Mumbai Court December 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.
Additional Collr. of Cus. Vs. Pradip Smithy and Engg. Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT603Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Commissioner of Customs, Bombay has filed this appeal on a direction from the Central Board of Excise & Customs under Section 129D(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 to apply before the Tribunal for determining the propriety and correctness of an adjudication order dated 26-10-1982 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay in the case of import of 26.728 M.T. of Prime Seamless Carbon Steel Pipes valued at Rs. 1,58,974/- CIF. The operative portion of the Impugned order of the Addl. Collector reads as under : "The issue involved in this case is whether the importers M/s. Pradip Smithy and Engineering Works, Kudal, will qualify for clearance of the goods imported i.e. steel pipes, as Actual User under OGL Appendix 6, list 8 part (I) Item No. 523 of Policy 1985-88. The importers are holding a permanent SSI Registration certificate No. 11/20/00043/PMT/SSI, dated 30-1-1984 wherein manufacturing/processing activity mentioned are 'Agricultural Implements and Fabrication'. The ...
Antifriction Bearing Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT138Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is against the order of the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise in which he found that there was a difference between the stock recorded in the RG-1 register and the stock physically verified of the various types of ball bearings manufactured by the appellant, and thereafter proceeded to confiscate the excess with an option to redeem demand duty on the shortage and imposed a penalty on the appellant.2. Before we proceed to deal with the arguments in this appeal, it is necessary to narrate the events which took place prior to the verification of the stock. On the 17th March, 1990, Central Excise officers visited the assessee's factory and took stock of the bearings manufactured by it. These were about 25 in variety. The officers found that there was shortage in some types of the stock, when compared with the stock that ought to have been present, going by the RG-1 register, and excess in some others. The officers in accordance with the normal practice, seized the e...
Sigma Paints Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT131Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17-6-1988 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III. The facts briefly are that the appellants herein applied for exemption under Notification 35/73 for obtaining Mixed Xylene from supplier IPCL at concessional rate. This notification exempted materials including Xylene from duty on condition inter alia that the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner is satisfied that the material is intended for use as solvent or diluent or thinner for the manufacture of paints, varnishes, lacquers and allied materials. The Department gathered intelligence that the appellants were clearing the petroleum products in its original form as thinner in bulk packing in the name of Sigma Stove Thinner. The officers visited the appellants factory on 7-8-1982 and conducted the enquiry which revealed that the appellants were receiving Mixed Xylene under concessional rate under Notification 35/73 for specified industrial use as for manufacture of varn...
Luminious Sales International Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT545Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both appeals taken up for disposal with consent of both sides. The issue involved in both appeals is common. Each of the appellants filed a claim before the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refunds) for refund of Customs duty which according to it had been paid in excess. The basis for the claims was that silicon diffused chips imported by each of its appellants should be classified under Heading 38.18 of the Customs Tariff, carrying a rate of duty lower than the rate of duty applicable to Heading 85.41, which is how the goods were classified by the assessing officer. The Assistant Collector rejected the claims for refund on the grounds that the classification arrived at by the assessing officer was correct. The importer challenged this order before the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) dismissed the appeal holding that in cases where classification decided by the Custom House is disputed by the importer, and the correct procedure that should have been followed would have...
Sofesule Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1997
Reported in: (1998)(75)LC870Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original dated 20.12.1989 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II confirming demand of Rs. 64,256.29 P. and imposing penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellant.2. The demand has arisen in connection two price lists dated 20.8.1981 and 4.5.1984. These price lists are signed by the appellant as well as the representative of M/s. Makin Pharmaceuticals for whom the appellant was manufacturing Ergocin Capsules on loan and licence basis. The first price list referred to small packing of 20s with assessable value of Rs. 7 and bulk of packing with assessable value of Rs. 232 arrived at by multiplying 7 x 20 and arriving at 2/3 of the same. In the second price list, the appellant declared the price only of bulk clearances (loose) as Rs. 91.79 based on cost data certified by Chartered Accountant. The remarks column of the price list stated that the appellant will manufacture and clear the capsules in bulk under Rule 56A and M/...
