Mumbai Court November 1997 Judgments
Asha Nitrochem Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT203Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant manufactured nitrocellulose. Among the inputs that it declared for availing Modvat credit for the manufacture of this products were drums of mild steel and alcohol. During the period from 26 April, 1990 to 14 September, 1990, it received drums made of high density polyethene, instead of mild steel drums, and packed nitrocellulose in such drums. During this period, it also used once benzene in place of alcohol. There is no dispute that this was not declared. It took credit of the duty paid on these goods and utilised the credit towards payment of duty on the final product. This being objected to by the Department, the notice was issued for the credit wrongly taken and in due course confirmed by the Commissioner. Hence this appeal.3. Advocate for the appellant contends that notice has been issued on 24 May, 1995 and alleges suppression of facts. He says that, the appellant had in the RT 12 Returns filed, enclosed copies of the account of Modvat credit taken and utilised...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. P.M.P. Auto Inds. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1997
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT372Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This reference application have been filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Pune and the following point said to be a question of law arising out of the impugned order of the Tribunal has been raised in the application :- Whether the Tribunal is competent to decide the authenticity of the statement furnished by the assessee to the Bank or any other authority and to the Excise authority for the purpose of levy of Excise duty? 2. Shri D. Gurnani, the ld. JDR submitted that the Tribunal omitted to consider the fact that in this case raw material consumption figures did not tally with the finished product figures. The Tribunal ought to have noted the fact that the assessee has accepted the fact that no goods cleared on payment of duty should be lying in stock and the same cannot be accountal for such stock. None is present for the Respondents despite Notice.3. We have carefully considered the submissions, we find that the Tribunal has not pronounced upon the authentic...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Ram Decorative and Indl.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT68Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue for decision in this appeal is whether the Biaxially Oriented Polypropylene (BOPP) film used by the assessee to separate two layers of industrial and decorative laminates in the course of their manufacture, are inputs under Rule 57A. In the order impugned in the appeal, Collector (Appeals) has held that they are inputs.2. The departmental representative reiterates the grounds in the appeal. He says that BOPP films are used to separate each layer of laminate, from other layers while these are subjected to compression, and that they are capable of repeated use. They are therefore in the nature of appliances. Respondent is absent.3. Collector (Appeals) has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in Weldekar Laminates v. CCE - 1990 (16) ETR 290 and unreported decision in this Tribunal in La-Bel Laminates v. CCE [since reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 757 (Tri.)]. Both these decisions were passed after considering use of the film and whether it could be considered to be an appli...
Tag this Judgment!Raymonds Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT545Tri(Mum.)bai
2. In the order impugned in the appeal.. Commissioner has disallowed Modvat credit taken under Rule 57 A for various reasons. He has also imposed a penalty under Rule 173Q.3. An amount of Rs. 12.43 lakhs has been denied on the ground that, in its declaration dated 1st March, 1994 the appellant did not declare as an input synthetic and polyester tops and tows on which it took credit and that it only declared synthetic and polyester fibres. In the declaration dated 15-3-1994 the appellant had declared synthetic fibre of Headings 5501.10 and 5501.20. The headings read "Synthetic staple fibre and tows including tops thereof." Each of the sub-headings refers to the origin of these goods e.g. Polyester etc. We are, therefore, inclined to accept the contention of the appellant that in the context of the heading there was in effect no distinction between tow and fibre, and particularly in view of the fact that all three products, fibre, tow and tops would be classifiable under the same sub-he...
Tag this Judgment!Antifrication Bearing Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT204Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is against the order of the Additional Collector dropping the demand for duty equal to Modvat credit taken and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on the appellant.2. Advocate for the appellant says that it received some consignments of washers, which are inputs for it. It took credit of the duty paid on them. Subsequently, it cleared these consignments for home consumption after paying duty equal to the credit taken on them. This was objected to by the department, which held that, by application of the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 57F, that the amount to be paid, should be worked out as if the appellant had manufactured the washers. Notice was issued. The Additional Collector, while adjudicating on the notice dropped the demand for duty. He said that "the rate of duty applicable would be the rate applicable to the assessee clearing the goods and not the rate at which the goods were received." 3. The advocate for the appellant says that the remark quoted above ought ...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Kisanchand Pahuja and Others Vs. the University of Mumbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR275; 1998(2)BomCR273
ORDERA.Y. Sakhare, J.1. By the present writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for directions against the respondent-University to retain petitioner's original mark in subjects General Surgery No. 1 and General Surgery No. 2 or to refer answer-books of the said subjects to a third Examiner for second revaluation.2. The petitioner secured 59 marks out of 100 marks in General Surgery No. 1 and 65 marks out of 100 marks in General Surgery No. 2 in third year M.B.B.S. Examination held by the respondent. The petitioner was expecting more marks, therefore, he applied for verification as well as for revaluation by his application dated 21-8-1996. On revaluation, the petitioner was awarded 44 marks in General Surgery No. 1 and 54 marks in General Surgery No. 2. Thus, petitioner's original marks and marks secured after revaluation are as under :SubjectTotalMarksMarks secured before revaluationMarks secured after revaluation1. Gen. Surgery-11000590442....
Tag this Judgment!KutbuddIn RiyazuddIn Shaikh Vs. Subhash Rangnath Wadane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR19; 1998(2)BomCR818
ORDERN.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. In a suit for specific performance, prayer for the alternate relief of refund of consideration in the event the performance is refused was not made. Subsequent application filed by the defendant to amend the written statement adding the prayer for refund of consideration was rejected. This order of the Joint Civil Judge, S.D., Osmanabad dated 10-7-1989 in R.C.S. No. 145 of 1985 has been challenged in this Civil Revision Application.2. Learned trial Judge dismissed the application observing that the claim of refund of the consideration has now become time barred, therefore, the amendment should not be allowed. It is true that when a relief has become time barred because of the law of limitation, an amendment claiming that relief should not normally be allowed. The amendment in question is governed by a special provision in the statute.3. Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 reads as under :22. Power to grant relief for possession, partition, refund o...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ashok Nandlal Kela and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)426
ORDERA.B. Palkar, J.1. The above three Revision Applications are filed by the State of Maharashtra against three different persons and since similar questions of law and facts are involved therein, the same can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. Respondents in the above three Revisions were accused in the Criminal Cases bearing Nos. 78/83, 79/83 and 80/83 respectively. The precise allegation against the respondents in the said complaints, which were filed by the Income-Tax Officer, was that the Income-Tax Officer raided their premises and a search was conducted and certain articles and documents were seized. According to the complainant, the aforesaid respondents were examined on oath by him under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act and they have made false statement and as such they are guilty of offence punishable under section 181 as well as 191 r/w. 193 of the I.P.C.2. In all the three cases, the learned Magistrate passed separate but exhaustive orders and discharge...
Tag this Judgment!Peter Diplinger Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)491
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. Sense and soundness of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed on 19-2-97 by Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Court, Mapusa, convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under section 20(b)(ii) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rupees one lakh and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years is under challenge in this criminal appeal.2. The gravamen of the charge levelled against the appellant/accused is that on or about 13th December, 1995 at Villa Fatima Beach Resort, Baga, Calangute, he was found possessing 1 kg. 7 grams of Charas without possessing legal documents to justify its possession and thereby the accused committed offence punishable under section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act.3. In brief and to the extent it is necessary, the prosecution story is that on 13-12-95 at about 17.25 hours Shirish Thorat (P.W. 6), P....
Tag this Judgment!Shah Rukh Khan S/O. Meer Taj Mohammed Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)BomCR110; 1998BomCR(Cri)615; 1998(2)MhLj472
ORDERB.B. Vagyani, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Keswani for the petitioner, Mr. K.G. Patil, learned A.P.P. for the respondent No. 1 State and Mr. P.K. Joshi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2.2. By this criminal application, the present petitioner original respondent has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, for quashing the proceeding, under section 125 of the Cr.P.C., initiated by respondent No. 2,. being numbered as Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 226/1996, which is at present pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.The facts giving rise to the present Criminal Application are as under :3. The respondent No. 2, who is original applicant, is a permanent resident of Hipparga (Kopdeo), tq. Ahmedpur, dist. Latur. The respondent No. 2 has got five daughters by name Taherabi, Wahedbi, Laila, Madina and Hussainbi and two sons by name Dulekhan and Alasab. All daughters of respondent No. 2 and eldest son Dulekhan are married. Accordi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »