Mumbai Court April 2004 Judgments

Umesh Dukhan Mandal Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)MhLj663

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned APP waives service. By consent, matter taken up for hearing.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.3. It appears that the petitioner herein was charged with the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for an act committed on 10-4-1999. The petitioner has been convicted of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Court, Greater Bombay by its judgment and order dated 14-11-2003 and whereby the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.4. The petitioner has filed this present petition challenging the aforesaid sentence and not the conviction. The only contention raised in the petition is that on the date of commission of the said offence on 10-4-1999, the petitioner was aged about 151/2 years, as such, he was a 'juvenile' under the Juv...

Marathwada Banjara Seva Sangh Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)MhLj8

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard. Rule. By consent, heard forthwith.2. The petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 25-11-2003 passed by the respondent No. 2, and confirmed by the respondent No. 3 by his order dated 1-12-2003 whereby the grants to the institution of the petitioner have been withheld on the ground that the respondent No. 4 was transferred in contravention of law debarring mid-term transfer.3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner, referring to Rule 41 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, hereinafter referred to as the 'said Rules', submitted that there is no need of any permission from the authorities for transfer of the headmaster from one high school to another high school. He also further submitted that there is no prohibition against mid-term transfers and each case has to be considered on the facts of that case and it has been left to the discretion of the management to take appropriate decision in each case, depen...

Gangadhar S/O Gonduram Tadme Vs. Trimbak S/O Govindrao Akingire and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR749; 2005(1)MhLj94

ORDER1. Heard the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 2, 4, 7 and 8.2. The petitioner challenges the orders passed by the authorities declaring that the third child of the petitioner was born on 18-3-2002 and not on 1-9-2001, as was sought to be contended by the petitioner and consequently declaring the petitioner to have been disqualified to be a member of the Gram Panchayat, Sayedpur on the basis that a person getting a third child after the appointed date cannot continue to be a member of the village panchayat.3. The contention of the petitioners is that the authorities below did not give sufficient weightage to the birth certificate of the third child of the petitioner, issued by the Gram Sevak, who is given the powers of the Registrar under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886, hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act.' In other words, it is the contention of the petitioner that the presumptive value which is available to the contents of...

Smt. Shewantabai Wd/O Kisanrao Ingle Vs. Sau. Chandrakalabai W/O Sheko ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR40; (2005)107BOMLR1482

S.T. Kharche, J.1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, the original defendant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15th April, 1994 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1991, whereby the appeal is dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 27th March, 1991 allowing the suit by directing the appellant/defendant to deliver the possession of the suit field Survey No. 8/2, admeasuring 12 acres 33 gunthas, with enquiry into future mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure Code is confirmed.2. The respondent/plaintiff filed suit for possession of the southern side of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 8/2 of her share to the extent of 5 hectares 33 Ares on the contentions that her father Kisanrao Sambhaji Ingle died on 27th April, 1976 and before his death he had executed a Will on 1st September, 1975 whereby the agricultu...

Adarsh Ice-cream and Frozen Food Vs. C.C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT334Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, I take up the appeal itself, in as much as the issue lies in a narrow compass. As per facts on record, appellant are manufacturer of ice cream, which they supply to the caterers. As per the terms of the agreement between the two, the unused ice cream is sent back to the appellant for the purpose of storing and hardening. Subsequently based upon the requirement of the caterers, the same is cleared without payment of duty. Right from 4.3.1991 onwards, the appellants were having permission by the Commissioner to bring back the unsold duty paid ice cream for the purpose of storage and hardening, subject to the appellant maintaining an account for the same. There is no dispute that appellant were maintaining the said account. However in as much as the said permission was only up to 31.3.01, the appellant applied for further permission on the same lines. After writing a number of letters, they received an intimation ...

N.R.B. Bearings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Issue in these appeals being common, they are being disposed off by this order, after hearing both sides and considering the material on record.2. The issue determined by CCE (Appeals) is as to what should be the profit margin to be added in case of valuation to be determined of parts of needle roller bearing, cleared for captive consumption, whether the gross profit of the assessee for the previous years which is 23.18%, 15.8%, 21.89%, 26.87%, 27.76% & 26.16% for the years 1991-1992, 92-93, 933-94, 94-95, 95-96 & 1996-97 or 10% as retail profit on the parts in question as held by the CCE (A) in many decisions. Relying on the CBEC Circular No. 258/92/96-CX dated 30.10.1996, wherein it was clarified that in calculation of value under Rule 6(b)(ii) actual gross profit is to be added and CCE (A)'s decision the actual profit was less than 10%. The profit was loaded to the gross profits for previous years as per the Balance-sheet and upheld the duty demand and penalty.3. The sem...

National Leather Clothes Mfg. Co. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue in both the appeals relates to the eligibility to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 32/95 C.E. and No. 47/95 both dated 16.3.95 for the excisable goods falling under Chapter 60 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The period in dispute in Appeal No. E/3741/98 is October 1995 to March, 1996 while the period covered in Appeal No. 3742/98 is from 16th March 1995 onwards.2. The benefit of the Notifications has been denied on the ground that cotton fabrics and man made textile fabrics manufactured by the appellants herein were subjected to the process of Heat Setting and, therefore, they were liable to pay duty as total exemption from payment of duty is available under the Notifications only if the goods are not subjected to any process.3. We have heard both sides. We find that before the authorities below, the argument raised was that they were not carrying out the process of Heat Setting, which has been rejected. However, before us the plea a...

Gulshan Prints P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT345Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. Shri Mayur Shroff, learned advocate appearing for the appellants states that the appellants have been denied refund of an amount of Rs. 1,72,016/-. The claim was filed on 21.7.1998 in respect of un-utilized deemed credit in respect of grey man made fabrics which were processed and exported during the period April to June, 1998. He further says that once the refund claim was filed, the amount could not be utilised during the subsequent period and in any case the appellants came under the compounded levy scheme on 16.12.1998 and it was no longer possible to utilise the unutilized credit. He also states that eventhough the claim was made under Notification No. 85/87 but the provisions of Notification No. 29/96 are squarely applicable. He also says that the condition under paragraph 5 of notification No. 85/87 is different from the condition under paragraph 3 of Notification No.29/96. it is his claim that since the appellants have satisfied the conditions under Notifi...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shree Harikrupa Inds.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Heard both sides. The departmental appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) reducing the penalty to 10% on the ground that Section 11AC warrants mandatory penalty of an amount equal to the duty amount. Shri K.C. Rathod, learned consultant appearing for the respondents brings to any notice that another Bench of the Tribunal vide Order No. C-III/956 & 957/WZB/2003 dated 06.06.2003 has already set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original authority for fresh determination. In view of the fact that the impugned order has already been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the original authority, the departmental appeal has become in fructuous and the same is dismissed. The original authority will be at liberty to decide the matter afresh including the quantum of penalty after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondents....

N.R.B. Bearings Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(115)LC836Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Issue in these appeals being common, they are being disposed off by this order, after hearing both sides and considering the material on record.2. The issue determined by CCE (Appeals) is as to what should be the profit margin to be added in case of valuation to be determined of parts of needle roller bearings, cleared for captive consumption, whether the gross profit of the assessee for the previous years which is 23.18%, 15.87%, 21.89%, 26.87%, 27.76% & 26.16% for the years 1991-1992, 1992-1993, 1993-1994, 1994-1995, 1995-1996 86 1996-1997 or 10% as retain profit on the parts in question as held by the CCE (A) in many decisions. Relying on the CBEC Circular No. 258/92/96-CX dated 30.10.1996, wherein it was clarified that in calculation of value under Rule 6(b)(ii) actual gross profit is to be added and CCE(A)'s decision the actual profit was less than 10%. The profit was loaded to the gross profits for previous years as per the Balance-sheet and upheld the duty demand and pen...