Mumbai Court June 2004 Judgments

Hagel Capsule Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT470Tri(Mum.)bai

a) The issue involved is classification of the product 'Microshield-2' , utilized, as per Doctors certificates, on record, as an antiseptic. The show cause notice issued proposed, to deny the classification as medicament under 3003.10 & proposed the classification under 3304, on the grounds- "It is observed from the labels of the said product that the same contain a) Emollient b) Moisturizer and can be used for body washing. Thus the main function of the product is taking care of the skin while antiseptic property is a subsidiary one' Hence it appears that the said product is properly classification under Ch.SH.3304.00 of CETA, 1955' b) The CCE(A) confirmed the classification, as proposed in the notice, by arriving at the following finding "It is observed that the subject products in dispute, which are referred to as Microshield 2 Chlorhexidine skin cleanser with emollient and moisturiser containing Chlorhexidine Gluconate Soluation 10% v/w, Microshield T triclosan skin cleaner wi...

Sidappa Rama Patil Vs. Sattur Laxman Kole Deceased by His Heirs Laxman ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR123; 2005(2)BomCR419; 2004(4)MhLj119

A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This petition under Article 227 takes exception to the judgment and order dated 11-12-1981 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur, in Revision Nos. MRT KP 243/80 and MRT KP 244/80. Briefly stated the land in question is survey No. 72 admeasuring 4 acres 7 gunthas at Village Saroli, Tal : Gadhinglaj, Dist : Kolhapur. The grandfather of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were shown in the Revenue Record as cultivating suit land along with Bhairu Shinde during period 1946 to 1950. The petitioners claim that their predecessor was protected tenant and being so proceeding under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as said Act) were initiated. It appears from the record that proceeding under Section 32G of the said Act were initiated in respect of said land in which the Agricultural Land Tribunal determined the purchase price to be paid by the tenants. That order was passed on March 26, 1962. It is se...

Vaibhav Vasant Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR939; 2004(4)MhLj298

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective respondents waive service. Respondent No. 7 has been served. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The petitioner has stated before the Court that he was in occupation of a room bearing No. HEX 12-2/7 situated at A. R. Singh Compound, Dhobi Ghat, Vakola, Santacruz (East), Mumbai 400055. The aforesaid room is situated on land bearing Survey No. 376, CTS No. 116, Plot No. 6 and 4 admeasuring 2773 sq. mtrs situated at village Kole Kalyan Pakhadi, Vakola, Santacruz (East), Mumbai 400055. The aforesaid land is privately owned property. The occupants residing on the property formed a society by the name of Shivkrupa Co-operative Housing Society Limited consisting of 95 occupants/members. On 17th January, 1992 the society acquired leasehold rights in respect of the land under a lease agreement which was entered into with the original owners. A development agreement was entered into...

Laxmibai Wd/O Shripat Kumare Vs. Chief Executive Officer and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR619; 2004(6)BomCR744; 2004(4)MhLj330

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Heard Shri Kalbande, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Thakre, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and 2 and Smt. Dangre, learned AGP for respondent 2.2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties, in view of order dated 30-1-2004.3. By this petition, the petitioner, the widow of deceased Shripat Zita Kumare, is seeking relief of grant of full pension to her from the date of death of Smt. Nirmala i.e. 21-1-2001, the other widow of Shripat Zita Kumare and a further relief of declaration that the act of respondents in reducing amount of family pension from Rs. 1,760/- to Rs. 643/- per month from July 2001 is bad in law.4. The brief facts are :The petitioner, according to her, is the first wife of deceased Shripat Zita Kumare and her husband was working as Primary Teacher in Primary School run by Zilla Parishad, Nagpur at Pusda under the Panchayat Samiti, Ramtek. He expired after retirement from service on 13-9-1991 at Devlapar due t...

Mukunda Ramaji Dunedar Vs. Smt. Sitabai W/O Mukunda Dunedar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)MhLj32

S.T. Kharche, J.1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 7-12-2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Petition No. 4/2001 whereby revision came to be dismissed and the order dated 12-2-2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code granting maintenance @ Rs. 300/- per month to the respondent-wife, was confirmed.2. Brief facts are as under :The respondent-wife filed an petition claiming maintenance on the contentions that she is legally wedded wife of the petitioner-husband and their marriage was solemnized about 50 years ago. It is contended that the wife joined the company of her husband and lived with him continuously for the period of about 10 to 12 years and during that period the couple was blessed with a daughter by name Baby. It is contended that the co...

Narayan S/O Gurudas Kite Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)MhLj73

S.T. Kharche, J.1. By invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the order dated 26-6-2002 passed by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 155 of 1997 directing the recall of the prosecution witnesses under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) is under challenge in this petition.2. Brief facts are as under :The applicant has been prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 362, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code vide Crime No. 143 of 1997 on the allegations that on 6-2-1997 between 11 and 12 hours he abducted the prosecutrix Ku. Nitisha Moghe of 12 years age and had taken her away from the lawful guardianship of her father and did commit rape on her. The first information report was lodged at the police station on 8-2-1997 at 22.00 hours and after the investigation the charge-sheet was filed. The applicant was arrested on 6-6-1997 and he was released on bail. The ac...

Radheshyam Dubey Vs. Board of Apprenticeship Training, Western Region ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)ILLJ176Bom

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Counsel for the Respondents waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. This Petition is directed against an order dated June 5, 2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal holding that the reference for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not maintainable on the ground that the First Respondent is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The First Respondent is an organisation called the Board of Apprenticeship Training, Western Region, Mumbai. The First Respondent is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department'. of Education, Government of India and is registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, I860. Under the Memorandum of Association, the main object of the First Respondent is to organize' practical training for graduates and diploma holders in engineering and technolog...

imp Power Ltd. and Manoj Kumar Sen Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof along With the appeals are filed by IMP Power Ltd. and its Assistant manager against the order of Commissioner of Central Excise Vapi.2. After hearing the applications for some time we find it possible to decide the appeals themselves after waiving pre- deposit of duty and penalty. We proceed to do so.3. The appellant company manufactures transformers and supplies them to various Electricity Boards for execution of power projects financed by 'Japan Bank for International Cooperation'. The transformers were cleared without payment of Central Excise duty availing of exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. The appellants cleared the goods to the said projects on the strength of certificates issued by the project implementation authorities certifying that the project is approved by the Government of India and the goods are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 10...

Gripp Systems Ltd. and Shri N.i. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT288Tri(Mum.)bai

1. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise has denied the benefit of concessional rate of duty of Rs. 1500/- per colour T.V.set paid at the time of their clearance, as per Notification No. 68/86 dated 10.2.86, 77/87 dated 1.3.87 and 122/88 dated 1.3.88 which is applicable to T.V. sets of value of not exceeding Rs. 5000/-, on the ground that, by addition of - (b) excise duty paid on inputs on which modvat credit was availed and the value exceeded Rs. 5000/- and therefore, the manufacturer was liable to pay duty at the rate of Rs. 1750/- per set; on this basis he confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 69, 63,750/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs on the manufacturer as well as penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on its Director. Hence, these appeals.2. We have heard both sides. We note that against an earlier order dated 30.12.91 of the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad by which differential duty of Rs. 1750/- per set was confirmed on the very same ground as in the present order...

Commissioner of Customs (Export) Vs. Rasayano, Jay Chemical Inds.,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the above appeals, the grievance of the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Customs is that, in addition to confirming the duty demand of Rs. 9,00,586/- raised in the show cause notice for contravention of the provisions of Notification No. 203/92-Cus for non utilisation of Crude Naphthalene in the manufacture of It-acid and contravention of the provisions of the Exim Policy AM 92-97, he ought to have confirmed the demand together with interest and also imposed penalty on M/s Jay Chemicals, importers who sold the goods to M/s.Rasayano, and penalty on M/s. Rasayano, buyer of the imported goods and on Shri Yogesh Dubal and Shri J.H. Kharewala, Marketing Manager and Proprietor of the importer and Shri P.G. Khetan, Proprietor of the Purchaser.2. None appeared for the respondents in spite of notice; hence, we heard the ld.SDR and perused the records. We find that the entire basis of the Commissioner's order is that the importer could not use the goods in the manufacture ...