Mumbai Court December 2006 Judgments

Jankilal Vs. Sandeep and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2008)BC457; 2007(2)BomCR429

M.G. Gaikwad, J.1. Heard learned Advocates for respective parties.2. By this application, applicant-original complainant seeks leave to prefer appeal against acquittal.3. This applicant had filed complaint alleging offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. According to complainant the complainant carries on business. The accused from time-to-time from 2000 purchased goods on credit and for the outstanding dues of Rs. 1,95,370/- accused issued cheque No. 17352. Later on this cheque came to be dishonoured. Hence demand notice was issued but claim not being satisfied, complaint alleging offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act came to be filed.4. The complainant in support of his case examined himself and placed reliance on the cheque and notice. Since beginning by giving notice reply, the accused put forth defence that he had no transaction at all with the complainant and he had issued this cheque along with five other cheques to the son of the complainant a...

Aplab Display Devices and Systems Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Custo ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide the impugned order the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune has confirmed short levy of Rs. 21,20,913/- together with interest at the rate of 20% under the provisions of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, imposed penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and ordered confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery belonging to the appellants, under Rule 173Q (2) with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). The demand has been confirmed by re-determination of assessable value on cost of production plus 18% on interest free advances taken from their holding company. The period of demand is August 1991 to February 1994.2. We have heard both sides. We note that against the earlier order dt.10-11-1997 of the Commissioner confirming differential duty demand in terms of Rule 6(b) in accordance with costing method, Tribunal vide its order No. 1664-65/98/WZB dt. 13...

Mukand Ltd., Shri S.B. Jhaveri, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are in the manufacture of steel products and were availing Modvat credit in respect of raw material (steel melting scrap) used by them in the manufacture of the final product. The steel scrap is procured by them by direct import, or from the waste and scrap generated by their job worker and by purchasing from traders dealing in scrap. The scrap procured from the trader was both imported as well as indigenous.2. On the basis of the intelligence to the effect that the appellants were irregularly availing Modvat/Cenvat credit on the invoices issued by certain registered Central Excise dealers, without actually receiving the materials covered thereby, the factory premises of the appellants were visited by the Excise officer and during the course of verification it came to their notice that besides other the scrap was being supplied by one dealer M/s Arihant Steel Enterprises (M/s ASE) from whom the most of the material was received. T...

Bharat Overseas Communicators Vs. Commr. of Cus. (General)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide his impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs, has revoked the CHA Licence of the appellant and forfeited the security deposit on the allegations and findings of violation of the provisions of Custom House Agents Licencing Regulations, 2004.2. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri A.V. Naik, Ld.Advocate for the appellant and Shri Umashankar, Ld. D.R. for the respondent and after going through the impugned order, it is seen that the proceedings were initiated against the present CHA on the basis of detection of fraudulent export case by M/s Payal Exim, which was being handled by the present CHA. The disputed goods were declared as welding electrodes with varying declared unit rates, which, on examination, were found to be of low quality, less in quantity and of lesser value.One Mr. Jayesh Gala, who was the main person behind the export fraud admitted the offence and was arrested.3. During the course of enquiry against the present CHA, statements of Mr. Bhagwan Sip...

Tex-age and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC169

1. These are applications for waiver of pre deposit of drawback amounting to Rs. 1,21,73,997/- sought to be recovered from M/s Tex-Age, the first applicant, another amount of drawback amounting to Rs. 2,82,080/-and imposition of a fine of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- on Tex-Age, Rs. 25.00 lakhs each on Subhash Choudhary and Satish Choudhary, proprietors/partners of M/s Tex-Age, penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakhs on Om Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Rs. 2.00 lakhs on Prithvi Singh Kuntal @Gulla, Rs. 2.00 lakhs on Deepak Khetawat and Rs. 4.00 lakhs on A win Exim Co and Rs. 4.00 lakhs on Ekta Exports under Section 114(i) and (iii) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The facts of the case are that the applicant Tex-Age has exported ready-made garments from Nhava Sheva through Port under claim of drawback and DEPB Scheme, which on subsequent intelligence and investigation were found to be highly over-valued and accordingly, Show Cause Notices were issued seeking to redetermine the PMV grossly misdeclared and recovered back th...

Angadh S/O. Rohidas Kadam, Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Madhukar S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR34

B.R. Gavai, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.2. By way of present application, the applicant challenges the order passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed, dated 4th September 2006, below Exhibit 51 in Sessions Trial No. 6/2006, thereby rejecting the application of the applicants / accused for direction to the prosecution to produce statements of Dadarao Marotrao Kadam, Bapurao Dnyandeo Kadam, Kusumbai Bapurao Kadam and Dadarao Limbaji Kadam, recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure, 1973.3. The factual background, in short, giving rise to the present petition is as under:The applicants are facing trial in Sessions Trial No. 6/2006 before the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed, for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, arising out of Crime No. 66/2005 registered at Police Station, Palam (Taluka Palam, District : Parbhani).During the course of trial, the pro...

Shri. Ashok S/O Laxman Kale Vs. Sau. Ujwala W/O Ashok Kale

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR588; 2007(1)BomCR16

P.R. Borkar, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the original respondent, directed against the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition No. B-19 of 2004 decided on 4.7.2005, to return Stridhan articles of the respondent-original petitioner as per the list given in the petition.2. Briefly stated, it is the case of respondent Ujwala that the appellant and the respondent married at Deogaon Rangari, Tq. Kannad, District Aurangabad on 14.4.2003. At that time, the parents and relatives of the respondent Ujwala presented her moveable properties described in the list given in the application. On 26.3.2004 the present appellant asked the respondent to start electric pump but the respondent told him that she would do so after finishing the work at her hand. Enraged thereby, the appellant abused her and poured kerosene on her person and put her on fire. As a result, the respondent Ujwala sustained burn injuries. She was admitted in the Government Hospital at Auranga...

Mrs. Lyla Darius Jehangir (Nee Ghaswala) Vs. Bakhtawar LentIn of Mumba ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR171; 2007(1)BomCR915; (2007)109BOMLR107; 2007(1)MhLj545

R.M. Lodha, J.1. This group of five Appeals is between the same parties and interconnected issues are raised therein and accordingly, by this common judgment, we shall dispose of these five Appeals.2. The Appeal Nos. 163 of 2005 and 164 of 2005 are from Originating Summons Nos. 309 of 2000 and 447 of 2003 respectively. We shall first deal with Appeal No. 164 of 2003, since the fate of other appeals is dependant on the decision in this appeal. As a matter of fact the whole focus of Mr. M.L. Palan, the counsel for the appellants was on appeal No. 164 of 2005, arising from originating summons No. 447 of 2003. According to him, the decision in appeal No. 164 of 2005 shall virtually decide all appeals.3. By originating summons No. 447 of 2003, the Appellant prayed for determination of the following issues by the Court:a) Whether the bequeaths made in favour of the Plaintiff by the deceased Pilloo under the said Will dated 12th April, 1989 inter alia under Clauses 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 24, 40 ...

Shri Shashikant Rameshpant Kavishwar Vs. Managing Director, the Mahara ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)MhLj290

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 13th October, 2006 passed by the Industrial Court at Kolhapur, in Revision Application (ULP) No. 25 of 2004. The challenge to the impugned judgment and order is restricted to the permission granted to the respondent/employer to lead additional evidence consequent to the findings arrived at by the Labour Court about the inquiry being vitiated. 3. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, while drawing attention to the decisions of the Apex Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh reported in : (1972)ILLJ180SC , Shankar Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. and Anr. reported in : (1979)IILLJ194SC , Shambhu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda and Ors. reported in : (1983)IILLJ415SC , Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Lakshmidevamma (Smt.) and Anr. reported in 2001 2 CLR 640, submitted that the Industrial ...

Agarwal Trading Co. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)9STJ99CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants in this case are rendering service of clearing and forwarding agent and were liable to service tax. However, there has been consistent delay in payment of the Service Tax and accordingly besides the amount of service tax, a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 76 and Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1944 was imposed on the appellants by the Assistant Commissioner. This order was reviewed by the Commissioner, who enhanced the penalty from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 1,24,285/- on the ground that the appellants have not been able to show any justifiable reason for delay in payment of Service Tax.2. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in enhancing the penalty. In any case, submits the Ld. Advocate that the delay has not been correctly calculated by the original adjudicating authority. Drawing my attention to the first entry in the table re-produced in the said letter, he submits that the duty date wa...