Mumbai Court February 1998 Judgments

Tata Exports Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT126Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the decision dated 4-10-1996 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) made in Order-in-Appeal No. 720/96 BCH whereunder he had set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay made in order dated 4-8-1993. In the Order-in-Original Additional Collector had held that the goods that were imported by the appellants were not covered under the negative list, as these goods were Sulphated Oil were different from raw oils of fish and Neatsfoot.2. The appellants Tata Export Ltd. imported consignment of sulphated fish oil and sulphated neatsfoot oil for use in the manufacture of leather products. The department objected to its importability on the ground that they were covered under para 155 of the relevant Import Policy which deals with prohibited items of import. A show cause notice was given and a reply was made. The Council for Leather Export by its communication dated 5-7-1993 have stated that these chemicals...

M/S. LupIn Laboratories Vs. M/S. JaIn Products

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1998Bom312; 1998(2)ALLMR553; 1998(3)BomCR674; (1998)2BOMLR604

ORDERY.S. Jahagirdar, J. 1. Suit is initialed by the plaintiff lor an order of injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's registered trade mark and from using in relation to any medicinal and pharmaceuticals preparations the mark styled as PYKALFIN, which is alleged to be deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark which is registered as PYRALFIN. The present motion is taken out for interim relief of injunction and other consequential directions.2. The defendant has appeared in the motion and filed a reply.3. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that they are registered owner of the word Pyralfin, as a trade mark for marketing, sale and production of the drugs for malarial treatment. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that the communication received by one of their dealers they came to know that the defendants are indulging in use of trade mark by name Pykalfin, which is deceptively similar to the one used by the present plaintiffs. The plaintiffs ...

Diwansingh Kushalsingh Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR556

ORDERD.D. Sinha, J.1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused against the judgment and order of conviction dated 18-4-1994, passed by the Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. 10 of 1994, whereby the appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The appellant/accused was also convicted for the offence punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. However, no separate sentence was awarded in respect of the same.2. In order to consider the complicity of the accused in the crime in question and the circumstances, which have resulted in prosecution of the appellant/accused forthe offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, it is necessary to consider few relevant facts of the prosecution case.The appellant was residing in M.I.R.C. quarters No. P-15/6 at Ahmednagar along with his wife Hansadevi, aged about 28 years, his...

ismail Shaikh Ali Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR671; (1998)2BOMLR719; 1998(2)MhLj727

ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Though this petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the next friend of the detenue Abdul Kadar Andunhi (a) Kamaruddin Puthu Parambi) Sayed Mohammed, hereinafter referred to as the detenue, has impugned the detention order dated 11th December, 1996, issued by the respondent No. 2, Shri P.M.A. Hakeem, the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department. (Transport), and the Detaining Authority, Mantralaya, Bombay, detaining the detenue under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974), hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act.The detention order and the grounds of detention, which are also dated 11th December, 1996, and true copies of which are annexed as Annexures 'A' and 'B' respectively to the petition, were contemporaneously served on the detenue on 4th July, 1997.2. The prejudicial activities of the detenue are contained in the grounds of de...

M/S. B.J.S. Finance and Leasing Company and Another Vs. State of Mahar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR601; 1999CriLJ4892

ORDERV.K. Barde, J.1. Heard Mr. A.H. Kapadia, Counsel for the petitioners; Mr. K.M. Babhulgaonkar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent No. 1 - State; and Mr. R.D. Mane, Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner No. 1 is Finance and Leasing Company engaged in the business of financing and purchase of motor vehicles. Petitioner No. 1 advanced a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the petitioner No. 2, on 15-4-1994, and further sum of Rs. 1,12,500/- to the petitioner No. 2 by way of hire purchase agreement in favour of petitioner No. 2, for purchase of truck AP-16-V-7794. Thus, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 both are the owners and the persons who claim right to the said truck.3. On 2-8-1995, the Police of Nagar Taluka Police Station received information that Ganja was being transported by the said truck and the truck was parked in front of Driver Dhaba situated at Nagar-Jamkhed road at village Chinchodi Pati. On the basis...

Baban S/O. Rakhmaji Bichkule and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR813

ORDERV.K. Barde, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 284/1995 is a jail appeal filed by the two convicts, Baban and Shaikh Sikandar. While, Criminal Appeal No. 288/1995 is filed by convict Shaikh Iliyas. These two appeals are arising out of the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, in Sessions Case No. 122/1993, for offence punishable under sections 376(2)(g), 448 read with section 34 and section 354 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, these two appeals are being disposed of by the common judgment.2. The prosecution case is as follows :(a) On 13-11-1992, at about 10-30 p.m., Radhabai was sleeping in her hut in Zopadpatti area at Parbhani. Her son of 10-12 years of age, Rama, was also sleeping in the hut. There was knock at the door and Radhabai opened the door. Iliyas was standing in the door and he demanded sexual intercourse with Radhabai. Immediately, Iliyas and two persons who were with him entered into the hut. They caught her. Radhabai was wearing sare...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Suryakant Dattatraya Bhabal

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR106

S.S. Parkar, J.1. The appellant in the above appeal along with his wife-original Accused No. 2 were prosecuted in Sessions Case No. 695 of 1993 for offences under Section 376 and under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay who tried the above Sessions Case had convicted the appellant, original accused No. 1 for offence of rape under Section 376 of IPC committed on a girl by name Soni, the daughter of P.W. 1, hardly 11 years of age and sentenced him to undergo RI for 10 years. The said accused was also convicted under Section 302 of IPC for the murder of the said girl after committing rape on her and was sentenced to death by her Judgment and Order dated 3rd September, 1997. The said sentence of death has been submitted to this Court for the purpose of confirmation as per the provisions of Section 366 of Cr.P.C. The accused No. 2, wife of accused No. 1 was convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonme...

Alpha Heat Intercharge (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Uoi and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(76)LC2(Bombay)

1. Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the filing of the appeal by the petitioners before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and pendency of stay application for stay of recovery of the disputed demand before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and the decision of this Court in Mahindra & Mahindra v. Union of India reported in : 1992(59)ELT505(Bom) , no action will be taken against the petitioners under Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 till the disposal of the stay application by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and for a period of two weeks thereafter. He also submits that the stay application will be disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals) as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within six weeks from today.2. In view of the above statement, this writ petition is not pressed and hence disposed of accordingly....

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Prudential Polyweb (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT520Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the decision of the Collector (Appeals), Indore made in Order-in-Appeal No. 203/93, dated 9-3-1993 whereunder he has allowed the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 2,72,047/-. The facts of the case are that the respondent who is a manufacturer of HDPE Polypropylene woven sacks/bags falling under Chapter 39 of Central Excise Tariff. For his commercial venture he used polypropylene which is declared input by means of import of Bill of Entry rotation No. 270 of 10-5-1991. The said Bill of Entry in case of 45 M.T. of the inputs have been imported whereas the respondent alleged to have consumed only 30 M.T. as reflected in the RG 23A entry made on 25-8-1991 and 27-8-1991 i.e. entries No. 153 and 156. It is the case of the department that the goods have been cleared from Bombay Custom House and the certificate which was demanded by the Department from the jurisdictional Supdt. indicate that the duty paying docu- ments are amended from Kandla ...

Bombay Tubes and Containers Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant is absent in spite of notice. There is no representation. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR and perused the papers.2. The dispute in this appeal relates to demand raised on element of cost of corrugated boxes in which the manufactured products, namely, aluminium collapsible tubes were packed at the time of clearance. The dispute relates to the period from July, 1983 to December, 1983. Show cause notice dated 24.10.1985 alleged that 61,612 corrugated boxes had not been returned by the buyers and, therefore, appellant was liable to pay duty on the element of cost of these boxes. After considering the defence raised by the assessee, the Additional Collector confirmed the demand only in regard to duty based on the cost of 8267 boxes. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 5000.00.3. There is no dispute that the corrugated boxes in question were durable and returnable. It is also not in dispute that a very substantial portion of the boxes had actually been returned in accordance with...