Mumbai Court August 2006 Judgments

Kamalabai Laxman Jadhav and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ835

V.G. Palshikar, Actg. C.J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction recorded on 31st March, 2003 by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 204 of 2002, the appellants hereinabove have preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the Memorandum of Appeal as also verbally canvassed before us by the learned Advocate for the appellants.2. With the assistance of the Advocate for the appellant and the Additional Public Prosecutor, we have scrutinised the record and reappreciated the evidence on record. Facts giving rise to the prosecution, stated briefly, are as under.3. Accused No. 1 is wife of accused No. 2 and mother of accused No. 3. They are related to the victim who had lent accused No. 1 a sum of Rs. 40.000/- as needed by the accused. In spite of passage of substantial period, the money was not returned and the victim was therefore, insisting on repayment, demand for which was made on several occasions. On 26th August, 2002, the deceased ...

Mohammed Abdul Hai Alias Farooq Pasha Vs. Saleha Khatoon and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ1394

ORDERJ.H. Bhatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for Petitioner and Respondent No. 4. None for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.2. To state in brief the petitioner No. 1 married respondent No. 1 on 15-8-1982 and out of this wedlock they have two sons who are respondent Nos. 2 and 3. On 8-3-1985, the wife and two children i.e. respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed Misc. Criminal Application No. 46/1985 for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. The application was opposed by the petitioner. He had contended that he had already given divorce to the respondent No. 1 on 25-1-1985, After hearing the parties, the learned C.J.M., Nanded granted maintenance to the respondent No. 1 at the rate of Rs. 150/- p.m. with effect from the date of her application and he also granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75/-p.m. to each of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 from the date of their application till they attained majority. That order was challenged by the present petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No. 74/1985 before th...

Pushpak Publicity Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner revising the order of the Assistant Commissioner and enhancing the penalty from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 30,627/- imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The only contention that was raised on behalf of the appellant was that the appellant had not filed the returns in time because the law was new at that time. He relied on the decision of the Bangalore Bench in S.J. Anthony v. C.C.E. 2006 (1) S.T.R. 154 (T) Final Order No.1168/2003 and Misc. Order No. 345/2003, dated 1-9-2003 in Appeal No.ST/9/2002 for contending that when the discretion was exercised by the adjudicating authority, the reviewing authority ought not to have enhanced the penalty. It was also contended that the provision of Section 76 was substituted w.e.f. 10-9-2004 to the effect that penalty shall not be less than Rs. 100/- for every day during which failure continued, but which may extend to Rs. 200/- per every day during which the failure continu...

Behr India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT1088Tri(Mum.)bai

1.1 Appellant are an assessee under the Central Excise Act engaged in the manufacture of diverse parts of "Car-Conditioning Machine" other than a compressor. They import compressors from abroad and trade in them by supplying the compressors to the buyer of the manufactured entities.1.2 During the disputed period, the customer are M/s. Tata Motors & Mahindra & Mahindra, who after obtaining the entities use the same in the assembly line of manufacture of the automobiles subsequently cleared by them an payment of duty. Some small quantity of these goods was supplied to M/s. Tata Motors Spares Divisions for resale in after sale service market.1.3 They since 1998, the commencement of the manufacture to their factory, were getting orders for the individual parts described on the purchase orders with delivery Schedules for individual entities given/determined by the customers.1.4 The assessee had claimed exemption under notification No.22/2000-C.E., dated 6-3-2000 as available to par...

Murarka Cables and Conductors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC171

1.1 Appellant herein, M/s. Murarka Cables & Conductors Ltd. had a unit in KANDLA FREE TRADE ZONE as manufacturer and exporters of Aluminium & Copper Conductors and Cables.1.2 They were importing the goods by availing benefit of Exemption No.77/80-Cus Dt. 17-4-80. They imported goods vide Bill of Entry Dt.28-6-91, & kept them in bounded warehoused. Customs authorities extended the warehousing period from time to time.1.3 In the year 1994, the unit was closed down due to financial & other problems on 8-2-1996 the Gandhidham Police intimated the appellant that few thieves arrested by them have confessed to a theft in the appellants factory. A complaint was lodged with the police on 9-2-1996.The police authorities also recovered part of the goods. A chargesheet was filed in the Criminal Court and accused of theft were put to trials.1.4 This was also, reported by the appellant, to Customs Officials who on verification noticed that "6.5 Mts of Polidan" was stolen. A SCN was ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Rainbow Instruments (Pvt.) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC429

1.1 Revenue is in appeal. A case of manufacture and clearance of speedometers without accounting in the statutory records and discharge of duty thereon was made and after due enquiries a show cause notice was issued to the Respondent Company, an assessee engaged in the manufacture of branded speedometers for well known, three wheeler manufacturers cleared on payment of duty and speedometer with their own brand name "RAINBOW' cleared under states exemption available to SSI unit. The notice was issued to various other persons, who were employees. Directors of the assessee, distributors & others.1.2 The lower authority confirmed the demands of duty on speedometers cleared during the period 1.3.96 to 11.11.99 with interest & imposed penalties under Section 11AC on the assessee and under Rule 209A on the other notices.1.3 The Commissioner (Appeals), as it is submitted in the appeal, has set aside the order by taking cognizance of the contention made that the Department has not supp...

Apsara Metallica Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. M/s. Apsara Metallica Industries, along with its Marketing Executive, are the appellants herein aggrieved by the order by which the activity indulged by the appellant unit in lacquering metallised polyester film obtained on payment of duty is being considered as manufacture and charge of no discharge of duty on the removals of such films as well as on the valuation of certain 'covered yarn' being manufactured by them and cleared on valuation which were required to be reopened for assessment at value higher. The duty demands and penalties have been arrived on the appellants along with certain other charges made on various issues of Modvat eligibility and procedural nature and allegations of clandestine removal under the Central Excise Law and the Procedures.2. (a) Bombay High Court in M/s. Garware Plastics & Polyester Ltd., , after considering the specific entry under the erstwhile Tariff Heading 15A(2) which refers to 'lacquer or metallised film' separately held that the activi...

Utv Software Communications Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant has challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 20-4-2006 dismissing the appeal as time-barred by thirty-five days.2. The Order-in-Original was made on 27-4-2005. The appeal was required to be preferred within three months from the date of receipt of the said order under Section 85(3) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994.Since the appeal was filed on 12-9-2005, against the order issued on 27-4-2005, the Commissioner (Appeals), rejecting the stand of the appellant that the order was received on 13-6-2005 dismissed the appeal, which was filed on 12-9-2005 as time-barred.3. It appears from the record that the letter was addressed to the Commissioner (Appeals) on 21-3-2006, pointing out the provisions of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, which provided the period of limitation of three months for preferring the appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) appears to have dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was filed after the statutory period of thirty day...

inox Leisure Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 28,72,357/- imposed under Section 78 and Rs. 36,500/- under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Service tax amount of Rs. 28,72,357/- and penalty of Rs. 7,18,089/- has already been deposited), we find that we can dispose of the appeal itself at this stage and hence proceed to do so with the consequent of both sides, after waiving pre-deposit of the balance penalty.2. The demand has been confirmed by the adjudicating authority by holding the appellants to be liable to tax as rendering the services of construction of commercial and industrial buildings. The appellants raise a plea before us that this was a new category leviable to service tax from 10th September, 2004 and expanded on 16th June, 2005 and some of the construction was prior to 16th June, 2005 while the levy of such construction came into force from 16th June, 2005 and, therefore, part of the demand at least cannot be sustained. ...

Rama News Prints and Paper Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(209)ELT57Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants are a registered company and an assessee, under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and various other persons who were employees of the assessee company and the Central Excise Department. They are aggrieved by a common order of denial of credit availed by the assessee of duty paid on capital goods received, found to be taken wrongly and it is to be recovered with consequent penalties under Section 11AC read with Rule 57U(6), confiscation of land building, plant and machinery under Rule 173Q(2)(a) and redemption thereof on a fine of Rs. 4 crores along with interest and individual consolidated penalties under Rules 209A, 210 & 226 have been arrived on employees, of the assessee and under Rules 209A & 210 on the Central Excise Officers appellants herein.1.2 Certain capital goods duty paid, were recovered in the factory premises on eligible documents and installed in the factory as they were to be used in the manufacture of dutiable final products is not in dispute.1.3 The ...