Mumbai Court March 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.
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Matriaco (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT99Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondent imported a consignment of cotton denim fabric for shirt. It produced for their clearance an import licence which has been issued to M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. The licence was an advance licence permitting import of cotton fabrics. The export obligation subject to which the licence was so granted was for export of gents shirts. This was objected to on the ground mat the imported goods had no nexus with the exported goods. Notice was issued proposing to deny the benefit of exemption under Notification 203/93. The Assistant Collector confirms the proposal in the notice.2. On appeal from this order, Collector (Appeals) held that the licence was for import of cotton fabrics and the relevant import policy for cotton fabrics. It did not distinguish between different types of cotton fabrics. He found that denim can be used for making gents shirt and also that contention on behalf of the appellant before him that quality of denim imported by it could not be used for making tro...
Escorts Herion Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT599Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellant imported a consignment of used and second hand machinery declared to be valued at Rs 1.00 crores approximately, with the intention of putting it to use in the manufacture of hydraulic valves, but on being advised by the supplier that the machine was no longer commercially viable for that purpose, asked for its reshipment. The Custom House issued notice proposing confiscation of the goods on various grounds such as that they were under valued and that they were more than seven years of old import of which was prohibited by the policy and that formalities relating to execution of bank guarantee etc., had not been carried out. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Collector found in favour of the importer on the charge of under valuation; he found that the charges relating to bank guarantee were technical in nature; he found that the Customs Clearance Permit had also been issued for this machine and that therefore objection with regard to this acquire more technical than ...
Ceat Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC235
1. Since we find that the issue of classification of nylon/rayon tyrecord fabric that had been subject to process of rubberisation known as calendering is settled issue in view of the decisions in the case of Falcon Tyres Ltd, Vikrant Tyres Ltd., Appollo Tyres Ltd., MRF Ltd. by the precedent decisions of the Tribunal, after hearing both the sides, we grant stay and with the consent of both the parties, we take up the appeals for disposal.2. The appellant sends nylon fabrics or rayon fabrics along with other inputs under Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for manufacture of tyre. The nylon/rayon fabrics after rubberisation work called as calendered fabrics one of the inputs manufactured at their Bhandup unit and were removed to their Nasik unit for manufacture of tyres at the Nasik unit under Annexure II/Annexure VI and were being utilised captively in the manufacture of final dutiable products namely tyres falling under Chapter 48 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The sai...
Sweet Confectionery Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1999
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT405Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeals are taken up for disposal after waiving deposit with the consent of both the sides.2. M/s. Sweet Confectionery (SC for short) Sangli appellant in appeal No. E/3151-V/98-BOM was engaged in manufacture of sweets. SC sold the goods to M/s. Parrys Confectionery (Parrys for short) appellant in appeal No. E/3185-V/98-BOM. From 1-3-94 onwards SC manufactured the goods as a job worker of Parrys who supplied the raw material including packaging material. By a common notice dated 3-12-96 issued to both the appellants, it was alleged that prior to 1-3-94 SC received as payment for the goods amounts over and above what was declared as assessable value. It alleges that from 1-3-94 onwards, the value was to be determined by application of Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules. The notice excluded Rule 4 & 5 on the ground that the goods were not sold, and Rule 6 because the goods were not consumed captively. It adopted as the basis for valuation the assessable value of the identical goods dec...
Shri Shivaji Runjaji Autade and Another Vs. Shri Mahadu Sakharam Autad ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Bom396; 1999(3)ALLMR604; 2000(1)BomCR876; 2000(1)MhLj536
ORDERS.B. Mhase, J. 1. The order under challenge is dt. 27-7-1990 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kopargaon, recording the finding on Issue No. 16-A and B which pertain to the jurisdiction of the Court. The Issue Nos. 16-A and 16-B are as follows: '16-A) Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of jurisdiction? 16-B) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the instant suit ?' The trial Court has observed that the suit has been properly valued and the Court has jurisdiction and as stated earlier the said order is under challenge. 2. The Special Civil Suit No. 54 of 1981 has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent initially before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, against the defendant-petitioner. The said suit in respect of the Gat No. 308, Gat No. 145, and Gat No. 164 situated at Pohegaon, Taluka Kopargaon. The plaintiff has filed the suit for possession of the property on the basis of title. The plaintiff-respondent has also claimed amount ...
Gaspar Fernandes Since Deceased Through Legal Heirs and Another Vs. Sm ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)BomCR628
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The petitioners challenge the judgment and Order dated 29-4-97 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Miscellaneous Applications No. 32/94, 33/94 and 42/94. By the impugned order, the Administrative Tribunal has dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners seeking leave to file appeal against the Order dated 16-8-1989 of the Deputy Collector at Panaji in relation to Survey No. 280/1 situated at Caranzalem.2. The facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the petitioners purchased certain area of land from Patriarcado das Indian Orientals during the period from 1980 to 1990 in different pieces of land. Simultaneously, respondent No. 1 also purchased certain area from Patriarcado das Indias Orientals by deed dated 9-11-88. Thereafter by an application dated 17-4-1989 the respondent No. 1 applied for partitioning of the holdings and allotment of separate survey number for the pieces of land purchased by her and which was otherwise forming par...
Wipro Finance Ltd. Vs. Suman Motels Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)BomCR1; [2002]108CompCas549(Bom)
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. Leave under Rule 19(3) of the Company Court Rules, 1959 granted to the petitioners to take out a Judge's Summons in terms of draft Judge's Summons handed in. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive service. By consent, Judge's Summons made returnable and heard forthwith.2. By order dated 11th February, 1999 this Court directed meeting to be held of the secured and unsecured creditors separately. By the present application, the applicant who is an unsecured creditor has prayed for convening separate meeting of two classes of unsecured creditors of the respondent Company as classified in the Schedule to the company application. An affidavit has been filed in support of the application. The Company has appeared and has filed a list of documents.With the consent of both the parties, the application has been heard and disposed of.3. The bare facts necessary for disposal of the application may now be set out.The applicant is a Non-Banking Finance Company. It has giv...
In the Matter of the Companies Act, 1956, and Sections 433, 434, and 4 ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)BomCR457
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1.The petitioners claim from the company an amount of Rs. 17,73,167.39 Ps. as set out in Exhibit 'A' to the petition. It is the case of the petitioners that the said amount is in respect of the goods sold and supplied by the petitioners to the company. As the company failed to pay the amount a statutory notice was served on the company dated 30th August, 1991 at its registered address being Plot No. A-264, Road No. 26, Wagle Estate, Thane-400 604. The company has received the said letter and replied to the same by their letter dated 2nd October, 1991. The company did not disown its liability to pay. The company, however, pointed out that Mr. M.K. Bagadia who was the partner of M/s. Mahesh Enterprises had joined as a Director from 1st September, 1990 and it had been agreed at the time of joining that he would supply lamination material and contribute by giving loan whenever required. Similar arrangements were made by the other Directors. The company set out that mon...
Modaram Purohit Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR595; 1999BomCR(Cri)595; (1999)3BOMLR40; 2000CriLJ473; 1999(2)MhLj719
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This is an application for bail by Modaram J. Purohit, Original Accused No. 2, who was tried along with six others by the Special Judge, Greater Bombay, in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 7/95 and 2/96 and convicted and sentenced in the mariner stated hereinafter:(i) under section 8(c) read with section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, N.D.P.S. Act) to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment (for being found in possession of 1.500 Kg. of Mandrex tablets on 12-11-1994 at 4.40 p.m.); and (ii) under section 8(c) read with section 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment (for being found in possession of 86 Kgs. and 250 Grams of Mandrex tablets in pursuance of conspiracy with Original ...
Sawant Food Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1999
Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT943Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeal taken up for disposal with the consent of both the sides, after waiving deposit of duty and penalty.2. The appellant in Appeal No. C/1163-R/98-Bom. (of which Ramesh Sawant, appellant in C/1202-R/98-Bom. is the director), had imported in terms of three advance licences, goods polypropylene granules. The licences were for import, inter alia, of polypropylene, moulding powder and granules and polyethylene. The export product was fish. The goods were cleared after extending benefit of Notification 204/92.3. Notice was issued subsequently to the importer proposing denial of the notification benefit and penalty on it and its employees on the ground that the export requirement had not been complied with, and on the further ground that the imported goods were not utilised towards obtaining the export, but sold in the market. As evidence in part support of the latter contention are that statements of 20 persons was also cited. The importer disputed all these allegations. It said that...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »