Mumbai Court April 2004 Judgments

Evergreen Exim P. Ltd., Ashish Kr. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. By order No. C-I/191 to 193/WZB/2004 dt. 24.12.2003 pre-deposit of Rs. 80 lakhs by M/s. Evergreen Exim Pvt. Ltd. was directed to be made within 12 weeks and compliance to be reported. The applicant company seeks modification of the order on the ground that before the show cause notice was adjudicated, the applicant unit got converted into SEZ, and the adjudication could therefore be done only by the Deputy Commissioner of SEZ applying the ratio of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. v. CC (Appeals) [1995 (77) ELT 310]. The further plea that is raised before us is that the perusal of the balance sheet would show that the company has been suffering loss and it would however cause undue hardship if any pre-deposit is insisted upon.2. The prayer is opposed by Ld. DR stating that all aspects including the financial hardship were raised and considered while directing predeposit of the above mentioned amount out of the total duty amount.3. On a careful c...

Shri Babu Jaya Yedage, Vs. Shri Kasam Mohammed Patel,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom321; 2004(3)ALLMR19; 2004(4)MhLj10

V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 16th June, 2003 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, karad below Exh.28 in Special Civil Suit No. 463 of 2000 rejecting the application moved by the defendant for direction to the plaintiff to pay necessary court fee on the valuation of the suit claim.The Facts:2. The facts in short reveal that the respondents/original plaintiffs have filed Special Civil Suit, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,50,000/- from the petitioners on the ground that the accidental death of Shakeel Kasam Patel was caused due to the negligence of the petitioners/original defendants, on payment of court fee only on the claim of Rs. 2,50,000/- out of Rs. 7,50,000/- contending that the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 being women litigants are exempted from payment of court fee as per notification dated 1st October, 1994. The said suit came to be registered as Special Civil Suit No. 463 of 2000 and allotted to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior D...

Lalbahadur Ram Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom410; 2004(4)ALLMR209; 2004(3)MhLj665

D.B. Bhosale, J. 1. Heard Mr. Dhakepalkar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Chinchalikar, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.2. Rule, returnable forthwith.3. Mr. Chinchalikar, learned counsel waives service for the respondents. By consent of the parties taken up for the final hearing.4. The petitioners in all the four petitions have challenged the separate orders dated 29-1-2004 passed by respondent No. 1 - Sub Divisional Officer rejecting the reference application filed by the petitioners under Section 34(1) of Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') on the ground that court fee along with reference application had not been paid within the stipulated time of 60 days.5. The award in these writ petitions was made by the Collector on 11-11-2003. The Reference Application under Section 34(1) of the Act was filed by all the petitioners on 12-1-2004. Admittedly, an application along with the reference application was filed seeking one month's time to pa...

Govindrao S/O Gangaramji Ajmire Vs. Dadarao @ Shrawan S/O Gangaramji A ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR660; 2004(4)MhLj653

S.T. Kharche, J.1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Second Appeal has been filed by the original Plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 2nd of March, 1990, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amravati in Regular Civil Appeal No. 57 of 1989, whereby he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit house.2. The relevant facts are required to be stated as under :--The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his share. It is contended that the plaintiff had purchased the suit house out of the income of ancestral joint family property. The joint Hindu family owned 234 acres of agricultural land and same was subject matter of partition between the plaintiff and defendant and their sons and the property i.e. Agriculture land was partitioned vide ...

Central Bank of India Vs. Prakash Digambar Adhao and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR847; 2005(1)MhLj743

S.T. Kharche, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4-12-1989 passed by the Additional District Judge (Mr. J. H. Bhatia) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 161 of 1989, whereby the appeal was allowed and the suit filed by the respondent/Central Bank of India for recovery of loan amount was dismissed against the appellant/defendant No. 2.2. Brief facts arc required to be stated as under :The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 39,131.85 against the defendants on the contentions that the defendant No. 1 borrowed the loan of Rs. 51,000/- for purchase of matador on 22-94979 by executing a deed of hypothecation (Ex.45) on the date day. The defendants No. 2 and 3 stood guarantors to the said loan and had executed a deed of guarantee (Ex.47). The defendant No. 2 is the real brother of defendant No. 1. The loan amount was disbursed to defendant No. 1 who agreed that the repayment would be by way of instalments. He stopped paying the instalments since 1981. On 21-9-1982, the d...

Suresh and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2005)DMC390

P.S. Brahme, J. 1. Heard respective Counsel for parties. Perused the record with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties.2. In regard to an incident that took place on 25.7.2001, in which the victim Babai (P.W. 1) w/o original accused No. 1 Suresh (appellant No. 1) was set on fire by pouring kerosene with assistance of Sakharbai (appellant No. 2), who is admittedly second wife of appellant No. 1, both the appellants were tried before the III Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No. 148 of 2001 for offences under Sections 498-A, 307 and 506 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and the learned Judge, by his judgment and order dated 19.3.2002 convicted the appellants for offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month; and appellant No. 1, in addition, was convicted for offence under Section 498-A of India...

Union of India (Uoi), Through the Secretary to the Government of India ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)106BOMLR748

V.M. Kanade, J.1. By this petition, Petitioners i.e. Union of India and others are challenging the Judgment and Order dated 30.6.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (For short 'C.A.T.') whereby the application filed by the respondent challenging the order of termination issued by the petitioners was allowed and the impugned termination order was set aside with a direction to take further action within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the said Order.2. On 12.9.2003, this Court had passed the following order in para 1 which reads as under :-1. Issue notice as to admission as well as final hearing, returnable in the third week of November, 2003.3. On 18.3.2004, the matter was adjourned to 6.4.2004 for the purpose of deciding the matter finally at the admission stage as was indicated in the order dated 12.9.2003.4. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. Matter is taken up for final hearing. We have ...

Globe Transport Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- on the transport firm (Globe Transport Corporation) and Rs. 1,00,000/- on the partner of the firm under Section 112(b) 112(b) of the Customs Act, on the ground that the firm and the partner were knowingly concerned in transporting smuggled goods which are liable to confiscation. However, it is noticed that only one appeal is filed on behalf of Globe Transport Corporation and the above named partner. Under Rule 6A Explanation (2) of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules 1982, two appeals should have been filed. At the stay stage, however, this has not been noticed. We proceed to treat this appeal as one made by Globe Transport Corporation and deal with it accordingly.2. The facts are that on information that a truck belonging to the firm with registration No. GJ-1-TT 5924 was carrying 19 packages of goods of foreign origin from Mumbai to Ajmer, the officers of Customs intercepted the vehicle at Mal...

Shri Jaykrishna Bala and Shree Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT574Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On matter being called nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant in spite of notice of hearing having been sent well in advance. I also find from the records that on last 3 to 4 occasions, when the matter came up, nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant. As such, I proceed to dispose of the appeals, after hearing the Ld. JDR, and after going through the impugned orders passed by the authorities below.2. Vide the impugned orders the lower authorities have confiscated the truck belonging to the appellant with an option to them to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.2.25 lakhs offered on execution of a bond at the time of provisional release of goods and for Rs. 56,250/- given as security in the form of bank guarantee at the time of provisional release of the goods. In addition, personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has also been imposed on the 2nd appellant, who is owner of the truck, under Rule 209-A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. As per the facts on records, the truc...

Herdillia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT324Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both the sides, duly represented by Shri J.N. Pikle, Ld. Advocate, and Shri Arun Chopra, Ld. JDR., I find that as per facts on records the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Phenol and Acetone. During the manufacture of the said products 'waste hydro carbon' arises which the appellants used captively as fuel. The said hydro carbon was being classified, under heading 27.10 and entitled to exemption under Notification No. 276/67 C.E. However, proceedings were initiated against them for classification of the product under Heading 38.23. Ultimately the said waste hydro carbon was held to be falling under Chapter 38 in which case also there was also exemption in terms of Notification No. 217/86.2. When the above proceedings were going on against the appellant the Revenue was of the view that such waste hydro carbon captively used as fuel attracted duty and directed the appellant to deposit duty amount in question for the period 1.3.94 to 8.1.95. The said deposits...