Mumbai Court February 1998 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.
Chiranika International Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC934Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the order impugned in the appeal, Collector (Appeals) has ordered confiscation of the consignment of cynuric chloride seized from the possession of the appellant and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- in terms of Clause (b) of Section 112 of Custom Act. He determined the quantum of penalty in accordance with Sub-clause (2) of Section 112.2. The goods were seized from the warehouse in which they had been deposited by appellant. The proprietor of the appellant told the Customs department that it had been given the goods a.s security by an unknown person who had accepted it for a loan of an Rs. 8 lakhs left by security of persons and he did not have the details of the person.3. The appeal is limited to the quantum of penalty. The Advocate for the appellant says the goods do not belong to the appellant and it does not claim them.4. The Collector in his order does not dispute the version put forward by the appellant. He orders confiscation of the goods on the ground that they were smu...
Mrs. Margaret Mary Pinto and Others Vs. Shri Armando Gonsalves
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR312; 1998(3)BomCR554; 1998(3)MhLj426
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. This appeal arises from the order dated 5th May 1997 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 181/96/A in Special Civil Suit No. 88/96/A.By the impugned order the trial Court has confirmed the expire order dated 6th May 1996 and thereby allowed the application for temporary injunction filed by the respondent herein seeking to restrain the appellants from committing breach of the agreement dated 23rd December 1993 styled as Memorandum of Understanding in any manner whatsoever including by filing of any consent terms in Special Civil Suit Nos. 255/92/A and 100/93/A.The said Memorandum of Understanding dated 23rd December 1933 is hereinafter referred to as the said 'MOU.'.2. The facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the respondent filed Special CivilSuit No. 88/96/A for perpetual injunction against the appellants praying therein as under:'(a) by perpetual injunction the defendants be restrained fr...
Sanjay Baban Bhujbal Vs. the State Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALT(Cri)13; 1998(5)BomCR471
ORDERV.R. Datar, J.1. The petitioner came to be arrested on 8th September, 1997, for offence under section 302 I.P.C. registered at C.R. No. 70/97 at Shikrapur Police Station, District Pune. On 7-12-1997, according to the petitioner, the period of 90 days elapsed from the date of the arrest of the petitioner. As such, on 9-12-1997 the petitioner filed application under section 167(2)(a) Cr.P.C. in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shirur, District Pune for grant of bail as the charge-sheet was not filed within a period of ninety days from the date of remand. The learned Magistrate then called for the say of the Public Prosecutor and kept the matter on 10th December, 1997. On that day, say was filed as well as the charge-sheet came to be filed against the petitioner and that is how the learned Magistrate rejected the application holding that after filing the charge-sheet he has no jurisdiction to grant bail.2. The petitioner approached Sessions Court, Pune by filing Cri...
Shyamrao Vishnu Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR757; 1998CriLJ3446; 1998(2)MhLj851
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this revision application, the petitioner impugns the judgment and order dated 17-10-1992 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1990 whereby the judgment and order dated 17-1-1990 passed by the 5th Assistant Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 7 of 1990, convicting him for offences punishable under section 326/34I.P.C. and 324/34 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo six years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- in default to suffer one years R.I. under the first count but awarding no separate sentence under the second count, has been confirmed.2. In short, the prosecution case is that on 2-4-1987, the informant-victim Yashwant Ganu Patil, P.W. 2 had gone to take dinner at the house of Vishnu Patil, P.W. 5. After taking dinner, at Vishnu Patil's house, while the informant-victim was returning and had reached the place called 'Bilaskar Mal' situated near the footpath from Awali to Bhadale, the petition...
Pfizer Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1035Tri(Mum.)bai
2. Advocate for the applicant explains duty has been demanded on the sugar syrup which it cleared and captively consumed in the course of manufacture of cough syrup. Among other arguments, he raises one that the product is not marketable. He says that there is no dispute that it contains sodium saccharin, an artificial sweetener and that according to Rule 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules no artificial sweetener shall be added to any article of food. He explains that sale of such a product would, therefore be in violation of law. He cites the decision of the Delhi High Court in DCM and Anr. v. Jt. .Secretary to Government of India and Anr. -1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 121) to say that if the sale of the goods regulated is by a special law, the goods can be manufacturable only if the provisions of that law are complied with and that the goods cannot therefore be manufactured. We are not going to the other aspects.3. The Departmental Representative contends that the Commissioner ha...
Chloride Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT402Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant imported a consignment of plastic under an advance licence issued to it and subsequently deposited the goods in a bonded warehouse. When it cleared the goods from the warehouse, the period of validity of the licence had lapsed. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Additional Collector has said that the benefit of Notification No. 159/90 to the goods cannot be extended to the goods for the reason that the importer did not possess a valid advance licence when the goods were cleared out of Customs charge. Hence this appeal.2. Advocate for the appellant contends that when the goods were imported, they were covered by a licence, and relies on the observation of the Additional Collector to this effect. Therefore, he says it is not relevant whether, when the goods were cleared from the Customs finally, the advance licence was valid or not.3. The Departmental Representative contends that in terms of Clause (b) to the explanation below 1 to the notification, a valid advanc...
Star Indl. and Textile Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1998
Reported in: (1998)(76)LC464Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of parts of textile machinery, was filing price lists and clearing goods on approved prices. In respect of the period 1.3.1975 to 3.1.1976 show cause notice dated 23.12.1976 was issued stating that the appellant could not correlate the gate passes issued during this period with the sales invoices issued during the period. Finalisation of assessment of Central Excise Duty was proposed to be finalised as indicated in the annexure to the show cause notice. In determining the duty, value of bought out items was also included. Appellant resisted the notice on merits as well as on limitation. However, the Additional Collector overruled the contentions and confirmed the demand. Hence, the present appeal.2. The show cause notice and the annexure are bereft of all necessary details. According to the notice, the short levy related to textile machinery and parts thereof falling under TI 68. In the reply to the show cause notice, it was stated that appella...
Cce Vs. Sunway (i)(P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1998
Reported in: (1998)(77)LC158Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri K. Srivastava, SDR.2. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of PP medicines, was filing price lists in Part I and Part II and on approval thereof paying duty accordingly. In respect of supplies made to Government departments, appellant filed refund claim of Rs. 4,62,426.00 on the ground that those goods were partially exempt under Notification 45/82. In respect of the medicines manufactured and supplied to buyers other than Government departments, appellant was availing the benefit of Notification 245/83. It was a condition of Notification 245/83 that the benefit of exemption will not be available unless it is claimed in respect of all medicines covered by the statutory price list. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim on the ground that respondent enjoying the benefit of Notification 245/83 in respect of certain goods would not be entitled to the benefit of Notification 245/83 in respect of other g...
L and T Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1998
Reported in: (1998)(76)LC463Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order in appeal No.R-735-737/B-II, dated 3.1.1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay confirming three orders-in-original dated 19.3.1990, 16.4.1990 and 7.8.1990 respectively passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay.2. The dispute arises on four refund claims filed by the appellant and rejected by the Assistant Collector. According to the law as explained by the Tribunal appellant was required to file three appeals but instead filed one appeal. We are, therefore, treating the present appeal as one filed against the order dismissing one of the three appeals by the Collector (Appeals). Appellant's representative suggests that this appeal may be treated as an appeal against order dismissing appeal No. 545/90 filed against the rejection of the refund claim for Rs. 1,41,489.64.3. The dispute arises in regard to charges met by the buyer for inspection of the excisable goods. The lower authorities held that the...
Cce Vs. Ram Decorative and Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1998
Reported in: (1998)(77)LC403Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The dispute in this appeal relates to what is called "commitment charge" collected by the respondent from buyers who had entered into contract with the respondent for purchase of the excisable goods and failed to lift the entire quantity or part of the quantity of such goods. On coming to know that some amounts had been collected as "commitment charge" from the buyers and such charges had not been included in the assessable value, show cause notice was issued proposing demand of duty on the element of "commitment charge".Respondent resisted the notice contending that "commitment charge" was not part of price but only liquidated damages for breach of the contract on the part of the buyers and therefore, the same cannot be included in the assessable value. This contention was accepted by the adjudicating authority who dropped the demand. The Collector of Central Excise being aggrieved has filed the present appeal.2. On the facts there is no dispute that the "commitment charge" collec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »