Mumbai Court April 2004 Judgments

Kailash S/O Manikrao Khanzode Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)MhLj315

D.S. Zoting, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the original accused against the Judgment and Order dated 30th November, 1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad in Sessions Trial No. 51/97 whereby the original accused has been convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo life imprisonment.2. The facts which are not in dispute may be stated as under :The murdered woman was one Dwarkabai, aged about 30 years. Gayabai (P.W. 3) is the mother of deceased Dwarkabai. Deceased Dwarkabai was married to one Bhimrav. Godabai is the daughter of deceased Dwarkabai from her first husband Bhimrav. However, there was a divorce between Bhimrav and Dwarkabai. Thereafter, deceased Dwarkabai was residing with her mother Gayabai at Yeldhari. She was earning her livelihood by selling firewood. The accused is the resident of Yeldhari. He was also doing the same work for earning his livelihood. The accused used to accompany Gayabai and her daughter ...

Nanded Municipal Council Vs. Mohd. Yusuf S/O Mohd. Ramzan

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)MhLj1061

A.S. Bagga, J. 1. This Second Appeal is filed by Nanded Municipal Council and arises out of the judgment and decree dated 30-7-1983, passed by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nanded in Regular Civil Suit No. 454/1981 and the judgment and decree dated 30-6-1986, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nanded in Regular Civil Appeal No. 229/1983.2. A suit was brought by present respondent/original plaintiff against the present appellant/Municipal Council, Nanded for perpetual injunction. The plaintiff intended to undertake construction of a wooden and tin shed on an open land belonging to Gurudwara Board, Nanded in Survey No. 25. This land admeasuring 25' x 30' from Survey No. 25 was taken by the plaintiff on lease. The plaintiff sent a notice under the provisions of section 189 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). After having sent the aforesaid notice, he took water connecti...

Satyadev Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC513

1. The appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).The dispute is in regard to rejection of application for refund of duty paid on reprocessed goods.2. The appellants manufactured and cleared 5000 kgs. hydroquinone photographic grade, on payment of duty, to one Vanavil Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. The latter rejected 4000 kgs. of the material and sent it back to the appellants' factory. An intimation to this effect in form D3 was given by the appellants. An Inspector of Central Excise visited the factory and verified the fact of return of the said goods.Thereupon the appellants reprocessed the goods, paid duty once again and cleared the goods (4000 kgs). The claim for refund pertains to this duty paid for the second time.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of the lower authority rejecting the claim. The grounds for rejection of the claim are: The claimant did not produce the original gate pass under which the goods were cleared. The appellants' contention is ...

Bora Sara Machines Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT428Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal arose out of the order of the Commissioner (A) who in the impugned order, decided that the appellant is entitled to interest at certain rates for the delayed payment of rebates due to them for the period from 12.2.98 to 27.9.2000.3. The appellants were sanctioned a total sum of Rs.5,57,075/- by the JAC on 29.8.97. Instead of disbursing this amount to the appellants, the JAC adjusted it against confirmed demands payable by the appellant.The amount involved in the confirmed demands is Rs. 22,24,093/- under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act. The department has the right to recover government dues in accordance with the procedure laid down therein It is a fact that the JAC has not put the appellant on notice before adjusting the sanctioned rebate against the confirmed demand. It is also a fact that there was a confirmed demand against the appellant when the amount stated above was adjusted.4. It so transpired that in an appeal filed by the appellant against the confirmed ...

Preet Security Services Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The stay application arose out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who in the impugned order dismissed the appeal for the non-compliance of the order issued under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act as made applicable to Service Tax. The issue pertains to Service Tax.2. Penalties under Section 76 and Section 77 were imposed by the lower adjudicating authority. The total amount of penalty imposed worked out to Rs 53,347/-. The applicants were asked to deposit Rs 26,000/- vide order dated 23.9.2003 under Section 35F by the Commissioner (Appeals).The applicants failed to do so. The appeal was dismissed for non-compliance.4. The Commissioner (Appeals) ordered deposit of Rs 26,000/- out of the total penalties imposed. Considering that the amount is rather small, the applicants are directed to deposit the amount. Upon such deposit, the balance is waived. While passing this order, the financial position of the applicants as reflected in the balance sheet, is kept in mind.Pre-depo...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hyva Transportation Systems Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Cross objections are filed by the respondent who is also aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The Revenue appeal is on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in reducing the penalty imposed by the original authority under Section 11 AC. The Revenue contends that penalty under Section 11 AC is mandatory and should not be less than the amount of duty sought to be evaded. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred, it was argued, while he reduced the penalty. This issue is settled inasmuch as this Tribunal held that penalty under Section 11AC indicates the maximum amount that can be imposed and is not mandatory. The decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be faulted.3. The respondents, in their cross objections, challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the Commissioner erred in retaining any penalty at all in their case as they paid the entire duty even ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Samson Controls Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by the Revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order set aside the interest demanded and the penalty imposed on the respondent under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 571(5) of the Central Excise Rules and Section 11AC respectively.2. Briefly the facts are that the respondents cleared final products namely control valves and accessories without payment of duty by availing of exemption under notification 10/97-CE dated 1.3.1997 to various institutions like Department of Atomic energy etc. between the period March 1999 to July 1999. The respondents used inputs on which credit was taken in the manufacture of final products without reversing 8% of the amount calculated on the price at which the final products are sold. On being pointed, the respondents reversed the credit at the above rate even before issue of show cause notice. The amount so reversed is Rs.43,835/-.3. The original auth...

S.R. Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)STR310

1. This application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty imposed arose out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who in the impugned order confirmed the penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 along with liability of payment of service tax. The applicant paid the service tax in full. Penalties of Rs. 1,47,212/- under Section 76 and Rs. 3,600/- under Section 77 were imposed.2. The applicant pleaded that she discharged service tax up to June 1998 and stopped making payment only because the authorised Bank had refused to accept payment due to change of jurisdiction when reorganisation of the Commissionerate took place. The tax being new, she was not aware of the consequences of not filing the return. In any case the entire service tax payable has been paid. Pre-deposit of penalties be waived in view of special circumstances of the case.4. Pre-deposit of penalties is waived in view of the fact that service tax stands paid and recovery thereof stayed during...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Gujrat Ambuja Exports Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Respondents absent. From the records it is seen that they are habitual absentees. The matter is therefore taken up for final disposal.2. The issue involved is whether due to amendment to notification 8/97 vide 11/2000, the Respondents were required to pay Additional Duty of Excise(ADE) on clearance to Domestic Tariff Area, the Respondents being an 100% EOU.3. The Respondents rely upon notification 55/91 exempting the said duty read Board's instructions on 384/17/98-CX dated 20/3/98 stipulating that Notification No. 55/91 would be available & cannot be stipulated that benefit of notification 55/91 would be available and cannot be considered by notification 8/97.4. Revenue submits that Notification No. 11/2000 amending Notification 8/97 is very clear & has been clarified by Board vide No. 554/50/2000 CX dt. 19.10.2000 which stipulates the disputed levy to be discharged.5. Issue has been dealt with and settled vide Parasrampuria International (2002(52) RLT 545 wherein both the...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mukesh Synthetics and Mukesh H.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Commissioner sets aside the order of the lower authority who confiscated 7315.775 kgs. of dyed polyester texturised yarn, 960.660 kgs. of grey white texturised yam and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the respondent company and Rs. 50,000/- on its director.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that 7315.775 kgs. of DPTY confiscated on the ground that it was not accounted for in RG1 even when it was ready to pack condition is not justified as the goods in question have not reached the RG1 stage even according to the panchnama drawn at the time of seizure. In regard to 960.660 kgs. of grey/white texturised yarn confiscated on the ground that it was not accounted in the raw material register, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that as per the evidence on record these goods were received in the factory only the previous day, the assessee did not have time to enter the goods i...