Mumbai Court December 1986 Judgments
Sachdeva and Sons Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-31-1986
Reported in: (1987)(29)ELT917Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Sachdeva & Sons, Amritsar, have filed this present appeal Under Section 129-A(1) of the Customs Act against the Order No. S/16-186/85E, dated 12.6.1985 of the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay, under which he confiscated two consignments said to contain Basmati rice valued at Rs. 11,60,207/- and Rs. 6,54,476/- and imposed redemption fines of Rs. 2,30,000/- and Rs. 1,20,000/- respectively Under Section 113 of the Customs Act, besides levying penalties of Rs. 23,000/- and Rs. 12,000/- respectively Under Section 114 of the Customs Act. Being aggrieved with the decision the Appellants have approached this Tribunal as mentioned above.2. The facts of the case are that M/s. Sachdeva & Sons, Amritsar, through their custom agent Sirgiroh H.R. Khan and Sons filed two shipping bills No. 6555 dated 13.5.1985 and 7215 dated 14.5.1985 for shipment of 1950 and 1100 bags said to contain Basmati rice per s.s.Tilia for export to Dubai. The exporters submitted certificate No. A 203...
Tag this Judgment!JaIn Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-31-1986
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC545Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. filed two appeals both dated 19.2.1985 against the Orders No. 6/Collr/1982 dated 17.12.1982 and No.7/Collr./l982 dated 18.12.1982 of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad with the North Regional Bench of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and these were given numbers C/248 of 85 and 249 of 85 by the Registry of the North Regional Bench. These came up for hearing before the North Regional Bench on 4th and 5th November, 1985. On the learned SDR protesting regarding the jurisdiction of the North Regional Bench to hear and decide these appeals, these were transferred to the West Regional Bench of the Tribunal under Order No. C-248 of 85 (NRB) and C-249 of 85 (NRB), both dated 5.11.1985. Both these appeals were taken up for early hearing under the order of the then President of the Tribunal dated 8 11.1985.2. Advocate Shri Ashok Desai submitted on behalf of the appellants that both the orders of the Collect...
Tag this Judgment!Harakchand Vassanji Gogri Vs. Asstt. Collector of Customs and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-24-1986
Reported in: 1990(26)LC272(Bombay)
ORDERV.S. Kotwal, J.1. Heard Shri M.Y. Gupte, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.R. Gupte, the learned Senior counsel for the Customs Department.2. Rule.3. Parties agree to argue the rule today.4. The contest lies in a restricted field vis-a-vis the forfeiture of the surety bond and the quantum of penalty that is to be levied. Both the Courts below have forfeited the entire bend to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said order the surety has thus approached this Court for reduction of the said amount. In view of the restricted field a detailed probe is not necessary. Some of the bare facts would suffice the purpose.5. The petitioner herein stood as surety to one Ravi Hari Valia, an Indian National, who is alleged to have indulged in an activity of sale of cars which he was not authorised. Some imported cars were brought in under the carnet facilities and which the said person was not authorised to sell and which he did in contravention of the Rules and ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanabhai Khalpabhai Patel Vs. Collector of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1986
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC796Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revision Application filed before the Govt. of India against the order No. 1792 of 1980, dated 7-10-1980 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs statutorily stood transferred to this Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are: On information that a huge quantity of contraband goods belonging to the appellant were being transported to Bombay during the night of 24/ 25-8-1971, the Customs Preventing staff of Bulsar kept a watch on National Highway No. 8 near Naroli Cross Road. They noticed a jeep coming from Vapi side and proceeding towards Bombay. They signalled the jeep to stop and also placed obstructions on the road. The jeep, however, halted at some distance away from the officers and the occupants made good their escape taking advantage of the darkness and heavy rain. The examination of the jeep in the presence of the panchas resulted recovery of 9159 wrist watches of foreign origin valued at Rs. 7,37,520...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Giridhar J. Jaisinghani Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1986
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC532Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revision Application filed before the Government of India against the Order No. 377/1979 dt. 26.11.1979 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be stated as under: One Shri Ram Anandram Vaswani on 6.2.1978 approached the Customs authorities of Air Cargo Unit for clearance of two unaccompanied baggage covered by British Airways Bill dt. 23.1.1978. He also presented a landing certificate of the same date issued by the Customs authorities. The two suitcases which constituted two packages were examined in the presence of panch witnesses and Shri Ram Anandram Vaswani one of which were found to contain 1890 pcs of watch movements of foreign origin and the other old and used clothes. The goods were seized alongwith the keys of the suitcases produced by Shri Vaswani apparently in the reasonable belief that they were smuggled into India...
Tag this Judgment!Ballarpur Industries Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1986
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC214; 1987(30)ELT267(Bom); 1985MhLJ182
1. The petition as originally filed, challenges the order dated 8-12-1981 rejecting the price list and the basis of assessment of the goods of purpose of Excise duty. Subsequently, during the period of pendency of this petition, another order of assessment came to be passed on 19-8-1986 as directed by the interim order of this Court dated 3-3-1986. This order is also challenged by the petitioner.2. The petitioner no. 1 is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered office at Ballarpur, District Chandrapur, State of Maharashtra. The petitioner Company is carrying on the business of manufacturing paper of various qualities inter alia at its factory situated at Ballarpur. The second petitioner is a shareholder of the Company. The first respondent is the Union of India, while the second respondent is the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi and the third respondent is Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Nagpur. The Fourth and Fift...
Tag this Judgment!Pannalal Nemasa JaIn Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR333; 1987MhLJ617
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. The petitioner, who is proprietor of 'Santosh Chitra Mandir, Deulgaon Raja', District Buldana, feeling apprehensive of the touring cinema licence that may be granted to the respondent No. 4 under Rule 101(3)(b) and (c) of the Maharashtra Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1966, as amended by the Maharashtra Cinemas (Regulation) (Amendment) Rules, 1986, (hereinafter referred to as the Amended Rules), has preferred this petition in this Court. The Amendment Rules are framed by the Notification dated 9-6-1986 issued by the State Government under sub-section (1) Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Bombay Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1953 (for short the Act). It is not in dispute that the Amendment Rules were published in the Official Gazette after they were made by the State Government.2. The only question which is urged in the instant writ petition is that unless and until the rules are laid before the House of the State Legislature and th...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Abdul Sattar Mohamedbhai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1986
Reported in: 1990(29)LC126(Bombay)
V.V. Vaze, J.1. Some 14 persons were arraigned before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, in Case No. 52/CW of 1970, to face trial under Sections 135(a) and 135(b) read with Section 135(i) of the Customs Act, as also under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 upon complaint of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. After evidence of two witnesses was recorded, permission was granted by the learned Magistrate under Section 494 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the learned Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution against accused No. 1 as he entered the box on behalf of the prosecution. The charges against the accused were that they had entered into a conspiracy as a result of which two consignments containing contraband articles were taken from Surat to Bombay via Nasik. The learned Magistrate held accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 guilty under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 135(a) and 13...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Kantilal Bhandari Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1986
Reported in: 1987(11)ECC181; 1987(11)LC84(Bombay); 1987(27)ELT617(Bom)
1. The petitioner is a sole proprietor of the firm Mona Enterprises and imports various types of alcohols. In August 1984 the petitioner imported a consignment of pentaerythritol and on import bills of entry were filed declaring the imported goods to fall under Customs Tariff Item 29, 29.01/45, and for the purpose of countervailing/additional duty under Tariff Item No. 68. The tariff rate of customs duty prescribed is 70% in addition to the 40% Auxiliary duty plus 10% additional duty. The bills of entry were duly passed and the petitioner paid duty on November 24, 1984. The petitioner claims that subsequently he became aware that as the goods imported were alcohol, the countervailing/additional duty was not payable in accordance with Tariff Item 68(a). The petitioner accordingly filed a refund application on August 5, 1986 seeking refund of an amount of Rs. 15,688.94. By order dated September 26, 1986 the Assistant Collector of Customs, Refund Department, rejected the claim on the grou...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Abdul Sattar Mohammedbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1986
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR241; 1989(42)ELT179(Bom)
1. One Haji Mohamed Moosa had three sons, Abdul Aziz who works in Dubai, Abdul Razak and Abdul Hamid. Abdul Hamid deals in silver under the name and style of Sunshine Traders. According to prosecution A13 Haji Mohamed Moosa his two sons A14 Abdul Razak and A7 Abdul Hamid along with some others imported contraband goods of Foreign origin into India somewhere near Surat in the State of Gujarat and in the pursuance of the above conspiracy, on or about 19/20th September 1969, A7 met A1 Abdul Razak Abdul Gani near Crawford Market at Bombay and proceeded towards Surat. They stayed in the house of one Abdul Gafoor Mohamedbhai A9. The next day A5-Mohamed Bilal called on A9-Abdul Gafoor and in furtherance of and to effectuate their object an ambassador car GJC-4505 was purchased at Surat for the price Rs. 15,000/-. Though the consideration for the car flew from A7-Abdul Hamid, the R.T.O. forms were filled in so showing A1 the owner thereof - that is as a benamidar.2. Next day in pursuance of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »