Mumbai Court August 2004 Judgments

State of Maharashtra Vs. Chimanlal Giopalji Dhruwamalkan

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ1890

P.S. Brahme, J.1. Heard learned A. P. P. Mr. Mandpe, for the appellant and Ms. Gayatri Joshi, Advocate holding for Mr. Purohit Advocate for Respondent.The respondent was convicted of the offences punishable under Section 2(i-a)(m) read with Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default simple imprisonment for 30 days. As the sentence awarded by the Trial Court was less than minimum sentence prescribed under the proviso (1) to Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short called as P. F. A. Act), the appellant-State has preferred this appeal for enhancement of sentence.2. The prosecution case in briefs is that the respondent-Chimanlal was Proprietor of M/s. Swastik Stores situated in Wanjari Chouk, Wardha. On 13-8-1987, complain-ant-Chikte who was then notified Food Inspector for Wardha District visited the shop prem...

Deputy Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. N ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR80; [2005(105)FLR1118]; (2005)IIILLJ71Bom

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the original on-applicant, appellant herein, Deputy Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Nagpur (for short 'Corporation'), against the judgment/Order dated October 10, 1997, passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Chandrapur in E.S.I.C. Case No. 1/1993, thereby, it was held that the respondent/original applicant, Industry/Factory is exempted from the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'E.S.I. Act'), and therefore, not liable to pay contribution under the Act. Therefore, this appeal under Section 82(2) of the E.S.I. Act.The learned counsel Ms. Maldhure, appearing for the appellant pointed out the question of law, which needs consideration, and the same is as under:In view of no individual exemption granted to the factory Navyug Minerals, by the Notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra, Industries, Energy and Labour Department, Mantralaya, Bombay, SIA 7290/1624/Lab-4, dated ...

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Darab Khan and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2005)ACC635

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the original respondent/appellant herein, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'MSRTC') under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'M.V. Act') and thereby, challenged the award and judgment dated 25th February, 1993, passed in Claim Petition No. 90 of 1989, whereby the total compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 and interest @12% p.a. from the date of petition i.e. 18th October, 1989 has been awarded with other directions. Therefore, this appeal by the appellant.Facts:On 6th July, 1989, one Zafarulla Khan died in the road accident near Naka of Amjangaon to Lakhd Road, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant. Therefore, two Claim Petition Nos. 90 of 1989 and 106 of 1989 were separately filed by the parents and brother i.e. respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein and by the wife i.e. respondent No. 4 herein, respectively, and they, accordingly claimed separate compensation. The common ev...

Vip Industries Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. (sic) 376/96 dated 9.10.96 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Pune. Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellants have not discharged the burden of proof that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to any other person. In view of this, the refund of duty claimed by them was held a not admissible to them.2. Learned Advocate Shri C.S. Lodha appearing on behalf of the appellant has invited my attention to para 1 of the impugned order wherein there is a mention that the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs held that the claimant cannot demonstrate any documentary proof to establish that the incidence of duty was not passed on to their customers. Learned Counsel has also invited my attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India v. Solar Pesticide Pvt. Ltd. - 2000 (116) ELT 401 (SC) [Para Nos.28, 30 and 33] wherein it was held that the Tribunal did not go into ...

Niranjan R. Sadadiwala and Lama 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 demanded and penalty imposed on the authorised signatory of the mills arose out of the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the orders of the lower authority.2. Briefly the facts are that the applicant, M/s. Lama Prints, is engaged in the manufacture of manmade fabrics falling under Chapter 54 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the course of investigation by the central excise officers, it appeared that the applicants removed processed fabric without payment of central excise duty. It is also alleged that the applicants received grey fabric without cover of grey challans and later the lots so received were given the same lot numbers as were given to the illicitly removed lots.Thus, the issues involved in these appeals pertain to removal of goods without payment of duty.3. Shri K.R. Desai, consultant appearing for the applicants, pleaded that the applicants did not receive any show cause notice and, therefor...

Bharat Gears Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by M/s Bharat Gears Ltd. is Directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. KKS (60)60/VI/2001 dated 10.7.01 by which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that appellants have availed and utilized modvat credit for which they are not entitled and has also held that they have contravened the provisions of law and are also liable to penalty and confirmed the Order-in-Original by rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant/assessee.2. Shri Rajesh Ravindran, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that in their own case, the issue involved is decided in their favour. In this connection the learned Advocate has invited my attention to the judgment of the Tribunal's Order No.C-IV/240-41/WZB/2003 dated 18.6.03 wherein it. has been held that credit is admissible to them. I have heard the learned JDR also.3. After hearing both sides and perusing the records I find that this issue is no longer res integra as in the case of same assessee by Order No. C.II/416...

Pcs Industries Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. a) Appellants imported Silane Treated Glass Fabric vide Bills of Entry No.and claimed benefit of Notification No. 88/9-1 on the ground that the said item, "Silane treated glass fabric" was imported for use in the manufacture of copper clad laminates. The assessment were so made.However, less charge demand was made by the Department on BE No. 432 of Rs. 9,32,834/- and on BE No. 10660 of Rs. 7,81,013/-. On the grounds that- Notification No. 88/94 was amended by Notification No. 197/94 dated 9.12.1994, by which, the imported item. viz. Silane Treated Glass fabric" is eligible for concessional rate of duty only if it were imported for use in the manufacture of "Silane treated glass fabric / cloth for use in copper clad laminates phenolic or paper phenolic or glass epoxy types, printed circuit boards". Since the importers have provided the end use certificate showing that the imported goods were used in the manufacture of copper clad laminates, the tariff rate of duty will be applicable...

Jaysynth Dyestuff India Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT83Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants are an assessee and an Ex-General Manager (Works). They, by a common order, were imposed penalties under the Central Excise Act on goods found not entered in the production record, same were ordered to be confiscated and redemption fine given and duty demanded.2. Brief facts relevant are that on 22.9.1994, the officers on a visit to the appellants' premises detained a stock of 'S.O. Dyes' and seized stock of 48,370 kgs. of 'S.O. Dyes' found as 'consumer sales-worthy' and released another quantity of 23,120 kgs. found not consumer sales-worthy out of 71,490 kgs detained on visual inspection and without any chemical test to ascertain whether the goods were actually 'consumer sales-worthy' or otherwise since they were act entered in RG-1 production record. (a.) The practice adopted in the assessee's factory was to enter the production after quality control test and after the customers were approving the 'S.O. Dyes'. This practice was sought by the appellants to be demonstra...

Ramesh Gajadhar Tiwari Vs. the State

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ578

R.S. Mohite, J.1. The appellant/original accused No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'accused No. 1') has preferred this appeal against his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') and the consequent sentence of imprisonment for life and payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one year, imposed upon him by the 8th Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune vide the impugned judgment and order dated 2-12-1992 passed in Sessions Case No. 268 of 1991.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:-A. That the deceased Siddappa Koli was the real brother of PW-2 Siddamma Koli. He was residing along with PW-2 Siddamma, father Narsappa, his wife Laxmi, younger sister Devamma and the daughter of Siddamma at Pandu Laxman Vasti, situated at Yervada, Pune. The original accused No. 2 Jatashankar Tiwari was a person who had a house situated two house away from the house of the deceased. The deceased Siddapp...

State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. G.B. Agaskar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR681; 2004(6)BomCR26; [2005(104)FLR659]; 2004(4)MhLj221

V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition the State of Maharashtra as the Petitioner has challenged the order passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal allowing the Original Application filed by respondent granting him certain pensionary benefits which according to the State is against the law and hence the petition.2. The petitioner retired from service of the Government of Maharashtra as Superintending Engineer in the year 1976 and was given all pensionary benefits as per the rules existing on the date of his retirement. This period was computed as per those rules providing for computation of pensionable period. This aspect of his case is undisputed.3. Initially the conditions of service of the employees of Government of Maharashtra were governed by the Bombay Civil Services Rules which contained various chapters including a chapter of pensions. It was under those rules of the Bombay Civil Service Rules that the pension of the petitioner was fixed in the year 1976.4. Thereafter in 19...