Mumbai Court September 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.
Commissioner of Customs Vs. M.J. Exports
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT646Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed against the decision made in Order No.S/6-146/90.Exp (NSCH)/S-10-27/AB/91-SIIB (Main)/SG/Misc-8/AB/91, dated 30-8-1991 whereunder the Collector Nhava Sheva Port had held that respondent had fulfilled the conditions under Notification No.116/88-Cus., dated 30-3-1988. He also held that distribution panels were not liable for confiscation under Section 113(b) of the Customs Act.2. Facts of the case are that the respondents entered into a contract with the Russian purchasers for the supply of "distribution panels" under a contract dated 26-1-1990. For executing their contract they were granted an advance. They exported 9 distribution panels. For the last consignment when the respondents filed a shipping bill dated 26-8-1991, Examining Officer objected to this as it was not a distribution panel. Show cause notice dated 14-2-1991 was issued for confiscation of goods under Sections 113(d) and (i) of the Customs Act and why penal action cannot be taken under Section...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Soni Soaps and Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT985Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I has filed this appeal against the order dated 3-5-1994 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. The Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 34 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are availing of Modvat credit facility under the Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules. The jurisdictional Central Excise Superintendent issued show cause notice on 3-12-1990 alleging that the Respondents had availed Modvat credit wrongly on their input received on 21-2-1990 against Modvat declaration under Rule 57G acknowledged by the department on 22-5-1990. It was alleged that the Modvat credit amount to Rs. 36,877/- taken by the Respondents on 24-5-1990 was erroneous and the show cause notice proposed disallowing it because it pertained to the inputs which were received by the Respondents prior to the filing of declaration under Rule 57G. The Assistant Commissioner adjudicated the matter by his order...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs Vs. Sterlite Industries (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1998
Reported in: (1999)LC489Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Pune, against the order dated 28-9-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune. The respondent manufactures copper rod from copper scrap. Sometimes copper rods supplied by them are rejected by the customers due to certain defects. On receipt of such rejected copper rods the appellant filed intimation regarding the receipt of such duty paid goods as required under Rule 173H of Central Excise Rules. Thereafter they were re-charged into furnace, melted, cast and rolled to make new copper rods of the same diameter and specification as those described for remaking and thereafter they were removed without payment of duty which is permissible under 173H of Central Excise Rules. Show-cause notice was issued on 2-8-1993 on the ground that remaking carried out on the rejected rods amounted to manufacture as the rejected goods were mixed with fresh raw materials, melted in furnace and new rod manufactured. The Juri...
themis Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT487Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is directed against the impugned order of the Commissioner of C.E. (Appeals), Mum-bai whereby he has upheld the order of the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, directing that the interest paid on the goods for deferred payment should be added to the assessable value of the imported goods.2. When the matter was called, none is present for the appellant despite Notice. We have heard Shri K.L. Ramteke, the ld. JDR.3. We find that the issue is relating to the question of includibility of US $ 2.25 kg. which is described in related invoices as interest charges in the assessable value of the imported goods. The claim of the appellant is that this is interest paid on deferred payment and hence should not form part of the assessable value. As against this we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has given pertinent reason as to how this amount does not at all have the attribute a interest paid for deferred payment. It has been recorded in the...
Ubique Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT772Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the decision dated 12-5-1992 passed in Order-in-Original No. 11 /C. Ex/92 by the Additional Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune, confirming demand of the duty amounting to Rs. 2,38,178.83 and levying (i) penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 173Q and (ii) a fine that Rs. 20,000/- for redemption of land, building etc. also under the said rule.2. The appellant is manufacturer of packaging, testing machines classifiable under Chapter Heading 9024.00. They also manufactured measuring and checking instruments, appliances and machines not elsewhere included under Chapter 90, falling under Chapter sub-heading 9031.00 and machines falling under Chapter sub-heading 8466.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. They supply their products in wholesale to M/s. Saurashtra Marketing Corporation (SMC). They were registered as a small scale unit with Industries Commissioner of Directorate of Industries bearing Registration No. 1119 05062 PMT SSI,...
Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1998
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT513Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applicant imported Crude Palm Stearine oil in 4 tanks on board a vessel. The ship was carrying similar cargo of another importer namely Godrej Soaps. The ship first docked at 10 Indira Docks. The ullage report dated 5-10-1996 showed a quantity of 1465.321 M.T. as contained in the tanks at temperatures varying between 62C to 70C. After part discharge of the cargo the vessel moved to another location and discharged the remaining cargo on 10-10-1996 when another ullage report was filed. The second ullage shows that the oil contained in 2 tanks namely SLP and SLS stood fully discharged, that in another tank 2P the quantity was short to the extent 174.154 M.T. and in the 4th tank i.e. 2S, the quantity was less by 7.24 tonnes. The total quantity, shown in the second ullage was 1135.406 M.Ts. The Bill of Lading quantity was 1460.728 M.T. On ground of short landing the applicant claimed refund which was paid to them. Subsequently on 23-9-1997 show cause notice was issued. In the show c...
AshwIn Jajal Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Bom35; 1998(4)ALLMR249; 1999(1)BomCR490
ORDERY.S. Jahagirdar, J.1. This Public Interest Petition is filed by a resident of a flat located on the 5th floor of a building known as Ganpat Bhuvan, Morvi Cross Lane, Chowpatty, Mumbai 400 007. The reliefs sought in this petition are directions against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to prohibit display of illuminated advertisements by use of neon lights inresidential areas and to revoke permission granted to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for display of advertisements on buildings known as Malbar View No. 1, Beach View, Sea Castle, Stone building and Fulchand Niwas.2. Rapid industrialisation gives rise to fierce competition and such fiercecompetition brooks various attempts to launch their products in the marketand manner and mode of such launching of the products has assumed multifacet dimension in the developing society. It is a fact globally accepted thatadvertisement of a product is indispensable part of this competitive industrial world. Of late, putting up hoarding along...
Raosaheb S/O Babasaheb Kakade Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR194; 1999(3)BomCR25; 1999(2)MhLj367
ORDERN.P. Chapalgaonker, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Taken up forthwith for hearing by consent. 3. An action was initiated to remove the respondent No, 3 Sahebrao Bajirao Amte, Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat Bedarwadi, Tq. Patoda, under section 39 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. 1958. On 5th September 1997, the Standing Committee for Zilla Parishad, Beed passed a resolution after giving hearing to the respondent No. 3, removing him from the post of Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Bedarwadi, on the ground that he has issued a true copy of a resolution which was not recorded in the proceedings book. This Resolution No. 3 passed by the Standing Committee along with the other proceedings of the meeting dated 5th September, 1997 came up before the next meeting of the Standing Committee on 1st October, 1997 for confirmation of the minutes, as is required by section 111 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samities Act, 1961. Sub -section (13) of section 111 of the said Act, so fa...
Harshad S. Mehta Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR783; (1998)2BOMLR114
ORDERM.S.Rane, J.1. These applications have been presented by and on behalf of accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5. Reliefs claimed in both these applications and the grounds upon which same are claimed being indentical, the same are being disposed of with the common judgment.2. The reliefs which are claimed are more in the form and nature of a declaration. The applicants vide these applications are questioning the tender of pardon granted by Mr. R.K. Yadav, the then Hon'ble-Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi to Shri Mohan Khandelwal an approver and who is listed as P.W. No. 20 in the list of witnesses accompanying the charge sheet filed in this case. It is inter alia prayed that this Court should declare the said order of Tender of Pardon as illegal, null and void, etc.3. It is inter alia asserted that the said Tender of Pardon, in the first instance, is without jurisdiction and secondly, has been passed in breach of relevant statutory provisions, namely, section 306 of Cr.RC. For convenient purpose ...
M/S. Kemp and Company and Another Vs. M/S. Prima Plastics Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR64; 1999(1)BomCR239
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a matter of 'chair', not for power, but for infringement of registered design and passing off. In the action initiated by the plaintiffs relief is sought against the act of infringement of the 1st plaintiffs registered design of Baby chair with human face and for passing off committed by defendants by adopting similar identical design, shape, and configuration and get up in respect of Baby chair manufactured and sold by the defendants.2. The case set up by the plaintiffs is :--The 1st plaintiff is the manufacturer of plastic toys and plastic moulded chairs and other items such as office high tech chairs and furniture. The 1st plaintiff is manufacturing and selling plastic moulded chairs of various designs including Baby chairs with design of human face with inserts which has been registered under the Design Act bearing Registration No. 16973 sic 169723 to the 2nd plaintiff. The 2nd plaintiff is marketing and selling the said plastic moulded chairs under th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »