the facts on records that, the appellants give the name to the impugned product as "Castings of Nickel and Nickel base alloys - unmachined/machined" and therefore distinguishing it from its actual classification under sub heading 8607.00. The impugned product in fact is known by the customer (Railways) as "Valve Seat Insert" which is exclusively used as 'a part of Railway Locomotives' which is its...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shrivati Textiles Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT463Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Revenue has filed stay application in an appeal filed by them. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), vide the order impugned, after considering that there was no provision in the Act to reject the CT-3 to an EOU, unless status of EOU is withdrawn/cancelled/surrendered and after considering that EXIM Policy permits EOU to procure duty free raw material under Central Excise (Removal of goods at Concessional rate of duty for manufacture of Excisable goods) Rules, 2001 and in case of a misuse the EOU was liable to pay duty with interest and there being no provision in Central Excise (Removal of goods at Concessional rate of duty for manufacture of Excisable goods) Rules, 2001 to enable officer to have grant of permission of duty free goods on the grounds of misuse and on considering this scope of Rule 6 therein ordered the officers to immediately make arrangement for issue of fresh CT-3 certificate. a) The assessee has not sent the D-3 intimation by post and/or there was a delay of more than...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Meera Impex and ors.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC267

1. These are Revenue's appeals against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). By his common order, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the orders of the lower authority enhancing the value of imported goods, brass scrap, imported by the respondents. The lower authority rejected the value declared by the importers and determined it under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules as US$ 1332 PMT uniformly.2. The Commissioner (Appeals), while rejecting the value as enhanced by the lower authority, held that reliance placed by the adjudicating authority on stray instances of imports at higher prices and reject the transaction value is not correct. The reliance on LME prices, according to him, is misplaced. He held that the value declared by the importers is a transaction value as per Section 14(1) and Rule 4 of the Customs Act and Customs Valuation Rules respectively and since the department has not alleged, that the mischief of Clause (a) to (d) of Rule 4(2) of the said rules a...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Chemofarbe Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is revenue's appeal directed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The issue involved in this case is as to whether or not the credit of duty paid on inputs is required to be reversed in terms of Rule 57C when the said inputs are used in the manufacture of finished goods which are cleared without payment of duty under bond to 100% EOUs. It is the claim of the respondents that clearance under bond is neither clearance at nil duty nor clearance without payment of duty. CEGAT judgment in the case of (i) Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE Bombay, reported in 1995 (78) ELT 595 (Tri) (ii) J.K. Synthetics Ltd., Vs. CCE, Jaipur, reported in 1996 (87) ELT 389 (Tri) were relied upon.2. As against the above decisions, the revenue appeal claims that retention of credit in respect of finished goods cleared to 100% EOU has been permitted, only with effect from 01/03/92, vide Notification No. 4/92/Ce(NT) dated 01/03/92. Hence, it is claimed that the credit was requi...