Mumbai Court October 2006 Judgments

Namdeo @ Ram Krushna Khot Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)MhLj783

J.N. Patel, J.1. Heard. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. 2. Ld. A.P.P. waives service. 3. This is an application filed by the convict seeking set off under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. which was not granted to him at the time this Court disposed of the appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the applicant as well as other co-accused. The petitioner along with the co-accused was tried on a charge of having committed offence under Section 302 r/w s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, Kolhapur. In Sessions Case No. 106 of 1986, the learned Trial Court by judgement and order dt.3.9.87 acquitted all the accused including the petitioner. The State being aggrieved with the decision of the Sessions Judge preferred an appeal before this Court which was registered as appeal No. 31 of 1998. On 7.8.03 this Court allowed the appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra and the operative part of the order reads as under: i) In the result, therefore appeal succeeds and is all...

Vishwambhar Ghanshyam Ban Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ849

ORDERJ.H. Bhatia, J.1. Heard.2. To state in brief the present petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of J. M.F.C. Nanded against the Respondents Nos. 2 to 6 for the offence punishable Under Section 467 read with Section 109 of I.P.C. and it was registered as R. C. C. No. 30/1988. It was contended by the petitioner in the complaint that the mother of the complainant had purchased land Gat No. 280 admeasuring 2 hectares 42 Ares situated at Dabhad from Uttamgir Maharaj on 25-6-1987 and she was in possession of the said land as a member of the joint family. The accused persons forged an agreement purporting to have been executed by Uttamgir Maharaj on 20-5-1987 about the same land under which the land was given in possession of the accused persons. It was contended by the petitioner that Uttamgir Maharaj had never executed any such document in favour of the accused persons. On the basis of the said forged document accused No. 1 i.e. Respondent No. 2 had filed R. C. S. No. 814/87 against...

Awadesh S. Pandey Vs. Tata Power Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom52; 2006(6)ALLMR602; 2007(2)BomCR180

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The petitioner had applied for electric connection from respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 commissioned meter No. 2759592 on the petitioner's premises on 3rd January, 2003 for connected load of 125 HP (93.25 KW). The petitioner started using electricity since 30th August, 2003. Bills for the period from 30th August, 2003 to 30th October, 2003 and also subsequent bills till November, 2005 were sent to the petitioner indicating multiplying factor of one. Respondent No. 1 around November, 2003 during energy audit observed that petitioner was billed by applying incorrect multiplying factor since beginning, the correct multiplying factor being 40. Supplementary bill was preferred in January, 2006 for Rs. 12,33,328/-.3. The petitioner contested the said bill by filing a complaint before Consumer Redressal Forum on 6-3-2006. On 25-3-2006 as the petitioner had not paid electric dues in terms of the bill, respondent No. 1 issued notice of disconnectio...

Madhukar Shankar Parsekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR48; 2007(1)BomCR490; 2007(1)MhLj453

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith. The petitioner challenges the order dated 24th May, 2006 passed by the Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai, whereby the petitioner is directed to vacate the premises and to hand over the possession of the land occupied by his structure as well as to shift to the alternative accommodation provided by the respondent No. 5 herein.2. The challenge to the impugned order is three-fold. Firstly that the lower Appellate Authority did not give sufficient opportunity to the petitioner of being heard in the matter inasmuch as that his request for adjournment of the hearing was rejected. Secondly that the order which was sought to be challenged before the lower Appellate Authority was issued by an officer who was not authorised under the law to issue the said order and this fact was totally ignored by the lower Appellate Authority in spite of the specific objection being taken i...

Ramchandra B. Posugade Vs. Shankar Ramji Suryavanshi and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR10; 2007(1)MhLj494

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard the Advocate for the petitioner. Nobody present for the petitioner. Petitioner is a tenant. Proceedings were initiated by the petitioner under Section 32-G read with Section 70-B of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Additional Tahsildar and ALT Karad. The Tahsildar held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and rejected the application. Tenant filed appeal before the Assistant Collector, Satara. This appeal was allowed. The order of Additional Tahsildar and ALT Karad was set aside and he was directed to proceed further for fixing the purchase price. The landlord thereafter preferred Revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, who allowed the Revision and set aside the order of the Collector and confirmed the order of the Tahsildar and therefore, this petition.2. Counsel for the petitioner took me to the order of the MRT, which is at Exh.G. It is clear from the sai...

Sabadra and Sabadra Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)7STT17

1. Heard both sides. Shri Jagatpal Bajaj, CA appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the Commissioner has wrongly enhanced the penalty to the tune of Rs. 23,125/- as against the penalty of Rs. 100/- imposed by the adjudicating authority Under Section 76 and a further penalty of Rs. 100/- imposed Under Section 77 of the Service Tax Act, 1994 for non-payment of Service Tax within the specified time and for non-filing of Return within the stipulated time for the period April, 2001 to March, 2003. He submits that the Commissioner had wrongly enhanced the penalty to the equal amount of Service Tax. He also submits that the entire Service Tax of Rs. 23,125/- has already been paid along with interest. The present appeal is for reduction in 100% penalty imposed by the Commissioner. He submits that due to some unavoidable reason, the Return could not be filed within the specified time.1.2 The learned representative on behalf of the appellants submits that there is a total delay of 1...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. India Tube Mills and Metal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard the learned JDR. The respondents are called absent. The issue involved in these appeals is whether the amount to be paid in respect of inputs cleared as such under Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 should be paid at the time of clearance or on the 5th day of the following month as per Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and whether in case of delayed payment, the interest is to be paid.2. The Revenue is in appeal aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). These two cases relate to levy of interest demand under Section 11AB of the Act from the date of clearance of inputs or the actual date of payment.3. The respondents-assessees are herein engaged in the manufacture of P & P Medicines falling under Chapter Heading 3003.10 of the CETA, 1985 and they were availing the facility of Cenvat Credit during the period May, 2003 to April, 2004. They cleared the inputs/capital goods as such after bringing them into their factory in availing the cenvat...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Graphite (i) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(212)ELT54Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is revenue's appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), vide which modvat credit has been held to be admissible on the ground that the cash memos issued by HPCL, which is a public sector undertaking, are proper documents for the purpose of modvat rules for arriving at the above conclusion, the appellant authority has relied upon a number of decisions of the Tribunal including the one reported in 2004 (65) RLT 260 (CESTAT - Del).2. As against the above, the revenue's contention in their memo of appeal is that cash memos cannot be treated as proper documents for availment of modvat credit as held by the Tribunal in the case of Universal Chemicals Industries Pvt Ltd., v. CCE, Mumbai reported in 2004 (177) E.L.T. 726 (Tri. - Mumbai). However, 1 find that the appellate authority has observed that these cash memos were containing debit entries. However, there is no dispute about receipt of inputs, duty paid on the same and utilization of the inputs in the manufacture of...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Anant Tex Fab Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The brief facts of the case are that the annual capacity of production of the respondents who are processor of textile fabrics which have been specified under Notification No. 41/98-C.E., dated 10-12-1998 as notified goods on which duty liability was required to be discharged in terms of Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processor Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 was determined provisionally under Sub-rule (4) of the HASITPACD Rules. The rate of duty fixed under the provisional order was Rs. 2 Lakhs per chamber. As per such order the respondents were required to pay Central Excise duty of over Rs. 11 Lakhs for 16 days i.e. from 16-12-1998 to 31-12-1998 but they paid Central Excise duty of only Rs. 11 Lakhs on 31-12-1998 and paid differential duty only on 24-3-1999 i.e. after 83 days. Show cause notice was issued proposing appropriation of the balance duty already paid, proposing recovery of interest and impositon ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Eastern Aromatic Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC401

1. The issue in dispute in this appeal relates to classification of 'Geraniol' manufactured by the respondents herein - whether under Central Excise Tariff Sub-heading 2905.90 as an Acyclic alcohol, as claimed by the assessee and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), or as mixture of Odoriferous substances, under Chapter Heading 33.02 as proposed by the Revenue.2. We have heard Shri Ajay Saxena, learned S.D.R. and perused the records, none appears for the respondents in spite of notice.3. In terms of HSN Explanatory Notes 'Geraniol' would be classifiable under Heading 3302 provided it contains 50% to 70% of 'Geraniol' alongwith varying amounts of citronellol and nerol and that the substance must be in admixture with some other substance. The chemical examiner does not describe the sample as a mixture but only opines that "the sample is in the form of yellow coloured liquid having aroma. It has the characteristics of geraniol - an organic chemical." Therefore, classification of the pro...