Mumbai Court August 2006 Judgments

Prafulla S. Shetty Vs. Vijaya Bank and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR523

Deshpande A.P., J.1. The petitioner Mrs. Prafulla S. Shetty was served with a charge-sheet dated 4.5.1992 under Regulation 6 of the Vijaya Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1981, for fraudulently crediting a total amount of Rs. 31,229/- to the Savings Bank Account No. 5479, standing in the name of her brother Dr. Naveen D. Shetty and withdrawal of the same subsequently by the petitioner and thereby committing fraud and misappropriation of the Bank's money by misusing her official position in the Bank. At the relevant time in the year 1989 the petitioner was working as an Officer at Thane branch of Vijay Bank (A Government of India Undertaking). The enquiry in question pertains to only one of the fraudulent acts, whereas in regard to some other fraudulent transactions criminal cases were filed and in one of the criminal cases filed against the petitioner, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 46...

Nandkishore S/O Mohan Lal Lahoti Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR103; 2006(6)MhLj552

M.G. Gaikwad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel, appearing for the respective parties in both writ petitions.2-3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent of learned Counsel, appearing for respective parties, both these petitions are heard finally and decided.4. These two writ petitions are decided by this common judgment as common question of law as to 'whether a delegatee can sub-delegate his powers to other authority' arises in these matters.5. By preferring Writ Petition No. 4923/2006, the petitioner seeks relief to quash and set aside the order dated 30-5-2006 passed by the Collector, Aurangabad delegating the powers of hearing to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad, as well as to quash and set aside the order dated 19-6-2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad, rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner.In Writ Petition No. 5138/2006, the petitioner challenged the order dated 1-6-2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Selu, District Parbhani, r...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Crown International and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals are being disposed by this common order, as the issues involved in both the appeals are the same. Revenue is in appeal. (a) The respondents are merchant exporters. They purchased CD Roms containing computer programs from the manufacturer thereof, M/s. Padmini Polymers Ltd. The purchase price was Rs. 640/- per piece. The two exporters had entered into contracts with foreign buyers for export of these CD Roms at the rate of USD 18 per piece, which is equivalent to Rs. 761.40 at the prevailing exchange rate. (b) Shipping bills were filed, the goods were examined and upon final assessment let export order was passed by the proper officer under Section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act). The exporters realised the full export proceeds from the foreign buyers. (c) Based on investigations, show cause notice was issued alleging that the value declared was inflated as the exporter was indulging in export of software, which is otherwise freely downloadable from Internet,...

Transmann International Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides at length. Shri V.S. Nankani, ld Advocate for the appellants has submitted summary of his arguments on 15.5.2006. Shri S.G. Dewalkar, ld SDR appearing on behalf of the Department has submitted summary of his arguments on 2/8/06. (A) Whether 14.523 MTs of Stainless Steel Circles (hereinafte-referred to as "the said goods") were smuggled by concealing the same in a consignment of stainless Steel Sheets imported and cleared under Bill of Entry No. F 02344 dated 13.3.1997 and therefore, liable for confiscation having been smuggled into India without payment of duty? (B) Whether the Revenue has discharged the burden of proof to show that the said goods are smuggled as the same are non-notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962? (C) In the event the answer to question (a) is in the negative, the answer to question (b) is in the affirmative, whether the said goods are prime quality or not? The said goods were detained on 27.03.1997 and seized on 13.05.1997 along ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Esteem Services

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC542

2. The issue involved in this appeal is that whether the assessee can avail rebate on the duty paid goods once he claimed drawback amount from the Customs Authorities.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) has found that the refund claim made by the assessee was rejected as per Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, mainly on the ground that the appellants had first availed Cenvat Credit, then after, due export they have received drawback amount and they have reversed the drawback taken. Since the assessee have reversed the amount of Rs. 1709/- on account of drawback taken and therefore, they are eligible for refund in view of the ratio laid down in the Supreme Court decision in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE and the High Court decision in the case of Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. v. UOI . On due consideration of the matter Rules 5 and 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Pune has allowed the refund of Rs. 44,572/-which is admissib...

Procter and Gamble Hygiene and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC649

1. Heard Both sides. Shri Anand Nainawati, learned CA appearing on behalf of the appellants states that the issue relates to manufactured goods found in the store room and packing room on 26.8.95 which were not reflected in the RG-1 Register. He states that the goods were very much available in the factory premises and there was no intention of clearing the goods without payment of duty clandestinely. He also states that duty of Rs. 3,98,521/- has been paid on 28.8.95 but duty paying documents were not shown to the original authority. He has produced the same before the Tribunal which has been checked by the ld.DR. He prays that since the duty has been already paid, confiscation may be set aside and imposition of penalty may be waived.2. After considering the arguments from both sides and after taking into account duty amount which has already been paid and also the fact that the goods were in the factory premises, the confiscation of goods is set aside. However, some penalty is requi...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sweet Confectionery

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC531

2. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the Cenvat credit is admissible on duty paid coconut punch chocolates received in the factory and cleared in small pack along with coffee bite pack and the cenvat credit is utilized towards payment of duty on final products.3. The adjudicating authority has disallowed the cenvat credit to the tune of Rs. 1,36,357/- along with interest under Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. On filing an appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order by observing that the respondents were receiving the duty paid coconut punch chocolates in bulk packs, and thereafter they repacked the said coconut punch chocolates into small pouches and packed the said pouches along with coffee bite chocolates in bigger packs and paid Central Excise duty on the MRP printed on the said packs. The Board Circular has clarified that in such situations the MRP printed on the multi-piece packages would be considered for payment of duty. Further, the C...

Shivaji Sampat Jagtap Vs. Rajan Hiralal Arora and the State of Maharas ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ122

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties taken up for final hearing. The learned Counsel for the respondents waive service. 3. The question of considerable significance, raised in this writ petition, is that whenever any Magistrate, after having heard and recorded the whole or any part of the evidence in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein, either on account of his transfer or retirement, and is succeeded by another Magistrate, whether in view of the provisions contained in Section 143 of the Act, the succeeding Magistrate requires to hold a denovo trial as contemplated under Section 326(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') or can act on the evidence so recorded by his predecessor and proceed further from the stage at which he takes over and decide the case as conte...

Narcinva S.V. Sinai Velingkar and ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR707

Kakade P.V., J.1. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the record.2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by District Judge, South Goa, Margao dated 24/3/2003 in Execution Application No. 14 of 1997 which came to be passed on the basis of remand order passed by this Court in order to determine the correct date of taking over possession of the property under provisions of Land Acquisition Act. The question for consideration of the learned District Judge was whether the acquired land in the said case was taken possession of by L.A.O./Government on 19/10/1979, as contended by the decree holders, or on 23/ 9/1981, as contended by the Judgment Debtors.3. Earlier it was held by the District Court by order dated 31/7/1999 that possession of the acquired land was taken on 19/10/ 1979 but the possession of the structures was taken on 23/9/1981. Earlier order was subject matter of the revision application before this Court and by order dated 1/11/ 2002 the said earlier o...

Mortulo Ramchandra Gad, (since dec.) through LR's and Ors. Vs. John Pi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2008)BC63; 2006(5)BomCR522

Kakade P.V., J.1. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the record.2. The appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bicholim, decreeing the suit and directing that the defendants shall jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs. 93.000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the actual payment.3. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the amount of Rs. 60,000/- alongwith interest which was advanced by plaintiff No. 1 by way of friendly loan to defendant No. 1 on 5/7/1989 to be repaid allegedly on demand with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. This amount was paid to defendant No. 1 through plaintiff No. 2 against a written acknowledgment given by defendant No. 1. Plaintiff No. 1 being in need of money demanded the said amount from the defendants for the first time on 1 /11 / 1994. As they did not pay the amount, police complaint was lodged, but inspite of...