Mumbai Court February 2005 Judgments

SaifuddIn Abdul Kadir Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT33Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These stay applications arise out of the order of Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) Mumbai, who in the impugned order imposed various penalties on the applicants namely M/s. Nippon Bearing Pvt.Ltd., M/s. Shalin Bearings Corporation, Shri Manharlal H. Vora, Shri Ashwin Shantilal Mehta, M/s. East West Freight Carriers Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Saifuddin Abdul Kadir Colombowala under Section 112 (a) and (b) of the Customs Act. The Commissioner observes that since the Settlement Commission has settled the case against M/s. Amrit Laxmi Machine Works and its partner Shri N.K. Brahmachari that he drops the proceedings against them. Several consignments of bearings have been imported in the name of various firms and bills of entry in all these consignments have been filed by CHA No. 11/595 seeking clearance of the goods against duplicate Advance Licence No. 0111434 dt. 22.11.99 issued in the name of M/s. Amrit Lamxi Machine Works Bombay and transferred in the name of the various firms. The f...

Ejaz Valiulla Vs. Commissioner of Customs (E.D.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT376Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is a case of misdeclaration of goods exported by two consignments. The goods, sought to be exported, were of Agarwood, which is prohibited and earlier also appellant appears to have exported the same goods by misdeclaring as Chadila Choora. Based on the investigation and the statement of the appellant recorded by the authorities concerned, it is found that the earlier exports were of Agarwood. The adjudicating authority imposed penalty of Rs. 3.00 lakhs (viz. Rs. 1.50 lakh for each consignment).2. The appellant has preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), but the same was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) points out that the appeal was filed on 91st day. At that time, relevant limitation provided was 60 days. But actually, the order communicated to the appellant by the original adjudicating authority shows that appeal is to be filed within three months. The appellant has received the order on 18th June, 2003 and he has filed the appea...

Vishnu Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This petition is filed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Rule 28A of the CESTAT (Procedures) Rule, 1982 for waiver of pre-deposit amount and to stay its recovery passed in the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara.2. The Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Vadodara, determined an amount of Rs. 61,315/- as Central Excise duty in terms of Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Rs. 20,800/- and Rs. 4,04,030/- as Central Excise duty in terms of Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, read with Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; apart from confiscation of the seizure of the goods. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 4,86,145/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the appellants.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Ceramic Glazed Frit/Mixture falling under Chapter S.H.No. 3207.90 of the CETA, 1985.The assessee was availing the benefit of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2...

Alibag Nagar Parishad Vs. D.D. Hajare

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR391; 2005(4)BomCR258; 2005(2)MhLj237

ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard advocate for the appellant. Respondent is served. Nobody is present for them. Appellant is the Alibag Nagar Parishad. Respondent, who was the contractor, was awarded certain contract by inviting tenders. He admittedly completed the work on 22.5.1990. According to him the municipal council was liable him to pay in all a sum of Rs. 8,20,000/-. He received from municipal council Rs. 5,50,000/- and, therefore, for the balance amount with interest he filed a suit for recovery of amount of Rs. 4,21,000/- before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raigad at Alibag vide Special Civil Suit No. 39 of 1993.This the claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the appellant - Municipal Council on number of grounds; one of them was, the suit was barred by limitation. Specific Issue was framed vide Issue No. 5, Whether suit is barred by a period of limitation? The trial Court gave finding against the appellant regarding this issue and, awarded the claim of the respondent with...

Manohar Tanaji Suryavanshi Vs. Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR260; [2005(106)FLR372]

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Petitioner was a conductor in the BEST Undertaking. A chargesheet was issued to him, on 30th January 1996, for misconduct under Standing Order 20(j) -'gross negligence' and Standing Order 20(c) - 'theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the business of 22 the Undertaking'. The charge of misconduct was that in the month of October 1995, a shortage of cash had been detected to the extent of Rs. 86.25, while in the month of November 1995 a similar shortage of Rs.91/- had been detected. A disciplinary enquiry was held, upon which the Petitioner came to be dismissed from service. The order of dismissal was challenged in proceedings under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The Labour Court held that the charge of misconduct was duly established; that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not perverse and that the penalty of dismissal was not disproportionate. The Labour Court noted that the factum of shortage was admitted by the employee. This was ...

The Special Land Acquisition Officers Vs. Smt. Anibai Janardhan Patil ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR675

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. This group of land acquisition references arises out of a common notification and for common public purpose and, therefore, the same is disposed of by this common judgment. 2. By notification issued on 28.7.1989 being notification no. LAQ/DESK/I/B-1/3658/CR-21 by the Commissioner of Konkan Division, the lands were notified for acquisition for the public purpose of Bus depot, Bus Station, staff quarters and other allied works for the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. The said notification was issued under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 126(4) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The said notification was published in the Government Gazette on 3.8.1989 3. In the course of acquisition proceedings the claimants were heard by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and ultimately the Special Acquisition Officer by his award dated 25.9.1990 inter alia awarded compensation in favour of the claimants at the rate of R...

Jaykrishna Industries Ltd. Vs. Economic Development Corporation and an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR161; I(2006)BC85; 2005(4)BomCR218; 2005(2)CTLJ57(Bom)

Lavande A.P., J.1. Rule. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive notices. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, heard forthwith.2. By this petition, the petitioner which is a company, registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 inter alia, dealing with the business of development and construction, challenges the action of respondent No. 1 in not allotting three plots in their favour and allotment of two plots in favour of respondent No. 2. The petitioner also challenges, as illegal, the auction held by respondent No. 1 on 7-12-2004 and 14-1-2005 in respect of one of the plots. Respondent No. 1 is a Government Company and is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Respondent No. 1 has developed an area admeasuring about 1,77,000.00 sq. metres at Patto Panaji in the State of Goa. This area is styled as 'EDC's Patto Plaza'. Respondent No. 1 has developed the said area into several plots and some of the plots h...

Gajanan Bhimrao Thombare Vs. Ashok Janakilal Tawari

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)MhLj50

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. These Revision Applications under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, are filed by the original defendants, questioning the order passed upon an application filed by them in the respective suits filed by the respondent/original defendant, by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dhamangaon Railway. The said application was moved for rejection of the Plaint on the ground that the suit instituted subsequently after withdrawal of the earlier suit was not maintainable. The trial Court has considered the provisions of the Order 23, Rule 1(3) of Civil Procedure Code, and has found that the said provisions is not applicable in the instant case holding that during the pendency of the earlier suit, the plaintiff (present respondent) instituted subsequent suit and hence after institution of the subsequent suit the permission was sought for withdrawal, and therefore, the provisions of Order 23, Rule 1(3) were not attracted. It found that the objection in relation to the Orde...

Anna S/O Shriram Fate Vs. Joint Charity Commissioner and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR596; 2005(4)BomCR836; 2005(2)MhLj298

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Present writ petition with prayers as were originally made pertained to the jurisdiction of single Judge of this Court. By an amendment, the petitioner herein introduced a challenge to the validity of Rule 7 of Bombay Public Trust Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'). The ground of challenge is that the said Rule is inconsistent with Section 76 read with Section 2(4) of Bombay Public Trusts Act, and has prayed for striking down thereof. Therefore, the petition came to be listed before the Division Bench.2. The notice before admission was issued and is served, the respondent No. 2 has not appeared. The petition was heard with understanding that it can be finally disposed of.3. The facts in brief leading to filing of the present petitions need to be examined in order to understand the grounds of challenge to the validity of Rule 7. The facts can be summarised as follows :4. The controversy pertains to a Public Trust namely Smt. Anandabai Education Society, Is...

Singh Scrap Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT589Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of MS ingots falling under Chapter 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act. He avails of MOPVAT credit of duty paid on the scrap received by him as inputs. During the period under dispute the appellant availed of credit on the strength of 10 endorsed gate passes and 44 certificates issued in lieu of gate-passes. The gate passes referred to above were endorsed by Traders and the Certificates were issued by the Central Excise Officers, who verified the original duty paying documents. Both these documents are valid documents for the purpose of taking credit.2. It is alleged that the appellant availed credit on the strength of endorsed gate passes, which were so endorsed on the strength of, forged gate passes and availed of credit on the basis of certificates issued on the basis of fake/forged documents. During the investigation statements of the officials of the appellant company and that of the traders from whom inputs were received, were recorded....