Mumbai Court November 1997 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Pappu @ Jethanand Laxmichand Tolani Vs. C.D. Singh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1997
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR35
A.P. Shah, J.1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of detention dated 11th November, 1996 passed by the Principle Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra Home, Department (Preventive Detention) under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act) with a view to preventing the detenu in future from smuggling goods.2. Mr. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urged that the detenu had studied upto standard IXth in Sindhi medium. The detenu knows and is well versed with Sindhi language and understands Hindi language and script as well. Mr. Tripathi urged that Hindi translation of the detention order and the grounds of detention were served upon the detenu, but the Hindi translation of the documents are supplied much belatedly after about three months of serving the original documents in English. Mr. Tr...
Digital Electronics Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1997
Reported in: (1998)(74)LC276Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The present application is for waiver of penalty of Rs. 40,000/- imposed on the applicants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. Shri M.H. Patil, the Id. counsel for the applicants pleaded that the applicants on their own had deposited the disputed duty even before the initiation of the proceedings and there was sufficient balance in their RG 23A. Therefore, pre-deposit of the penalty amount should be waived.3. We have heard Shri Gurnani, the Id. DR, who points out that the offence in this case of improper maintenance of RG 23A stands established.4. On a careful consideration, we find that the issue is arguable and for the purpose of hearing the appeal on merits, we direct the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) on or before 30.11.1997, subject to which pre-deposit of the balance amount of penalty is dispensed with and recovery is stayed. The matter will come up for ascertaining compliance on 3.12.1997....
Spaco Carburettors (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Cen. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT542Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the Appellant against the decision of the Collector of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals) at Ahmedabad which was against a decision of the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Divn.I, Baroda made in File No. V2(87) 236/BRD/90, dated 18-4-1991 made in Order-in-Ap-peal No. 292/91. In the said order the Collector found that Modvat credit has been wrongly availed by the Appellant in respect of repairing of the goods returned by the customers of the Appellant.2. In respect of the carburettor assembly, it has been found by the Asstt. Collector, in the Order-in-Original, that the said carburettor assembly was not an input in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. The said assembly which has been received back by the Appellant is a final product of the Appellants which have been returned by the buyer, after rejection. When the final product is returned by the buyer, it has been found by the Asstt. Collector that it could not be regarded or said to be an ...
Owens Bilt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1997
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT642Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Owens Bilt Ltd. is a manufacturer located at Pune of glass and glassware. It uses, for manufacture, among other machinery individual section machines. In November 1995, the appellant sent to M/s. Shamvik Glasstech Limited, Mumbai ('Shamvik' for short) three such machineries which had been installed in its factory for about 25 years for renovation and reconditioning. Shamvik carried out the renovation or reconditioning using, in the course of such renovation or reconditioning component parts manufactured in its factory. It cleared the machines after paying duty at 15% on the component parts used and 10% on what is described as the apportioned cost of the machines. The duty so paid amounted to Rs. 47.46 lacs (approximately). On receipt and installation of these machines from Shamvik, the appellant took credit of the duty paid in terms of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 57T. Subsequently the Assistant Commissioner issued a notice to the appellant on the ground that the credit taken was inad...
S.M. Dyechem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1997
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT305Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These applications are for dispensing with the pre-deposit of duty demand of Rs. 66,26,614.13 against the applicants M/s. S.M. Dyechem Ltd. for the period from 1-2-1988 to May 1991 under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is also for waiver of penalty of Rs. 66 lakh against the applicants M/s. S.M. Dyechem Ltd. under Rule 173Q and of a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on Shri B.S. Shetty, the other applicant who is the Managing Director of M/s. Rukma Chem Products (P) Ltd. now M/s. S.M. Dyechem Ltd. under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules.2. Shri Vipin Kumar Jain, the ld. Chartered Accountant for the applicants, submitted that the applicants have a strong case on merits.The department has classified the goods produced by them viz. PEG 300, PEG 400 and PEG 600 under Chapter 39 as against the claim of the applicants that these products as separate chemically defined organic compound will fall under Chapter 29. The ld. Counsel pointed out that the applicants have re...
Ceekay DaikIn Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1997
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT881Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an application praying the Tribunal to excuse the delay of 38 days in filing this Appeal. The impugned order was passed on 25-2-1997. On 1-3-1997 the Appellant received the Order-in-Appeal. They ought to have filed the appeal before the Tribunal on or before 1-6-1997. The appeal has been filed on 9-7-1997. The reasons for delay in filing the appeal is that the Applicant company is run by 2 Managing Directors and they have to take a joint decisions as to the filing of an appeal or not in respect of the legal proceedings in which the decision may go against them. In this case it would appear that the 2 Managing Directors were away from March, 1997 to June, 1997. Only for a few days they were in India. This has been fully reflected in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Application for excusing the delay. The ld.Counsel, Shri Shroff, on behalf of the Company pleads before me, that in matters of this nature the Tribunal should be conscious of the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in ...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Khanna Paper Mills P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1997
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT632Tri(Mum.)bai
2. Respondent imported a consignment which was declared to be waste paper. Examination of the consignment by the Customs revealed a proportion approximately 60 to 70% to be covers of the audio cassettes.These covers contained obscene pictures. The department was of the view that import of such pornographic material is prohibited. It issued notice to the importer proposing confiscation. The importer replied that it had not intended to import such pornographic material. The goods were not prime quality covers and could not be used as such. The Deputy Commissioner did not accept these contentions and ordered confiscation of these goods. He however gave an option to the importer to re-export them on payment of a fine. He also imposed a penalty on the importer.3. In appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the importer was a manufacturer of paper. She was of the view that there was no evidence to show that the importer deliberately or intentionally imported these covers containing porn...
National Power Scheme Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT678Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for waiver of duty amount of Rs. 1,12,553/- which is demanded from the applicant as wrongly availed exemption under Notification No. 1/93 by the applicants.2. Shri M.H. Patil, the ld. Counsel for the applicants submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order dropping the demand. The applicants availed of the exemption under Notification No. 1/93 as an SSI unit for the clearance of their own production of control panels falling under Chapter 85 of the CETA of 1985. They also manufacture and clear control panels with the brand name of M/s. Siemens Ltd. for which they are availing of Modvat credit facility. The department held that as per the terms of the Notification 1/93, simultaneous availment of Modvat credit and full exemption is not permissible. The ld. Counsel, however, relied upon the stay order of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Excel Food Products Pvt. Ltd .v. Collector of Cen...
Smt. Satya W/O Kailashchandra Sahu and Others Vs. M/S. Vidarbha Distil ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Bom210; 1998(1)ALLMR601; 1998(2)BomCR627; (1998)3BOMLR340; 1998(1)MhLj789
ORDERM.B. Shah, C.J.1. It is the contention of the applicants that the applicants and non-applicants are partners of the firm, M/s. Vidarbha Distillers, Nagpur, registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The aforesaid firm came into existence in the year 1975. Thereafter, on 28th February, 1982, the partnership was re-constituted and a fresh Deed of Partnership was executed, which is annexed as Annexure 'A' to this application. It is pointed out that this partnership firm consists of four distinct and separate groups, viz., Dinshaw Bapuna Group, Kailashchandra Sahu Group, Vinodkumar Sahu Group and Wasnik Group, and each of the same four groups has equal share of 25% in the partnership business. It has been also admitted that some dispute between the parties arose in 1984 and that dispute was resolved by the Arbitrator, Shri L.S. Dewani, as per his Award dated 31st December, 1984. As the dispute between the groups had arisen in year 1996, the applicants requested the Arbitrators...
Laxman Bala Surve and Others Vs. M/S. Pesh Builders
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR724; 1998(3)BomCR755
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for setting aside the decree passed by this Court on 5th May, 1986 in High Court Suit No. 1213 of 1986. In the alternative it is prayed that this Court be pleased to declare that the decree passed is invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs. Present Notice of Motion has been taken out with a prayer that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the execution of the Consent Decree passed in Suit No. 1213 of 1986 be stayed. In the alternative it is prayed that the defendants be restrained by an order and injunction from creating third party interest and /or disturbing possession of the plaintiff of the suit property viz. Survey No. 277/4 (part), City Survey No. B-953 and Survey No. 277/6 (part), City Survey No. B-964, Chappel Road, New Band Stand, at village Bandra, Tal. Andheri, Bombay-400 050.2. The plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property. By an agreement dated 22nd September, 1984, the plaintiffs agree...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »