Mumbai Court July 2004 Judgments

Ganesh Y. Bhutekar Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ1221

ORDERP.S. Brahme, J.1. Heard Mr. Anand Jaiswal, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Laniewar, learned A.P.P. for the respodnent.This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 20-11-2003 passed by the 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana in Sessions Trial No. 99/2001 against appellant, convicting him for offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A of I.P.C. and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 304B, I.P.C., while no separate sentence was awarded for offence under Section 304A, I.P.C.2. The appellant Ganesh along with his parents -- Yadavrao and Sau. Shashikala and his brother Chandrakant was tried for offence under Sections 304-B, 306, 304-A, I.P.C.506343. When Sharda expired in the hospital information was given to Police Station on the basis of which accidental death was registered. The Police Officer reached...

Chembond Chemicals Ltd. Vs. C.C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The issue involved is the re-classification of certain chemicals, which in Classification List No. 2 for 91/92 with effect from 3.3.92 were claimed and approved under heading 38.11.00 on 11.3.92, as the samples drawn and tested on 22.7.92 revealed, out of the declared products, two products viz 'Kleenol' and 'KemPlast' were required to be classified under heading 34.02.90 on basis of a test report dated 22 July 1992.2. In remand proceeding ordered by CCE(Appeals), the Assistant Commissioner again observed in the order that the report dated 22.7.92 was accepted by the assessee to be with them and he approved the subsequent lists accordingly, reopened the classification in list No.2/91-92 and ordered the classification of the two products under 3402.90. In appeal CCE (Appeals) observed that Report dated 22^nd July 1992 was communicated to the assessee by Range Superintendent on 3^rd February 1997, which he was competent to communicate vide Rule 56(2) and there was n...

Kanunga Ferromet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellants had imported a consignment declared as "Stainless Steel Melting Scrap" on the BE filed. They claimed, benefit of duty under rule 22/99 Sr. No. 128. The classification was claimed under 7204.21.The goods on examination by the Dock Staff were found to be "Re-melting S.S. Metal Blocks. Goods do not contain any live ammunition, any foreign metal ingots or nay serviceable articles." The commissioner after considering the plea of the importer found - "I have gone through the definition of waster & scrap which reads as "Metal Waste & Scraps from the manufacturer or mechanical working of metal and metal goods definitely not useable as such because of wreckage, cutting up, wear or other reasons. As per examination report of Shed Staff the goods have been found to be 'Remelted S.S. Metal Blocks'. It shows that the goods have not come into existence and the manufacturing or mechanical working of metal or metal goods. The goods have reached their present shape, form and size...

Narendra Industrial Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT903Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard the Ld DR. The appellants being not represented. The registry placed a letter from Shri Paresh M. Dave advocate officer intimating that Shri. Paresh Dave is held up in a case of his close friend fixed in Ahmedabad Session Court on 29.7.04 & he has to attend that hearing & requested for an adjournment.2. From the records, it is found, there is a letter dated 1.6.04, from the appellants from intimating that their Advocate Mr. S.P. Mathew is out of station & an adjournment was reported. From the order No CII/1817/WZB/2000 dated 20.6.2000 it appears that Shri. S.P Mathew was the advocate representing the appellants. No consent and intimation about change of Advocates brought out in records or been enclosed by Shri Dhaval k. Shah Advocate nor is there any intimation from the appellants out charge of advocate or request for adjournments.Adjournments is consequently rejected & appeal is taken up for disposal.3.a It is found from the records that the issue revolves ar...

Kraftech Products Inc. Vs. C.C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT508Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These two appeals of this same appellant on similar issue are taken up for disposal after waiver of pre-deposit required.2. a) The appellant are manufacture of certain goods which are of Powder Hair Dye falling under Chapter Sub-Heading 33.05 of Central Excise Tariff Act (Godrej Permanent Hair Dye and Godrej Kali Mehendi).The packing is 3gm sachets and 3 such sachets are put in a carton. Net weight of the product in each carton is 9gms. b) The issue involved whether the product as above and taken out in this manner cleared on payment of duty by the appellant are required to duty levied on value as per Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act on MRP (Maximum Retail Price declared on Package.) c) The relevant notification applicable in this two case have the period July 2001 to December 2002 are notification No. 5/2001-CE(NT) dated 1.3.2001 and notification no. 13/2002-CE(NT) dated 1.3.2002, which have been issued and bring goods falling under chapter 32.05 of the Central Ex...

Tata Yutaka Autocomp Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT738Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The issue pertains to determination of assessable value of goods imported by M/s. Tata Yutaka Autocomp Ltd., Pune, from M/s. Yutaka Giken Co. Ltd., Japan, under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. TYAL imported automobile parts and filed Bill of Entry No. 4583 dated 24.09.2002 with group IIB at Sahar Air Cargo Complex and filed declaration form.2. On due enquiry made by the Dy. Commissioner of Customs, GATT Valuation Cell, Mumbai, and on filling up of the questionnaire and hearing the whole submissions, it is ordered that the transaction values declared in the invoice is loaded by 3% under Rule 8 read with Rule 9 (1)(c) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988.3. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai, upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal. Hence this appeal.4. The appellant contends that Yutaka Giken Co. Ltd., Japan, hold...

Sarabhai and Sons and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All these cases are taken up for disposal by this common, since the issue involved is the same.2. Vide Order No. 44 to 70/1996 dated 28.2.1996 the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai I decided 27 Show Cause Notices on the duty demands made on different assessees issued to recover excise duty on ferrous and non ferrous scrap resulting from breaking of ships in Mumbai.3. The Commissioner, after considering the replies of the Respondents (bund: i) "The ship breaking activity includes the activities of dismantling, breaking and cutting the ship which results in production of the ferrous and non ferrous scrap of iron and steel copper/brass, lead, tin and aluminium etc. Thus the ship breaking activity amounts to manufacture under Section 2 (f) of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The resultant scrap arising during this process will have to discharge appropriate rate of duty under appropriate T.I. of Central Excise Tariff 1944 and all these units undertaking ship breaking activity ...

Ranjit Kumar Sahay Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ296CAT

1. Applicant Shri Ranjit Kumar Sahay, an IPS officer, of Maharashtra Cadre has filed two O.A. Nos. 2129/03 and 2133/03 for expunction of adverse remarks given to him in ACRs for the year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 respectively. Although the wordings of the adverse remarks in both the years are different but since the issues and legal principles involved for judicial review are same, we propose to dispose of both the O.As. by this common order.2. In O.A. No. 2129/03 the applicant has prayed for expunction of adverse remarks given to him in the ACR for 1999-2000. The applicant has stated that on his representation to the State Government, only a few of the adverse remarks have been expunged. His contention is that all adverse remarks should have been expunged. The relief sought in Para 8(i) is for "quashing the part which is against the applicant and maintaining which is in favour of the applicant". He has further prayed for declaration that the adverse remarks are the outcome of malice ha...

Mr. Sachindranath Dey Vs. the Superintendent, Mumbai Central Prison,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004CriLJ4752; 2004(4)MhLj648

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the record.2. The short but very important point which arise for consideration in this petition pertains to the methodology to be followed under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter called as 'the Code') for the grant of set off in relation to pre conviction-detention of the accused against the sentence of imprisonment on his conviction. Simultaneously other points which arise for consideration are that whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner was entitled to be released immediately on passing of the order dated 5.9.2003 by the learned Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 134/P/2000, on account of entitlement of facility of grant of set off under Section 428 of the Code and that whether the petitioner was illegally detained for 45 days beyond the period for which he could have been made to suffer the imprisonment in terms of order passed in 32-cases namely Case Nos. 113, 11...

Adarsh Vidya Mandir Trust and anr. Vs. Shri Awadesh Narayan Komal Sing ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR786; 2004(4)MhLj173

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr. Desai waives notice for Respondent No. 1 Mr. Solkar, A.G.P. waives notice for Respondents 2 and 3.3. As short question is involved, the matter is heard for final disposal forthwith, by consent.4. The Respondent No. 1 was employed as Head Master in the Petitioner School. He was issued charge-sheet in respondent of certain acts of commission and omission. According to the Petitioners, the charges are of serious nature. The disciplinary proceedings were held and have finally concluded, recommending reduction of the Respondent No. 1 from the post of Head Master to that of Assistant Teacher. That recommendation has been accepted by the Management and order of reduction was accordingly passed. That order was questioned before the School Tribunal by way of statutory appeal being Appeal No. 6 of 1996. The Tribunal has accepted the argument canvassed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 tha...