Mumbai Court April 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.
Cce Vs. Gebbs Data Product P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1998
Reported in: (1998)(77)LC535Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the decision of the Collector (Appeals) No. KPS-622/B-II/91 dated 2.1.1992 made in V-2(Ch. 84) 383/91 whereunder while reversing the decision of the Assistant Collector he had held that for issuing the show cause notice for a period of more than six months it ought to have been issued by the Collector and not by any authority lesser than that of the Collector. The respondents are engaged in the business of manufacturing monitor falling under Chapter 84. The Assistant Collector by a show cause notice dated 12.9.1988 charged the respondent under Rule 57-1 that for a period from July 1987 to February 1988 they have wrongly availed Modvat credit on some of the inputs without filing the declaration. After hearing the parties the Assistant Collector passed an order dated 12.8.1991 confirming the demand against which an appeal was filed and the Collector (Appeals) by his impugned order held that for SCN cum demand invoking a period of more...
Smt. Vishranti Rajkumar Dessai Vs. the Administrative Tribunal and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR714
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in undergraduate category on probation by Order dated 27th June, 1989 in the School of the respondent No. 2 herein. By a communication dated 13th March, 1990, the petitioner was informed that her services as the teacher would not be required for the next academic year. On representation by the petitioner, however, the said communication was withdrawn by the respondent No. 2 by another letter dated 11th June, 1990. The petitioner thus continued to be on probation as the Assistant Teacher in undergraduate category in the school of the respondent No. 2 for the academic year 1990-91 also. The petitioner was served on 29th May, 1991 with an order dated 10th May, 1991 informing her about the termination of services with the respondent No. 2. It was stated in the Order that the petitioner's services were unsatisfactory and the petitioner had failed to show any improvement in her performance and her termination...
Arun Gulab Gawli Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4481
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Writ Petition No. 1338 of 1997 and Criminal Application No. 3806 of 1997.This is a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code with a prayer that this Court be pleased to set aside the order dated 5th December, 1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in the application for discharge being Application No. 987 of 1997 in Sessions Case No. 1221 of 1997.2. Facts as set out in the petition are brief and to the point. It is stated that the petitioner is an Indian National and resides permanently at Dagdi Chawl, Byculla, Mumbai with his mother, wife and children. He is stated to be presently lodged in Thane Central Jail, Dist. Thana. He is further stated to be president of a Political Party known as Akhil Bhartiya Sena. This Political Party is stated to be recognised by the Election Commission of India. In the petition itself it is stated that the petitioner is branded as a gang leader of a gang known as 'Gawli Gang...
Furn Plastics Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(101)ELT14(Bom)
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service through Mr. Choube. By consent, Rule is called out for hearing and heard finally.2. The petitioner has filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals, Central Excise (second respondent) under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner simultaneously moved an application under Section 35F of the Act seeking stay of the execution of the orders and dues which were appealed against. For reasons which we find it difficult to understand, the Commissioner kept the application pending without passing any orders thereupon. The petitioner came to this Court by his Writ Petition No.296 of 1998 complaining against this inaction on the part of the second respondents. This Court by an order made in Writ Petition No. 296 of 1998 directed the second respondent to hear and dispose of the application under Section 35F (stay application) on or before March 31,1998.3. Apparently, the second respondent - Commissi...
Modi Telstra Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1066Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Application is for waiver of deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on the applicant following the finding of the Commissioner that it evaded duty on SIM cards imported through DHL Couriers. Advocate for the applicant says that duty demanded of Rs. 32.88 lakhs has been paid. He says that the SIM cards have been classified under Heading 85.48 as electrical parts of machinery or apparatus not elsewhere specified are appropriately classifiable as parts suitable for use such as with cellular telephone classifiable under 85.25. If this classification were accepted applicant would have paid in excess Rs. 12 lakhs.Therefore, he contends that the amount of penalty is safeguarded.2. Departmental Representative says that the Commissioner has given a reasoned finding for penalty. He found that full description of the goods have been indicated. Prima facie, we are not able to accept the classification of the goods under Heading 85.48.3. The view of the Commissioner that SIM card is among other things ...
Vasania Silk Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1998
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT222Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants are engaged in processing man-made yarn such as crimping, texturising of duty paid polyester filament yarn and nylon yarn. Such processing does not attract any duty and so they were not under Central Excise licensing control as such yarns are not excisable.On 1-4-1988 Central Excise officers visited the appellants factory, and on checking their records, found that during the period 7-1-1987 to 21-9-1987 the appellants had manufactured and cleared what the officers considered to be special yarn generally called Taspa Yarn of 20 x 30 or 30 x 20 yarn. From 21-9-1987 they had discontinued producing such yarn.The partner of the appellants M.S. Vasania gave a statement saying that Taspa yarn was quite different in appearance from the normal crimped or folded yarn. It had a slub effect. Polyester 30 deniers and nylon 20 deniers yarns were fed together into the machine and the speed of the feed was controlled through devices already attached to their machine as a result of w...
Cimmco International Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1998
Reported in: (1998)(77)LC309Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 19.4.1994 passed by the Collector.of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. Heard Shri Pankaj Bhargava, Sr. Finance Manager and Shri R.S.Sangia, JDR.3. In this case M/s Cimmco International had imported and cleared two consignments of pruning shears (Handtools) under the bill of entry dated 24.8.1983. The revenue issued a less charge notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 24.8.1983. The Assistant Collector Customs in adjudication order confirmed the less charge holding that the goods were cutting device, a category of cutting plier and hence assessable under 51A of Central Excise Tariff. Thereafter the appellants filed the appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay and before the Collector the appellants pleaded that the less charge memo was signed and issued on 24.8.1983. Therefore the less charge notice was not issued within six months from the date of payment of duty. Therefore, the less charge cla...
Sule Kareem Vs. Asstt. Collector of Customs and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1998
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)751; 1998CriLJ3052
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J. 1. Through this appeal the appellant challenges Ihe judgment and order dated 28-7-1994, passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Special Court) at Bombay, in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 101 of 1990, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter:-(i) Under section 8(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act, to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh in default, to undergo R.I. for 2 years: and (ii) Under section 8(c) r/w section 28 of the N.D.P.S. Act to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh in default to suffer R.I. for 2 years. The substantive sentences of the appellant were ordered to run concurrently. 2. In short, the prosecution case runs as under:-2A. On 28-10-1989, Talya Subbarao Jayaram P.W. 1 was attached to Air Intelligence Unit, B-Batch, as Superintendent and Munnalal Baburam, P.W. 4 was attached thereto as an Intelligence Officer. The said officers were posted at Module II of Sahar Airport. At about 3/3.30 a....
John Ohuma Ogmekwe and Another Vs. Intelligence Officer Narcotic Contr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1998
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)842
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 18th October 1994 passed by the Special Judge, Greater Bombay, in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 727 of 1990, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter : i) Under section 21 read with section 8(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, to sufferR.I. for Ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh),in default to suffer further R.I. for two years. ii) Under section 29 read with section 8(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, to sufferR.I. for Ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh),in default to suffer further R.I. 2 years. iii) Under section 30 read with section 23 and 8(c) of the N.D.P.S Act, 1985;(but awarding no separate sentence) and iv) Under section 135(1)(a) read with section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act,1962. (but awarding no separate sentence).The substantive sentences of the appellants were ordered to run concurrently....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›