Madalsa International Limited, Mumbai and Others Vs. Central Bank of I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALLMR443; (2000)4CompLJ13(Bom)
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. Central Bank of India filed a suit being Suit No. 278 of 1995 against (1) Madalsa International Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, (2) Deepak Bhandari and (3) Hotel Emerald (P) Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, for recovery of large amount of more than Rs. 5 crores. Ultimately, the parties reached a settlement and a decree on admission was passed on 16.4.1996 for a reduced amount of Rs. 1,34,94,692. The decree also provided that the decree shall not be executed and shall be marked as satisfied on the defendants jointly and severally paying the decretal amount as mentioned under clause (2) of the said decree on admission. It provided payment of a sum of Rs. 75 lakhs within two months from the date of execution of the terms and the balance was to be paid in 9 monthly instalments each for a minimum amount of Rs. 50 lakhs, the first of which shall be paid on or before 30 June, 1996, and each subsequent instalment on or be...
B.T. Patil and Sons Belgaum (Construction) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Konkan Railwa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1997
Reported in: 1998(4)BomCR422; 1998(1)MhLj327
ORDERM.S. Shah, C.J. 1. Contentions raised in these applications are dealt with in Arbitration Application No. 19 of 1997 decided on 5th December 1997. Parties are the same and facts are identical, except difference of dates. Hence for the reasons recorded in the said judgment and order, following identical order is passed.2. In these applications also, under Clause 63.3 of the General Conditions of the Contract, three Arbitrators are required to be appointed as the claim of the applicants or the disputed amount is for more than Rs. 5 lacs. Further, appointment of only two Arbitrators as provided in Clause 63.3.(a) would not be consistent with the provisions of section 10(1) of the Arbitration Act, which provides that:'The parties are free to determine the number of Arbitrators, provided thatsuch number shall not be an even number.'Hence, appointment of three Arbitrators is a must. Considering the dispute involved, it would be just and reasonable to follow the procedure prescribed unde...
Dipak Vegetable Oil Industries Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1997
Reported in: (1998)(74)LC770Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The dispute in the appeal arises in relation to two refund claims in respect of the period from 4.2.1975 to 30.9.1975 in respect of a part of excise duty paid by the appellant on vegetable oil manufactured and cleared from the factory. Duty had been paid on assessable value which included cost of metal containers used to pack vegetable oil. According to the refund claim, the cost of metal container or packing was post-manufacturing expenditure and, therefore, cost thereof cannot form part of assessable value. Ultimately rejection of refund claims is in question in this appeal.2. After two remands and supplementary show cause notice, the Assistant Collector ultimately passed an order on 15.3.1988 holding that packing in metal containers was a must for the purpose of delivery at the factory gate in wholesale trade and the containers were not durable or returnable. Dismissal of the appeal preferred by the appellant against the above order has led to the present appeal.3. There is no e...
Sarva Shramik Singh and Others Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALLMR298; 1998(2)BomCR264
ORDERA.Y. Sakhare, J.1. By the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are praying for directions to the respondent No. 4 that respondent No. 4 should pay bonus to its employees as per the circulars issued by Government of India from time to time.2. The respondent No. 4 has filed affidavit in reply dated 22-10-1997 stating therein that the respondent No. 4 is not a State or instrumentality or agency of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The respondent No. 4 has, thus, raised issue of maintainability of this writ petition.3. Heard Mr. Dharap, advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Rele, advocate for the respondent No. 4. By placing reliance upon decision of the Apex Court in Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and others v. V.P. Rudani and others, reported in : (1989)IILLJ324SC , it is contended that the respondent No. 4 is a State instrumentality or agency ...
Madalsa International Ltd. and Others Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1997
Reported in: 1998(4)BomCR124; [2000]99CompCas153(Bom)
ORDERV.P. Tipnis, J.1. Central Bank of India filed a suit being Suit No. 278 of 1995 against the (1) Madalsa International Ltd. a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, (2) Deepak Bhandari and (3) Hotel Emerald Pvt. Ltd. a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 for recovery of large amount of more than Rs. 5 crores. Ultimately the parties reached a settlement and a decree on admission was passed on 16-4-1996 for a reduced amount of Rs. 1.34.94.692/-. The decree also provided that the decree shall not be executed and shall be marked assatisfied on the defendants jointly and severally paying the decretal amount as mentioned under Clause (2) of the said decree on admission. It provided payment of a sum of Rs. 75, lacs within two months from the date of execution of the terms and the balance was to be paid in 9 monthly instalments each for minimum amount of Rs. 50 lacs, the first of which shall be paid on or before 30th June, 1996 and each subsequent instalments on...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »