Mumbai Court April 2005 Judgments

Abdul Jabar Mohammed Ishaq and anr. Vs. Ravindranath Rupa Prajapati an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR191

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Pandye . for the appellants. Mr. Thakker with Mr. Reis for Respondent No. 9 and Mr. Shetty for respondent Nos. 1, 3, 7 & 8. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. They had filed a suit against all the ten defendants claiming injunction against them not to create third party rights in respect of land bearing survey Nos. 198, 198 (Part) and 311. of village Kurla, Taluka Kurla, Bombay Suburban District admeasuring 16 acres and 16.5 gunthas in that suit. On objection was raised by the defendants under Section 69(2)(a) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The City Civil Court while passing the order dated 17.02.2003 came to the conclusion that suit was not maintainable and, therefore, the motion of the plaintiff was dismissed. The court recorded the findings that the suit was not maintainable and then dismissed the suit. It is this order that is challenged by the appellants/plaintiffs.2. The first contention of the appellants/plaintiffs was that even thou...

Smt. Lata Rajendra Kankariya and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2006)ACC183; AIR2005Bom287; 2005(3)ALLMR308; 2006(2)BomCR461

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. This appeal is filed by the original plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 17-4-1997 passed by the III Jt. Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Pune by which her suit was dismissed. The case of the plaintiffs was as under-:-2. Rajendra Kankariya was the husband of Plaintiff No. 1 and the father of other plaintiffs. He was travelling on a scooter on Bombay Pune road on 10-6-1994. Some Jawans of Military fired shots from their guns as a result of which Rajendra died. This suit was, therefore, filed for compensation of Rs. Ten lacs from the respondents/defendants. It is further case of the plaintiff that after this incident some of the officers of the defendants/respondents approached her; they offered her condolence and paid Rs.9000/- by way of partial compensation with promise that they will pay more compensation. The plaintiff No. 1 being a widow, relied upon their assurances wrote letters, but no compensation at all came to be given. At the time of death, Rajendr...

Anirudha S. Bhagat Vs. Ramnivas Meena and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)MhLj41

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard, Rule. By consent the rule is made returnable forthwith. Perused the record.2. The petitioner challenges the summonses issued to the petitioner by the Investigating Agency on two grounds, namely that the Investigating Agency has no jurisdiction or power to issue summons to a person residing or carrying.on business beyond the territorial limits of the police station to which the Investigating Agency is attached and secondly that summons for production of document can only be issued under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not under Section 160 thereof. On both the counts according to the petitioner, the summonses issued under Section 160 of the Code, which are essentially issued merely for production of document in the nature of original designs of the collapsed bridge, are bad in law and need to be quashed.3. The facts relevant for the decision are that there existed a bridge over Damanganga river in the Union Territory of Daman which was c...

Cce Vs. Gtc Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(103)ECC204

2. The following question has been referred for consideration of the Larger Bench : "Whether in view of the fact, that when operation/process conducted results in changes in sub-heading classification, then considering the Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s J.G.Glass Industries, M/s Laminated Packings (P) Ltd., and M/s Sonic Electrotherm (P) Ltd., whether manufacture under Central Excise Act, 1944 would take place to cause and call for levy of duty once again on embossed cut to shape and size aluminium foil in cigarette industry." The said question has been referred to Larger Bench because this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Mumbai . Godfrey Philips Ltd., reported in 2003(156)ELT 1026(T) + (2003-TIOL-242-CESTAT-MUM) has held that such activity does not amount to manufacture merely because of meeting change of Tariff entry. The view taken by the referring Bench is contrary to the view taken in Godfrey Philips Ltd. 3. Shri K.K. Srivastava, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue inte...

Ayurchem Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT275Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The appellants M/s. Ayurchem Products manufacture ayurvedic preparations and classify them under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and claim total exemption/concessional duty as ayurvedic medicaments (3003.30 of CETA), under notifications 75/94-CE dated 29.3.1994 and 8/94-CE dated 1.3.1994 as the case may be. The following 13 products are manufactured by them:- 3. The department contends that the above listed goods fall under Chapter 33 and accordingly confirms the demand for duty under that chapter as cosmetics or toilet preparations. Hence these appeals.5. The learned advocate, Dr. D.M. Mishra, on behalf of the appellants, contends that the manufacturers hold a drug licence for manufacture of ayurvedic medicaments; that the Directorate of Ayurved, Maharashtra State, certified that the products are ayurvedic medicines; that the products are manufactured exclusively out of ingredients prescribed in the authoritative ayurvedic text books and/or formula prescribed the...

Picasso Overseas Vs. Cce (Adjudication)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT1069Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Briefly the facts are that the appellant imported a consignment said to be of Hard Ring Ferrite Magnets and sought clearance under Bills of Entry no. 115277. Anti dumping duty is leviable on Hard Ring Ferrite Magnets under Notification no. 103/99 Cus. Dated. The consignment was weighed and was found to be of 41 MTs as against the declared wt of 30.25 MT's. The goods thereupon were seized. The Chemical Examiner who examined the goods opined that the seized goods do not consist of `Magnets'. Duty including anti dumping duty was however paid as if the consignment was of Hard Ring Ferrite Magnets. The officers thereupon took up investigation of the past imports made by the same importer.Such investigation revealed that in the past the importer cleared 7 consignments. An attempt was made to ascertain the actual weight of those consignments. The assumption is that if a person has committed an irregularity and is caught he must have done it in the past as well. In the impugned order, the ...

V.K. Vora Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT264Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh imposed upon the applicant herein who is the Vice-President of M/s.Motorol Speciality Oils Ltd. arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).2. Penalty has been imposed on the ground that the applicant had knowledge that excisable goods were removed from the factory without payment of duty.3. On hearing both sides, I find prima facie contention of learned Counsel for the applicant that the Provision of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 prima facie do not cover the present case. As prima facie the applicant has not dealt with any excisable goods which is the pre-requisite for imposition of penalty under Rule 26. I, therefore, waive the pre-deposit of penalty and stay recovery, thereof pending the appeal....

Manohar Deepchand Punjabi, N.M. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of penalties imposed on all the three applicants under the provisions of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, we propose to take up the appeals itself inasmuch as the appeal of the main appellant M/s. Pennar Industries Ltd., against whom the demand of duties were confirmed, stands decided by the Tribunal.2. As per the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad, the proceedings were initiated against one M/s. Pennar Industries Ltd. alleging that the material imported by them against Advance Licences has not been used in the manufacture of goods which were required to be exported, but the same has been utilized in the manufacture of the goods which were ultimately cleared to DTA. By holding so, the Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty against the said appellant. In addition, penalties were imposed upon the applicants in the present case on the findings that they aided and abetted M/s.Pennar Industries Ltd. 3. ...

Charak Pharmaceuticals (India) Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT861Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue involved in all the four stay petitions is identical, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of 'Honey' and classified the same under heading 3003.31. However, the revenue entertained a view inasmuch as the goods in question are being sold under the appellants brand name 'Charak', the same would be properly classifiable as Branded Ayurvedic Medicines under Chapter sub-Heading 3003.39. Accordingly, the proceedings were initiated against the appellant for different period in the notices; the issues were adjudicated by the original adjudicating authority by holding the goods as classifiable under Heading 3003.39. During the adjudication proceedings the appellant convassed before the Joint Commissioner that the correct classification of the goods would be under chapter 4 as edible products of animal origin, as held by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. as reported in [1992 (59) ELT 279 (Tribunal)]. However, the said ple...

Jai Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT286Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The prayer in application is for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 61,474/- and penalty of identical amount imposed upon the applicant/appellant on the findings that the value of the coils sent by them to their job worker for the purpose of conversion into sheets, are undervalued inasmuch as the same coils were being sold to independent buyers at a higher price. The appellants contention is that the sheets emerged in the job workers factory was being cleared by them directly to the appellant's customers under their instructions and the entire differential duty was being paid by the applicant to their job worker. One of the contentions of the appellant is that if they would have adopted the course available to them under the provisions of Rule 57F(4), no duty was required to be paid by them at the time of sending the coils to the job workers. The fact that the appellant have not chosen to adopt the said Rule, by itself cannot be made with the grou...