Mumbai Court July 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.
Jai Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT747Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant imported three consignment of steel coils in Mumbai.It filed bills of entry for warehousing, these goods and (sic) sought for and was given permission to have the goods warehoused in a bonded place a Nanded. The appellant subsequently cleared the goods from the bonded warehouse on payment of duty.2. Notice was issued by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Aurangabad to appellant, alleging that since the goods stayed in the bonded warehouse beyond thirty days, interest under Sub-section (3) of Section 61 of the Customs Act, was payable for the period for which the goods remained in the warehouse exceeding seven days from the return of the bill of entry for warehousing. The Additional Commissioner of Aurangabad after hearing the importer found that the Customs House at Mumbai had permitted the importer to keep the goods in a bonded warehouse till 29th March, 1995, and that the interest was to be charged according to the order of Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Mu...
Vanaz Engineers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT725Tri(Mum.)bai
1. None is present for the appellants despite notice. In this case, the appellants were granted refund of Rs. 5,481/- under Rule 173L by the Jurisdictional Asstt, Commissioner in respect of certain quantity of CO2 Cylinder Valves which were returned to their factory under Rule 173L. The appellants after receiving back and subjecting the goods to further process cleared the goods on payment of duty. They filed refund claim under Rule 173L which was granted by the Asstt. Commissioner.This order of the Asset. Commissioner was sought to be reviewed by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise and the appeal so filed by the Department was allowed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune in the impugned order by setting aside the Asstt. Commissioner's order granting refund.2. Heard Shri S.V. Singh, the ld. DR. It is seen that Commissioner (Appeals) has found that the respondents before him have failed to establish that the goods were brought back for retesting. These were simply ...
Cc Vs. Indian Smelting and Refining Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)(80)LC407Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Matter called. None for the respondents. We have heard the learned JDR Sh. S.N. Ojha in support of its appeal. The respondents herein imported certain goods which were charged, inter alia, to auxiliary duty at the rate of 45%. However, later on, the appellants filed a refund claim on the ground that auxiliary duty in excess of 5% was exempted under notification No. 123/92-Cus. dtd. 1.3.1992. The goods imported by the respondents herein were consumed by them in manufacture of some other commodity (Aluminum alloys) in their own factory. The original authority denied the refund claim on ground of unjust enrichment referred to in Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.1.3. The lower appellate authority however allowed the appeal of the respondents herein on the ground that the concept of unjust enrichment does not reply to goods captively consumed in view of Bombay High Court's Judgement in the Case of M/s. Solar Pesticides v. Union of India and two other judgements namely of Madras High ...
Shri Basweshwar M. Mamdapure and Another Vs. the Primary Education Boa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR19; 1998(4)BomCR181; 1998(3)MhLj198
ORDERS. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel Shri Dalvi for the petitioners and learned A.G.P. Shri Shetye for the respondents. 2. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the constitutional validity of second proviso to Rule 34(2) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Rules, 1981 which provides that when an employee is convicted by a competent Court and sentenced to imprisonment, the subsistence allowance shall be reduced to a nominal amount of rupee one per month with effect from the date of such conviction and he shall continue to draw the same till the date of his removal or reinstatement by the competent authority. 3. The brief facts of the petition are that petitioner No. 1 was a Head Master in a school known as Santoshi Mata Primary School at Solapur. Petitioner No. 2 was a teacher working in the same school. It appears that both the petitioners had obtained blank resignation letters from various teachers and used them for the pu...
Sada Shiv Manohar Parkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR89; 1998CriLJ3755
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. This application has been sent from jail by one Sada Shiv Manohar Parkar who is being prosecuted for offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149/34 I.P.C. Us perusal shows a shocking situation namely that the petitioner is in jail since 8th October, 1989 and his trial has not yet finished. A two fold prayer has been made in this application:-- (a) to direct the disposal of the case within 30 days; and (b) to grant any other reliefs incidental or otherwise. 2. On 26th June, 1998, this application came up before V.H. Bhairavia, J., who called for a report from the learned Sessions Judge, Thane, in whose Judgeship the trial is pending. In compliance of the said order, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thane, submitted his report dated 30th June 1998. 3. I have perused the report of the District and Sessions Judge, Thane, and am constrained to observe that for no fault of the petitioner, his trial has not been disposed off till date. Para 3 of th...
S.K. Agarwal, Assistant Director, Enforcement Director and Another Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR513
ORDERV.R. Datar, J.1. This petition is for cancellation of bail granted in favour of respondent No. 1 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Esplanade, Bombay. This petition is preferred by one S.K. Agarwal, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Bombay. It is stated that respondent No. 1 was the Managing Director of a Company, called M/s. Orson Electronics Ltd. and a Director of another Company called Lan Eased Software Systems Ltd. during the period 1984 to 1987. In that period, the Director of Revenue Intelligence of Government of India, received information that Orson Electronics Ltd. was resorting to manipulations with regard to invoices relating to imports of TV. components from Japan. As such, the Director of Revenue Intelligence conducted enquiries and received reports about the activities of the 1st respondent and Orson Ltd. So also, on 27/28th August, 1992, the Income-tax authorities conducted searches in the premises of Lan Eased in Bombay and Hyde...
Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: 1998(102)ELT544(Bom)
ORDER1. A Writ Petition filed by Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. (TELCO) and Mr. H. Rohinesh, Senior Deputy General (Law) was admitted by Their Lordships the Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice M.B. Shah and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khandeparkar against the letters and directions issued by Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Div. 'H' Worli, Bombay directing TELCO to take Central Excise Registration in respect of wooden furniture manufactured in their office for office purpose and directing them to pay Excise Duty before the goods are cleared for the place of manufacture.2. TELCO carries on business of manufacturing motor vehicles. They were desirous of renovating their office at Worli and Bombay House and for that purpose they engaged Architects to design the interiors as also various furniture items to be made. The said Architects engaged independent carpenter, contractors and also polishing contractors, who independently employ their own labourers. TELCO does not either produce the raw ma...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Sidharth Dyeing and Ptg. P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT743Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The assessee, the respondent to this appeal had cleared some goods on payment of duty on 22-12-1988. The goods were seized while they were in transit from its factory and the case registered regarding them.Pending adjudication the goods were permitted to be cleared provisionally and the assessees cleared them on payment of duty again on 21-4-1989. It appears although it is not very clear that in the proceedings of the Assistant Collector on the inputs which was issued for the goods he held that duty had been paid on these goods. The assessee filed a claim for refund on 24-2-1992. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim that, it was barred by limitation from the relevant date of payment of duty. Collector (Appeals) however took the view that the payment of duty when the goods were released pending adjudication was provisional and that liability to duty would accrue only after adjudication of the goods. Therefore the relevant date mentioned in Section 11B would be the date of adju...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Swill Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT749Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in these 7 appeals is deemed Modvat credit on zinc and nickel silver. In the order impugned in the appeal Collector (Appeals) has held that these would be classifiable in the tariff under Heading 7404 as copper scrap and therefore the expression copper scrap appearing in the deemed credit order ought to include scrap of alloys of copper which, because of the predominance of copper are classifiable under Chapter 74.2. It is contended in the appeal that the term copper scrap occurring in the deemed credit order refers only to copper and not to any alloy of copper. This was reiterated by the departmental representative. The entry indicates Tariff Heading 7404 against it. The heading in the notification has to be construed with reference to the definition of copper in the tariff in view and the tariff heading cited. The fact that two earlier headings mentioned in the appeal specify alloys in fact supports this view. Those two headings relate to refined co...
S.D. Bakhai and Co. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1998
Reported in: (2000)(92)LC204Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants herein imported Polyester filament yarn of 50 deniers against duty free Advance Licences as replenishment for the export of Polyester filament shirting fabrics containing Polyester filament yarn of 84 deniers. These licences were valid for import of Polyester filament yarn of denierage below 350D in one case, and the other licence did not specifically indicate the denierage of Polyester filament yarn allowed to be imported. Proceedings were initiated against the appellants by the Customs House on the ground that in terms of Notification 159/90 and para 231 of Import-Export Policy 1990-93, the import allowed in case of prior export against Advance Licence is to replenish the material actually used in the exported product which should be of identical specifications and technical characteristics as those actually used in the resultant product exported. The appellants chose to have the case adjudicated without written show cause notice.After hearing them in the matter th...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »