Mumbai Court March 2004 Judgments

Universal Ferro and Allied Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Customs, Excise and Serv ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR642; 2005(102)ECC68; 2004(3)MhLj219

R.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard.2. Rule. Returnable forthwith.3. Mr. Jetley, advocate appearing for the respondents waives service.4. The petitioner preferred three appeals being appeal Nos. E/2691, 2692 and 2693 before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal aggrieved by the common order dated 25-6-2003 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Nagpur. In appeal No. E/2691, the petitioner took out application E/Stay-1793/2003 for waiver of pre-deposit of duties and penalties and stay of recovery thereof. In appeal No. 2692, the application E/Stay-1794/2003 was taken out while in appeal No. 2693/2003, application E/Stay-1795/2003 was taken out by the petitioners for waiver of pre-deposit of duties and penalties and stay of recovery thereof. The case for waiver of pre-deposit of duties and penalties was sought to be set up by the petitioners on the ground that they have prima facie case and if waiver of pre-deposit was not granted, that would cause undue hardship as ...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Nilappa Shankarappa Chakure and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)MhLj139

P.S. Brahme, J.1. Heard Shri S.D. Kaldate, learned A. P. P. for the appellant and Shri Hanmant V. Patil, learned counsel holding for Shri V.G. Sakolkar, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the judgment and also the depositions of the witnesses examined by the prosecution.2. This is an appeal by appellant/State challenging the Judgment and order passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ausa, District- Latur, in Regular Criminal Case No. 7671983 passed on 29-1-1988 acquitting the respondents of the offences under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.3. In an incident that took place on 7-6-1983 the victim Vijayabai was wife of complainant Sharanappa (P.W.2). Respondents along with Kamlabai Ghodke (original accused No. 5) and Kasturabai Chakure (original accused No. 6) was dragged from the house, by making forceful entry in the house and was taken to a place where Grampanchayat Office is situated and there she came to be assaulted by the ac...

Sudhakar S/O Sukhdev Ramteke and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)MhLj292

A.H. Joshi, J.1. The appellants are the accused who were tried for the offence punishable under Section 376(g) and under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, furtherance to First Information Report dated 29-7-2001 by the learned First Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhandara. The Trial resulted into conviction of all the accused under both the sections for which they were charged and were sentenced to suffer R. I. for 10 years each for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) of Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs. 2000/- with R. I. for 2 months in default of payment of fine. Separate sentence for offence under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs. 500/- is also awarded. This is the judgment which is challenged in the present appeal.2. The story as is revealed from the First Information Report is that the Prosecutrix Satyasheela had visited the village Shahapur, the place of her cousin Tarabai. According to her, three accused persons Sudhakar Sukhdeo Ramteke, S...

Doodh Kamgar Sabha Vs. Zurisingh Beechusing and Co. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)BomCR820; (2005)ILLJ709Bom; 2004(4)MhLj449

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, dated August 23, 1999, in Complaint (ULP) No. 555 of 1993. The complaint was filed by the Kamgar Sabha against the establishment. Respondent No. 1 is a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of stable. The said partnership firm is the licensee of Unit No. 17 belonging to Aarey Milk Colony. Respondent No. 2 is one of the partners of the said firm. It is the case of the petitioner-complainant that respondents own 130 buffalos in the said Unit No. 17 belonging to Aarey Milk Colony and had employed 13 workmen to carry out the day to day work, such as cleaning, milking, etc. The workers came together and formed petitioner Union sometime in 1992. As the workers came together and formed union, obviously there was resistance from the respondents. The differences between the workmen and the establishment with the filing of complaint by the petitioner bearing Co...

Prabhakar S/O Bhagwantrao Mahajan, President Sarafa Vyapari Associatio ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR813; (2004)106BOMLR177

S.T. Kharche, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.4.1990 passed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Amravati, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 503 of 1986, whereby the appeal came to be dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court on 6.10.1986 dismissing the suit with costs and allowing the counter-claim of defendant No. 2 directing the plaintiff to deliver the vacant possession of the suit site to defendant No. 2 was confirmed.2. Brief facts are as under :The appellant original plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction on the contention that the plaintiff/association is the tenant of Municipal House No, 158(2) situated in Ward No. 44 at Amravati and the said tenement is owned by respondent/defendant No. 1. The respondent/defendant No. 2 contended that he had purchased the whole building including plaintiffs tenement from defendant. No. 1, but it was without the knowledge of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 2 started demolis...

Al Yaseen Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT562Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The dispute in the instant appeal relates to admissibility of refund of customs duty claimed by the appellants. The lower authorities rejected the claims. Hence the instant appeals before the tribunal.3. The claims for refund arose on account of the fact that though the goods were initially permitted to be cleared on payment of appropriate duty, after following the due process of assessment, before the appellants could take the delivery of goods, the consignment was intercepted by the customs authorities for re-examination. On noticing mis-declaration, the goods were taken over by the customs authorities for further action. The said goods were stored in the C.F.S. Mulund Shed of Container Corporation of India (CONCOR) on 31.1.96. The appellants were served with a show cause notice on 10.4.97. However, on 16/17th April 1997, a fire broke out in the CFS Mulund shed of CONCOR, where the goods were stored. The said show cause notice was adjudicated and the appeal against the adjudicati...

Akola Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal at the instance of the assessee is against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 12.09.2002.2. Show cause notice dated 2.11.93 initiating proceedings which is the subject matter of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) would show that the Revenue was taking steps to implement the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 1618/81 filed by the Revenue. The SLP was allowed by the Supreme Court in the following manner:- "The only question in this case is whether the value of tins in which the vegetable products is stored for the purpose of convenient delivery and sale at the gate is liable to be included in the cash value of the product for the purpose of the Central Excise Act. The matter is concluded in favour of the Revenue by the decision of this Court in Union of India and Ors. etc. v. Bombay Tyre International etc. (1984) 1 SCR 347).3. The Show Cause Notice shows that while implementing the above order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the l...

Radiant Engineers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT464Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Appellants manufacture airconditioning appliances and parts thereof falling under chapter 84, 85 & 90 CETA and avail modvat facility under Rule 57-A of C.E. rules. The products manufactured by the Appellants are covered under modification No. 75/87 dt. 01-03-87 under which goods upto an aggregate value not exceeding to Rs. 5,00,000/- of first clearances are wholly exempt from payment of duty, upto Rs. 15,00,000/- immediately following the first clearances 50% of the effective rate is payable and thereupon full duty. The Appellants filed a classification list effective from 1.4.87 claiming the benefit of Notification No. 75/87. This C.L. was approved by the A.C. on 26-06-87. During the period when CL was pending approved the Appellants cleared their goods paying full rate of duty (40%) even though they were not required to do so. However, after obtaining the approval they started paying @ 20% adv. on the goods cleared in the next slab (upto Rs. 15 lakhs).2. A show cause noti...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Avinka Leathers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondents herein imported a consignment of solenoid Valve for dispenser and casing for dispenser claiming classification of the Solenoid Valve under Customs Tariff Heading 8481.80 and casing dispenser under Customs Tariff heading 3926.90 under Bill of Entry dated 30/06/1997. Clearance of the goods was sought without a licence as freely importable goods in terms of the Import Export Policy 1997-2002. The goods were examined and it was found that Solenoid valve consists of solenoid valve fitted with aerosol valve and spray nozzle and a populated PCB connected to it along with electric switch and battery lead. The casing for the dispenser was found to be plastic cabinet along with screws. When the solenoid valve gets fitted in the cabinet it becomes an automatic aerosol dispenser and only electrical cell and scent bottle were required to be placed in it for making it functional. The department was of the view that the goods were covered by Customs Tariff Heading 9616.10 which co...

Crompton Greaves Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Jyoli Balasundaram, Member (J) 1. The common issue in dispute in these five appeals, arising out of a common order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, is the eligibility of the appellants herein to deduction in assessable value of their goods of cash discounts/quantity discount to dealers and buyers; claimed in various price-lists. During the relevant period such discounts have been disallowed on the ground that although they were known in advance, they were not passed on to their customers/buyers as declared. The details of the demands on the basis of inclusion of such discounts and details of penalties imposed are to be found in annexure to this order.2. We have heard Shri J.F. Pochkhanwala, learned Senior Advocate appealing along with Shri M.V. Ravindran, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri S. V. Parelkar, learned DR for the Revenue.3. We find that the assessee's stand before the adjudicating authority that they had actually passed on the discounts, supported by...