Mumbai Court March 2005 Judgments

Goyal Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Shri Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These applications are filed for stay for grant of waiver of pre-deposit and stay its recovery under Section 129 E of the Customs Act, 1962, by the appellants.2. On intelligence, the Officers of Customs Division, Surat, seized truck No. GJ-5U-3234 with 8786 Kgs. of imported Polyester Yarn valued at Rs. 7,02,880/- loaded at the premises of M/s. Goyal Synthetics (P) Ltd. (100% EOU), Unit No. 2, Block No. 100/A & B, Mota Borasara, Kim, without any duty paying documents. In the follow up action, the Officers searched the premises of the appellant company and found shortage of 14,896 kilograms of imported yarn. Shri Vijay Prakash Pandey, Authorised Signatory of the company, stated that out of 14,986 kilograms of imported yarn, 4,240 kilograms were lying in the factory, 8,786 kilograms were loaded in the truck and remaining 6,200 kilograms have already been cleared from their unit illicitly without payment of Customs duty. Thereafter, the Officers seized the imported Polyester Yarn w...

Asiatic Gases, Shri Aditya JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides and considering the issue involved in this case is of addition of certain charges being recovered from customers on supply in cylinders gases and whether charges recovered on cylinders are addable to the assessable value of gases in view of the following decision -CCE v. Century Spg. & Mfg Co. Ltd - 1988 37 ELT 277 (T) (Maintenance & Service Charges).CCE v. Hindustan Gas & Industries Ltd - 1989 41 ELT 663 (T)- (Cost of Cylinder)Real Drinks P. Ltd v. CCE- 1991 54 ELT 436 (T) - (Cost of replacement & repairs of bottles)Goa Bottling Co. P. Ltd v. CCe -1993 67 ELT 721 (T) (Bottle Breakage)CCE v. Pure Drinks P. Ltd - 1998 99 ELT 529 (T) - (Cost of repairs & maintenance) 2. The law on the subject is well settled however, it is found that certain facts have to be enquired and are required to be re-determined.From the finding of the (Commissioner to the following fact :- The prices are decided on cum duty basis, When gases are sold in cylinders ...

Chandan Tubes and Metals Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These are applications filed by the appellants under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amount and stay its recovery.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Stainless Steel flats, Stainless Steel ingots, Mild Steel ingots etc. in their factory at Plot No. 36, G.I.D.C., Umbergaon, Gujarat State. As the applicants factory is not equipped to manufacture S.S. flats, the S.S. Ingots manufactured in their factory are sent to the factory of one M/s. Supan Steels Pvt. Ltd. at Halol near Ahmedabad for manufacturing the same on job work basis. These S.S. Ingots are dispatched to the aforesaid job worker. After the work is completed, the material was sent back under cover of 57F(2) challans and the S.S. Flats are finally removed on payment of excise duty from the applicants factory at Umbergaon.3. The Officers of the Central Excise and Customs, Surat, searched the factory premises of the appellants on 28.12.1998 and s...

Amba Chawl Wadi Rahiwasi Seva Sangh, Registered Society Vs. Municipal ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR889

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This Petition is a desperate attempt by some slum dwellers to stall a Slum Rehabilitation Project under which housing would be provided to 132 slum dwellers. The Petition challenges the Scheme of Slum Rehabilitation which has been approved by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. The Petitioners by this Petition further seek a Mandamus for declaring that the order dated 19.12.2001 passed by the Additional Collector of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Rehabilitation) Act (for short, 'the Slum Act') under sections 33 and 38 and the order dated 30.9.2002 passed under section 35 of the Slum Act void and illegal.2. The Petitioners claim to be a registered society representing the residents on a plot owned by Respondent No. 1 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). By a Resolution, the Corporation decided to redevelop the property on which about 156 hutments were in existence. The Corpo...

Shri Kisan Narayan Shriram, Representative of Vikas Hatmag Vinkar Saha ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR94

F.I. Rebello , J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.The Petitioners are members of a cooperative society which is an affiliate of Respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 5 has members spread over various districts which were divided into two divisions which are set out below. This was the position before the appeal was disposed of by the Hon'ble Minister for State (Textiles) Mantralaya on 29.1.1999. The position of members was as under : PUNE DIVISION : 1) Solapur 175 2) Satara 4 3) Sangali 14 4) Kolhapur 6 5) Pune 11MUMBAI AND NASHIK DIVISION:1) Mumbai 6 2) Ratnagiri Nil 3) Thane 3 4) Sindhudurga Nil 5) Raigad Nil 6) Ahmednagar 44 7) Dhule 17 8) Nashik 27 9) Jalgaon 15In terms of the byelaws, 16 members had to be elected to respondent No. 4, one from each of the districts. Earlier a writ petition was filed before this court being Writ Petition No. 1064 of 1989 which came to be disposed of on 12.3.1989. The limited issue in that petition was whether the District Industrial Society should be given repre...

Satpalsingh Amolaksingh Bagga and anr. Vs. Mrs. Sandhya Amitabh Pandey

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR701; 2005(5)BomCR390; 2005(2)MhLj1131

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This Civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed by original defendant taking exception to the order dated 25th January, 2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Amravati in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 132 of 1996. By said order the learned Appellate Court has set aside the order of trial Court refusing to restore civil suit dismissed in default by it on 16-10-1996 passed in R.M.J.C. No. 135/1995. The said R.M.J.C. was filed by present respondent with prayer to restore Special Civil Suit No. 245/1992 filed by her back to file by setting aside the dismissal on 28-7-1995. R.M.J.C. was filed under Order 9, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code by her for that purpose.2. Facts as pleaded by respondent/original plaintiff in application under Order 9, Rule 9 reveal that she filed special Civil Suit claiming relief of specific performance on the basis of agreement of sale against the present revision applicant vide Special Civil Suit No. 245/1992. It a...

Ashok S/O. Deoraoji Dhande Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Police St ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR1543

S.T. Kharche, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for both sides. Perused the record.2. This criminal appeal takes exception to the order of conviction dated 08.05.1996 passed by learned Special Judge i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Special Case No. 1 of 1991, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and he was also convicted for the offence under Section 13(i)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. However, the learned Special Judge directed that the substantive sentence shall run concurrently.2. The brief case of prosecution is r...

Sainath Naik Vs. State (Through Collem Police Station)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR794

N.A. Britto, J.1. This appeal is filed by the accused in Sessions Case No. 32/2001 against the judgment/order dated 8/9th, July, 2004 of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, South Gao, Margao, convicting and sentencing him under Section 302 of the I.P.C, to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 3 months.2. The accused who was 35 years of age was charged and tried for committing the murder of his elder brother Namdev P. Naik, aged 39 years. The accused was residing in their ancestral house along with his wife and their mother Maghan Naik/P.W. 12, while the deceased was staying with his wife, Namrata and their daughter, P.W. 10/Neha along with her two younger brothers in a hut near the said ancestral house. On 1.7.2001 at about 6.30 hours the wife of the deceased P.W. 1/Namrata went for work to return only in the evening. The accused went to Mapusa at 7.00 hours only to return at about 16.30 hour...

Suresh S/O Arjun Dodorkar (Sonar) Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR71

P.V. Hardas, J.1. The appellant who is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- with a default stipulation to undergo further R.I. for fifteen days in the event of non-payment of fine, by the 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, by judgment dated 21,10.2003, by this appeal questions the correctness of the conviction and sentence.2. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this appeal can briefly be stated thus :-P. W. 8 P.S.I. Anil Sonwane, attached to the Zilla Peth police station, Jalgaon, received a telephonic message from the Civil Hospital, Jalgaon on 17.1.2003, regarding admission of one Vimal in the hospital with burn injuries. On receipt of the information, P.W. 8 Sonwane immediately proceeded to the hospital and reached the hospital on 17.1.2003 at about 1.00 a.m. He contacted the Medical Officer, Dr. Wankhede, and informed the Medical Officer tha...

Desai Traders Vs. Mahalaxmi Tyres and Auto Services and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2006)BC523

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Petitioner is the original complainant and the respondent No. 1 is the partnership firm and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners of respondent No. 1.2. Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2001 whereby the Sessions Court partly allowed the appeal, set aside the order of conviction passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class in Summary Criminal Case No. 16441 of 1997 and directed the Judicial Magistrate to retry the case afresh.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had supplied rubber to the respondent No. 1 and four cheques were issued by the respondent No. 1 towards the price of the rubber sold to them. The cheques, however, were dishonoured with the remark 'insufficient funds'. A demand notice was issued and in spite of service of demand notice, respondent No. 1 failed to pay the dues to the petitioner and a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed. The T...