Mumbai Court August 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.
Micronic Devices Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT800Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant imported a defibrillator. There is no dispute that this defibrillator had built into it an ECG monitor with alarm, electrocardiograph with annotating recorder and a tester. The importer declared the goods under bill of entry as medical equipment (life saving) (900 defibrillator with multicardioscope monitor/RCG recorder.Clearance of the goods was claimed in bill of entry under serial No. 7 list 2 of Appendix 6 of the Import Policy. The department was of the view that the goods imported by the importer did not contain a cardiograph and hence were not covered by the OGL entry. It was also of the view that the goods could not be entitled to duty free importation under Notification 208/81 which was claimed for the reason that the goods did not conform to the description of the goods in serial No. 6 of list B of the schedule to the Notification. The department therefore proposed confiscation of the goods for unauthorised import and misdeclaration and denial of the notifica...
Kwane Onyango Nkrumah Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR606; 1999(1)BomCR848; 1999(1)MhLj635
ORDERA.D. Mane, J.1. The petitioner is the Secretary of Kenya African Students Association (KASA) at Aurangabad (for short, hereinafter, 'the Association'). Present petition is filed as a public interest litigation on behalf of the said Association in the matter of hike of tuition fees. The said Association is a registered association and the petitioner is a Kenya national.2. The petitioner submits that there are about 700 students of Kenya and African countries taking education in the various faculties of the Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad (for short, 'the Univeristy'). These students are the members of the Association. It is further submitted that there are 250 students from Kenya who are either studying in Dr. Ambedkar Law College or the M.P. Law College at Aurangabad. The present petition is, therefore, filed for the benefit of 250 Kenyan Law students at Aurangabad.3. The petitioner states that till the academic year 1991-92 the tuition fees structure was ...
Shri Vidyasagar Bhagwanrao Sakhare Vs. Shivajirao Vithalrao Kamble
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR530; 1999(2)BomCR200
ORDERV.K. Barde, J.1. The petitioner challenges the election of the respondent to the Parliamentary Constituency No. 36, Osmanabad. This Parliamentary Constituency in Maharashtra is reserved constituency for Scheduled Caste. The petitioner is Mahar by caste and he, therefore, contested the election. The respondent also contested the election and was declared elected. It is the contention of the petitioner, that the respondent belongs to Maratha caste but he obtained a false and bogus certificate regarding caste indicating that he belongs to Hindu Khatik community. The petitioner has contended that the respondent does not belong to Scheduled Caste and, therefore, he was not eligible to contest the election from the constituency reserved for Scheduled Caste. He has, therefore, prayed that the election of the respondent to the House of People from 36th Osmanabad (Scheduled Caste) Parliamentary constituency held on 2-5-1996, the result of which declared on 9-5-1996, be declared as null and...
Shri Haji Isabhai Agewan Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR59; 1999BomCR(Cri)59; 1998CriLJ4312
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, who is the brother of the detenue Abdul Razaak Essabhai Babubhai @ Babla, has impugned the order dated 13th June 1997, passed by Mr. Somnath Pal, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, detaining the detenue under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detention order along with the grounds of detention bearing the said date was contemporaneously served on the detenu on 17-9-1997.2. We have heard Mrs. A.N.Z. Ansari for the petitioner, Mr. R. M. Agarwal for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Mrs. V.K. Tahilramani, P.P. for respondents Nos. 3 and 4.3. Since in our view, this petition deserves to be allowed on a purely legal ground contained in para 4(xi) of the petition we are not adverting to the prejudicial activities of the detenu detained in the grounds of detention.I...
Satish Ratilal Rawal Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR61; 1999BomCR(Cri)61; 1998CriLJ4310
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner (detenue) has impugned the order dated 27th June 1997, passed by Mr. Somnath Pal, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi detaining him under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Preventionof Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detention order along with the grounds of detention bearing the said date was contemporaneously served on the petitioner on 10-7-1997.2. We have heard Mr. S.L. Maneshinde for the petitioner, Mr. R.M. Agarwal for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. R.L. Patil, A.P.P. for respondents 3 and 4.3. Since this petition deserves to be allowed on a legal ground namely, that although the detenue at the time of the passing of the detention order was on bail but since at the time of its execution was in judicial custody, having surrendered, to his bail two days earlier, and awareness of this fact, as also of...
Adam Sayed Master Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR738; 1999(5)BomCR65; 1999BomCR(Cri)65
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. 2. This petition has been preferred from jail by the petitioner, who vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1985 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 229 of 1984 was convicted under sections 397 I.P.C. and 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. under the first count and to imprisonment for life under the second count, the sentences to run concurrently. It is prayed that since he has already served a period of about 14 years and he has some family problems, the period of 26 years which he is to serve be set aside and he be directed to be released. 3. Mr. G.J. Kulkarni, the Desk Officer, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, on behalf of the State of Maharashtra has filed an affidavit dated 13-8-1998, detailing therein in paragraph 8, that including remissions the petitioner has served 21 years two months and three days. In para 10 ...
T.K. Ispat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT807Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant issued five gate passes in October, 1991 and January and February, 1992 in which the goods manufactured and cleared on payment of duty were described as round bar classifiable under Heading 72.12 of the Central Excise Tariff. In the order impugned in the appeal, credit of duty on the inputs used in the manufacture of these goods have been disallowed on the ground that in the declaration under Rule 57G goods classifiable under Heading 72.13 were not mentioned by the appellant.2. Advocate for the appellant contends that Heading 72.13 was entered by mistake by its clerk and that the goods manufactured were actually classifiable under Heading 72.14 which were mentioned in the Rule 57G declaration. From a perusal of the papers I find that the appellant had not at any time taken a clear and categorical stand that it did not have the machinery to manufacture goods classifiable under Heading 72.13, which according to the advocate for the appellant is different from the machin...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Rachna Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC606
1. These appeals have been filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai on a direction issued by the Central Board of Excise & customs, in exercise of its powers under Section 129D(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, to file an application before the Tribunal in order to determine the legality and propriety of the two adjudication orders captioned above passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai.2. The brief facts are that the respondents filed 4 Bills of Entry for clearance of 4 consignments of low carbon mild defective sheets totally weighing 1000 MT on 18.10.94 The goods imported are canalised items as per sr. No. 56 Part A Appendix 5 of ITC Policy and could be imported through only canalising agency and could not be imported under OGL. The respondents wrote to the Collector of Customs to say that they are actual users of the materials and had imported it as such and that they had admitted that it was a mistake to have imported because the goods are canalised for import. They...
V.V.N. Mfg. and Investa Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT887Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant was a manufacturer of, among other goods, conveyor roller. It received for repair consignments of rollers from Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation which had been originally supplied by the manufacturer Elecon Engineering Co. After carrying out the processes required by the customer the appellant returned the rollers without paying duty on them. Notices were issued to the appellant on the ground that the processes amounted to manufacture and therefore duty was payable on the goods when cleared. The Assistant Collector in the notices on his finding that the processes did not amount to manufacture. In the appeals by the department from this order of the Collector (Appeals) in their orders which are impugned in this appeal took the view that the processes amount to manufacture. In one of the orders impugned in Appeal E/466/92 the Collector (Appeals) also took the view that the duty paying documents did not accompany goods when they were received by the appellant and t...
Nicholas Piramal (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT836Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing both sides, we find the issue is whether the supplier of bulk drugs was required to avail of Notification No. 31/88. The department's case that in that situation, the Mod-vat credit if the applicant could have availed of would not include the notional element containing in paragraph 5 of Notification 5/88.2. The issue is arguable both on merit and on limitation. We, therefore, direct the applicant to deposit Rs. 1.25 lakhs within one month upon which we waive the remaining amount of duty and penalty and stay their recovery....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »