Mumbai Court March 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.
Vijay Anant Arondekar Vs. Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR155
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard all the learned Counsel, Shri Rege for the petitioner; Shri Patwardhan for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Salvi, A.P.P. for the State. Rule.2. Having regard to the short controversy that is raised before us, namely, as to whether the amount of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 should be Rs. 15,000/- or Rs. 5,000/-, we do not think it necessary to keep the matter pending in this Court. Hence, by consent, rule made returnable forthwith and heard Counsel.3. In respect of an incident which occurred on the night of 10th October. 1983 on the shore of Aronda Creek near Terekhol, as many as 20 accused including the present petitioner Vijay Arondekar, who was accused No. 6, were tried in Reg. Criminal case No. 11 of 1986. in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Vengurla for the offences punishable under Sections 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act and Section 5 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947 read with Section 120B of I.P.C....
Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1998
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT314Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Appellants are engaged in manufacture of Patent and Proprietary medicaments classifiable under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They manufacture a product called Neo-Mercazole based on bulk drug Carbimazole. They claimed exemption under Notification 29/88 which provides for concessional rate of duty of P & P medicines which are single ingredient and based on bulk drugs specified in Schedule II to Drug Price Control Order 1988. Proceedings were initiated against the Appellants by issue of show cause notice on 30-3-1993. The case of the department is that bulk drug Carbimazole has been deleted from the Second Schedule of the DPCO vide Notification No. 90,524(E)/ dated 5-7-1989. Therefore the Appellant's product Neo-Mercazole is not eligible for the concessional rate of duty. The show cause notice sought to recover the duty for the period 12-2-1990 to November 1990.It was also alleged that they filed price list dated 12-2-1990 in part HI for the product claim...
Pandit S/O. Shenfad Dhavale and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR581; 1999CriLJ4974
ORDERV.K. Barde, J. 1. The appellants are convicted for offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Case No. 41/1992, by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalna.2. The appellants have contended that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated oral and documentary evidence on record. The learned Sessions Judge has relied on oral evidence which is not at all believable. The learned Sessions Judge ought to have taken into consideration the circumstance that the Sarpanch of the village is the son-in-law of the Police Patil of the village and the accused had contested elections against the Sarpanch and because of this, both of them were against the accused and their evidence cannot be relied upon. The learned Sessions Judge also has erred in believing the evidence of the child witness. There was delay in filing the first information report and it was not at all explained by the prosecution. So taking into consideration these grounds, the...
Shivaji Ganu Naik Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ471
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. The appellant aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 31-12-1996, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadhinglaj, Kolhapur, in Sessions Case No. 41 of 1996, convicting and sentencing him to undergo 10 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer R.I. for 1 1/2 years, for an offence under Section 304(2), I.P.C, has come up in appeal before us.2. In short, the prosecution case is that the deceased Dhulappa was husband of the informant Surekha Naik PW 4. He had a brother Antu who died sometimes prior to the incident leaving behind his widow Ambubai and three sons. It is said that illicit relationship between the appellant and Ambubai developed and on this score, Dhulappa was not on talking terms with the appellant.Both Dhulappa and appellant used to stay in contiguous houses in Naik Galli, Nosari Tal, Gadhinglaj, District Kolhapur.On 9-7-1996, at about 9 to 9.15 p.m. Dhulappa was talking with his niece Irappa PW 5, on the verandah of the appell...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Glamour Cosmetics P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1998
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT152Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondent manufactured and sold talcum powder, containers bearing the name of the pu rchaser to M/s. Lakme Ltd. The department proposed to include the assessable value to such talcum powder the cost incurred by M/s. Lakme Ltd. on advertisement of the products on the ground that it contributed to marketability of the product manufactured by the respondent. Adjudicating upon the notice the Assistant Collector dropped the demand holding that no benefit accrued to the respondent on the advertisement charges incurred by M/s. Lakme Ltd. The Collector (Appeals) confirmed this finding. Hence this appeal by the department.2. The departmental representative reiterates the grounds in the appeal. These are that till relationship between respondent and M/s.Lakme is not of those of buyer and seller, but of those "work contract" type.3. In our view the issue is decided by number of decisions, that in Philips India Ltd. v. C.C.E. -1997 (91) E.L.T. 540, the Supreme Court has set aside the Trib...
Ramnik Crimpers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT340Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Application is for waiver of deposit of Rs. 1.68 lakhs in E/49/98 and Rs. 2.85 in E/50/98.3. Credit has been denied on the ground that it was taken on invoice issued by a dealer who was not registered with the department for this purpose. We find that although the dealer was not registered when issued invoice on 26-12-1994, it was given Registration Certificate on 6-1-1995. Prima facie the contravention is procedural. We therefore dispense the deposit of duty and stay its orders....
Hindustan Composites Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1998
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT150Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing both the sides, the appeal is admitted for decision on merits.2. The issue in this appeal is whether electric control panel in the appellants plant is eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in the impugned order captioned above has held that Modvat credit has been rightly denied as the control panel cannot be said to produce or process or bring about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final product. The Commissioner (Appeals) in rejecting the appeal followed the precedent decision in the case of J.K. Pharmachem Ltd. v.C.C.E. -1997 (72) ECR 423 (Tribunal).3. After hearing Shri Vijay Khandelwal for the appellants and Shri A.R.S. Kumar for the department it is found that as against the single decision of the Tribunal relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals), there are other decisions contra as in the case of C.C.E. v. Nav Bharat - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 501 which was followed by this Bench i...
Cce Vs. R.K. Dutt Concerns
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1998
Reported in: (1998)(76)LC426Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing. There is no representation and no request for adjournment. We have heard Shri M.Ali, JDR appearing for the appellant-Collector.2. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of goods covered by Chapters 73, 84 and 90, was availing the benefit of SSI exemption notification No. 175/86, according to which total exemption was available for clearances up to the limit of Rs. 30 lacs and subject to the above exemption goods falling under each of the Chapters had individual limit of Rs. 15 lacs. When the value of clearances of Chapter 90 goods crossed Rs. 15 lacs, the respondent started paying duty on further clearances of such goods. When the value of total clearances of all the goods covered by the three Chapters crossed Rs. 30 lacs, respondent started paying duty on further clearances. Respondent subsequently filed refund claim stating that even though the value of total clearances exceeded Rs. 30 lacs in so far as goods covered by Chapters...
Ms. Zohara Omer and ors. Etc. Vs. Officer of Dri, Woldrof Hotel and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR707; 1998CriLJ3736
S.S. Nijjar, J.1. This order will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 1998 and Criminal Appeal No. 294 of 1998.1A. On 3rd August, 1997 the appellants, (all women) arrived at the Sahar International Airport, Mumbai by Yemeni Airways flight. They checked into two hotels viz. Hotel Hayat and Hotel Khyres. The DRI had prior information that a large quantity of gold will be smuggled into India by the passengers arriving from Yemen on the aforesaid flight. Necessary proceedings for seizure were taken out at the aforesaid two hotels. Crude gold and jewellery valued at Rs. 1,25,92,400/- was recovered from the 13 appellants. A sum of US $ 12,500/- equivalent to Indian Rs. 4,53,125/- was also recovered from the accused No. 11 (appellant No. 5 in Criminal Appeal No. 294/98). Statements of all the accused persons were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. All the accused/appellants made a stereotype statement to the effect that they had brought the gold for purchasing readymade ga...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Kali Edulji Vaid and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1826
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This is a revision application filed by the State against order dated 12-12-1990 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay in C.C. No. 3806/P/ 90. In that case the present respondents were chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 and other allied sections having committed murder of Nathaappa Sawant. By the impugned order, the Magistrate, instead of committing the case to Sessions Court has converted the said charge into the charge under Section 304-A and took upon himself the responsibility of trying the offence in purported exercise of his power under Section 209 of the Cr. P.C. According to prosecution, at about 2.30 p.m. on 28-3-1989 at Jivla Pada, Saibaba Compound, in front of Bhor Company, Boriwali (East), Bombay the respondents formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to assault and cause injury to Mohammed Alamgir Mohamad Ismail Sayyed and assaulted Natha Appa Sawant and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »