Mumbai Court January 1999 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.
Metal Press India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT79Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of copper and copper articles including alloys. Appellant claimed, and was granted the benefit of Notification 118/88 in respect of copper and brass manufactured by it. Notice was subsequently issued proposing to deny the benefit of the notification on the ground that in the manufacture of these two items, the appellant had used quantities of zinc ranging from 20 to 40%. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has confirmed the proposal to deny the benefit of the notification and demanded duty those payable.2. Advocate for the appellant cites the decision of the Tribunal in Bama Metal Industries v. C.C.E. -1996 (82) E.L.T. 81 and the contents of the Board's Circular No. 138/8/81-C.Ex-IV, dated 24-2-1988 to say that the notification was available to the goods notwithstanding the use of zinc and in any event the extended period which has been invoked will not be applicable, since the appellant was under the bona fide belief t...
Kishore Footwear Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1999
Reported in: (1999)(82)LC721Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the decision of the Collector of Customs, Mumbai-II made in Order-in-Original No.SG/Misc-15/SDR/94 SUB S/10-50/SDP/94 dated 2.12.1994 whereunder he levied a fine of Rs. 1 lakh and penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs.2. The facts of the case are that in January, 1994 8 shipping bills were filed by the appellants for export of gents/ladies slip-ons to Dubai. The export was under DEEC Scheme. Examination by the Customs revealed that instead of declared value of Rs. 44 lakhs the goods contained only the value far below the declared value. The statement of the appellants was recorded and after hearing the appellants (show cause notice waived in this case) the Collector passed the impugned order as mentioned above.3. Shri S.N. Kantawala, learned Counsel appeared for the appellants.After describing to me the facts of the case he pleads mercy before me.He also stated that he had paid Rs. 75,000/- at the time of stay petition was heard for waiver of pre-...
Ram Gopal LachminaraIn Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1999
Reported in: (1999)(84)LC498Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is party's appeal against the above captioned impugned order dated 1.12.1986 of Collector of Customs, Mumbai praying for setting aside the same, and to hold REP licence produced for clearance of 160 cartons containing 1920 roles (sic) of PVC sheets valued at Rs. 1,02,653/- GIF imported from U.K. is valid, and for a direction to department to issue detention certificate from the date of filing of Bill of Entry till the clearance of the above goods and for any other deemed relief in the facts and circumstances of the case.1.1. The facts of the case are that the Appellant, as importers, of above goods have claimed clearance against REP licences as per the product group C11.4 of appendix 17 of AM 1984-85 under Bill of Entry No. 742/81 dated 4.4.1986 through their CHA 11/278. The goods were examined on first check basis and sample of goods were called for inspection. Marking of description as mentioned in the invoice were not found on the goods labels found on them described as "Pr...
Smt. Mangala W/O Mahadeo Damodhar Kale and Another Vs. Nilkanth Shamra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR18; 1999(2)BomCR454; 1999(1)MhLj895
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This matter arises out of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as 'Bombay Rent Act'). The petitioners are the tenants of the respondents who challenge the order passed by the Appellate Court in Appeal No. 129 of 1993 on the file of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay whereby the appeal of the petitioner for setting aside the eviction order passed by the trial Judge was rejected. The respondents have filed petition before the Small Causes Court as RAE & Suit No. 1130/3714 of 1985 with the prayer that second plaintiff in that suit i.e. Hiranath Shamrao Nawalkar requires the suit premises for his own occupation as he was occupying a Block No. 18, 2nd Floor, Suprabhat Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Dayan Mandir Road, Dadar, Bombay - 400 028 as a tenant and he was evicted from there by the order of the Court and the said eviction order though went upto the Supreme Court, he was unsuccessful a...
The Chief Executive Officer, Sangli Zilla Parishad Vs. Panchaxari Sidl ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR61; 1999(2)BomCR457; 1999(1)MhLj883
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This matter emerges from the dismissed of the respondents from the services of the petitioner. He was dismissed mainly on the allegation of misappropriation of Rs.6,600/ and after a disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him by the petitioner. During the disciplinary enquiry, it is alleged that the respondent made a statement on 17-2-1988 pleading guilty of the charges. On receipt of this letter, Enquiry Officer without proceeding further and to record evidence to establish the guilt of the respondent, found that he was guilty. The respondent therefore, was dismissed, from the service on the basis of the enquiry report. This order was challenged by the respondent before the Labour Court, Sangli as Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 261/88. On going through the records and appreciating the materials and circumstances, the Labour Court has found that so called statement whereby the respondent has admitted the guilt appears to be extracted by the Enquiry Office...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Mihir Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC192Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this case, the department has appealed against the order of the Collector (Appeals), Mumbai made in Order-in-Appeal No. 713/94, dated 6-10-1994 allowing the appeal of the respondent holding that Crown Fox Brand Pins - Pearlised Plastic Heads Stainless Steel pins are not consumer goods. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent imported one consignment of 2000 boxes of Crown Fox Brand Pins - Pearlised Plastic Heads Stainless Steel pins vide Bill of Entry No.1422/3-9-1993, valued at Rs. 30,300/-. On first check examination, it was found to be consumer goods. Hence proceedings were initiated and the Asst. Collector, Group IV held that to be consumer goods against which an appeal was filed and the Collector (Appeals) by the impugned order had held that the pins in question for a number of years were covered by Trimming and Embellishments appearing in Appendix 17. He also defended the comments of Group IV, which said that the goods are freely importable although they may be...
Cc Vs. Baliram T. Dhomse
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1999
Reported in: (1999)(84)LC500Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the decision made in S/49-219/93/T.S. 67/94 dated 21.7.1994 whereunder the Collector (Appeals), Mumbai allowed the appeal of the respondent. In the Order in Original dated 15.9.1993 Additional Collector of Customs, (Prev.), seized the goods valued at Rs. 4,64,910/- approximately. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the respondent under Section 112 of the Customs Act.2. The facts in short are that on 20th October, 1992, at certain place in Bhandup a tempo bearing No. MMS-4377 was seized by the Customs Officers and the goods were found to be of foreign origin. Premises of other noticee C.B. Sonawane was checked and searched. In the said premises, some more goods with the foreign markings were also found.The driver of the tempo stated that the goods inside the tempo were loaded from the premises of Sonawane. The respondent and Sonawane could not produce any proper documents proving the licit import. The statement of Dhomse was r...
Tata Elxsi (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1999
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT426Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant imported computer software in the form of printed characters and books. Goods were classified under heading 4091 read with heading 9801. Appellant paid the duty provisionally assessed and claimed thereafter the refund of the duty so paid. The basis of the refund claim was that the goods were entitled to total exemption from duty under notification 280/84 - of books under heading 4901 at nil rate of basic customs duty and entitled to total exemption from auxiliary duty under notification 139/90. Assistant Collector rejected the claim on the ground that the importer did not elaborate the grounds and the necessary documents such as bill of entry. The importer appealed this order. Collector (Appeals) did not deal with the ground raised in the appeal but held that the refund claim was premature.Since the duty had been paid in parts duty which could not have been finalised hence this appeal.2. We have to accept the contention of the representative of the appellant that the ...
Hindustan Alloys Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC556
1. These three appeals are by the same appellant. The facts being common, these appeals are being disposed off in this common order.2. The Appellants imported lead concentrate (Lead concentrated ore) in March, 1989, Aug., 1989 and July, 1990 under the OGL for, actual use and the consignments were duly cleared. Later show cause notices were issued respectively on 11-1-1991, 5-7-1990 and 11-9-1990 alleging inter alia that the appellant did not have industrial licence for recovery of lead from lead concentrate and therefore, they could not be called to be Actual users. It was therefore alleged that the goods were imported without cover of a licence. It was alleged that a penalty was imposable upon them. The Commissioner in supporting the charges, in identical orders, upheld the charges and imposed penalties totally amounting to Rs. 75 lakhs. These three appeals are against these orders.3. We have heard Shri R. Parthasarthy, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri B.K. Suman, JDR for the...
Commr. of Cus. Vs. Dujodwala Resins and Terpenes
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1999
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT309Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal by the Department against the decision of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay made on 2-6-1995, in Order-in-Appeal No. 354/93/BCH allowing the respondent's appeal holding that the 'Camphor' is entitled to be imported under OGL.2. The respondents filed two Bills of Entry in Nhava Sheva Customs House on 30th May, 1994 and 2nd June, 1994 for import of 'Camphor' claiming that they could be imported under OGL. It is the case of the department that clarification issued by the DGFT in September, 1993 'Camphor' cannot be imported under OGL. The matter was heard by the adjudicating authority who by its order dated 8-7-1994 disagreed with the respondent. He tried to follow the judgment of the Southern Regional Bench of the Tribunal, against which the appeal was reheard before the Collector (Appeals), Mumbai. Collector (Appeals), Mumbai in the impugned order had held inter alia that the respondents were manufacturers of synthetic resin and they were using 'camphor' as...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »