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.
State of Maharashtra Vs. Sanjay Moreshwar Damle and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALD(Cri)755; 2000(5)BomCR877; 1999CriLJ3806; 1999(3)MhLj881
ORDERD. D. Sinha, J.1. Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.2. All the above referred criminal revision applications are directed against the same impugned order dated 13-8-1998 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur whereby non-applicants/accused S.M. Damle, D.A. Gadgil and Surin Usgaonkar came to be released on anticipatory bail in Crime No. 245/ 1998 under sections 406, 420 and 468 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and, therefore, all these matters are disposed of by this common judgment.3. The State of Maharashtra as well as complainant Dakshindas challenged the legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 13-8-1998 on the ground that the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the accused persons because the dispute between the parties is of civil nature. According to Shri Mardikar, learned Counsel for the State, and Shri Pendharkar, learned Counsel for the complainant, the very approach of the learned Additional Sess...
Polyolefins Industries Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC149Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant was, at the relevant time, an importer of various plastic goods, mainly manufactured by Hoechst AG West Germany. It was also at the same time an indenting agent of M/s. Chemie Export Kontor GmbH, West Germany (Chemexco for short) for the sale in India, Nepal and Bhutan of products made by Hoechst. The appellant was entitled to an agent's commission of 2% on all sales of the product mediated by it between Chemexco and the buyer. There is no dispute that the appellant was not getting this commission on goods which it imported directly from Chemexco for stock and further sale. The Department came to know that the appellants entered into a collaboration agreement with Hoechst for manufacture of high density polyethylene in India. The agency agreement for supply of product manufactured by Hoechst for the appellant through Chemexco was already registered with the Special Valuation Branch of the Custom House and that consequent on coming to know of the collaboration for manu...
R.N. Trading Company Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1999
Reported in: (1999)(84)LC237Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants imported four consignments of steel items declared as "defective low carbon mild steel cold rolled strips". This matter is coming before the Tribunal for a second time. The Tribunal as per Order No. C-256 of 91-BII dated 25.11.1991 has taken-up the matter observing that the Collector is not correct in coming to the conclusion that the goods which are not rectangular in shape cannot be considered as strips and they had to be classified as plates/sheets. Further, it was observed that sufficient A material evidence was not brought on record by either side to substantiate their respective claims. The issue requires re-consideration. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the concerned Collector to decide the first issue i.e. classification and determining the value of the goods in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the appellants.2. Shri K. Swaminathan, Consultant appearing for the appellants submitted that originally the item was classified based upo...
intelligent Conveyors and Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC211
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of goods described as automated vertical storage systems or vertical carousel storage systems. The product consists of a very large structure generally vertical whose dimensions, we are told ranges from a minimum height of 4 mtrs. to a maximum of 10 mtrs. The length and depth varies with a minimum of 2470 to 3000 mm and 880 to 1800 mm respectively. The product houses a system of shelves vertically arranged and connected to a system of gears revolving around a central shaft. Each shaft contains a specific product. The system has computerized controls. By using all these controls it can be so operated that goods contained in any one particular shaft delivered to the person requiring them at one or more openings in the product which are called access trays. The dispute is whether this article is to be classified under Heading 94.03 as that of furniture has been held by the Commissioner in the order impugned in the app...
Mahesh J. Doshi Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. (Appeals)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1999
Reported in: (2006)2STR273
1. When this application for stay was heard, it appeared that the appeal itself could be disposed of at this stage. With the consent of both sides, this was done.2. I have heard Shri R.K. Ghadge, Consultant for the appellant and Shri V.K. Suman for the Revenue.3. The applicant was a share broker. Service tax was imposed on such brokers with effect from 1-7-94 vide the provisions of Finance Act, 1994. On 15-7-94, the appellant sought clarification from the Collector as to whether he was liable for collection and payment of service tax.The cause for such query was that he was working as a representative broker for some other person who had informed the appellant that he would be liable for payment of tax. The Collector's reply not having been received, the appellant sought registration on 26-7-94 but did not file returns pending receipt of the Collector's reply. He wrote two reminders, finally the clarification was received in April 1995 with the ruling that he was liable to pay the ser...
Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1999
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC68Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 7.12.1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). In the impugned order the Collector (Appeals) of Central Excise denied the benefit of notification No. 161/66-CE dated 8.10.1966 (as amended) to the appellants.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of P & P Medicaments, and they filed the price list and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 161/66-CE. The price list was approved by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on 16.11.1983 for the period April to June, 1983 alleging that the appellants were not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 161/66-CE. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings. On appeal the Collector (Appeals) denied the benefit of the said notification.3. Learned Counsel for appellants submits that the Notification No.161/66-CE provides a discount of 25% on the price spe...
Kankaria Paper Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC189
1. Appellant absent despite issue of notice. We have heard the departmental representative and perused the papers.2. The notice issued to the appellant proposed recovery of duty alleged to have been not paid on two grounds. The first is that the appellant incorrectly availed on the provisions of Notification 25/84, dated 1-3-1984 by misdeclaring the quantity of paper actually produced. Duty demanded on this score was Rs. 26,14,765.68. The second ground was that appellant had clandestinely removed some quantity of paper and paper board without paying duty on it. The basis for this was the increased figures of manufacture of paper and boards shown in the report submitted by the appellant to the Director General Technical Development. Duty on this case Rs. 13,24,530.51.3. In the order impugned in the appeal the Collector has confirmed the demand for Rs. 26,13,765.68 on the ground that the benefit of Notification 25/84 will not be available. He has also demanded duty on 3399.820 metric to...
LupIn Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1999
Reported in: (1999)(82)LC663Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Since the issue is covered, at the admissions stage itself the appeal and the stay application were taken up for disposal.2. The present appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 28.8.1998. The order-in-original was received by them on 28.5.1998. The Commissioner ruled that the appeal was filed after the statutory period without any request for condonation of delay. On this ground he dismissed the appeal.3. This very situation was covered in the Tribunal's order in the case of Akola Oil Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur (Tribunal). In this Judgment it was held that the day on which the assessee received copy of the original order had to be excluded in reckoning the last day on which the appeal is required to be filed. When this is the situation, the appeal filed was in time.4. This appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The proceedings are sent back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits....
Cce Vs. Albright Morarji and Pandit Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1999
Reported in: (2000)(88)LC231Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether Modvat credit could be taken on inputs which were cleared by the appellant without payment of duty in terms of Notification 81/75 to another factory, where the goods were used in the manufacture of goods which were cleared on payment of duty.2. The Additional Collector had denied the credit on the ground that the input was not used in the manufacture of goods which were cleared on payment of duty. Dealing with the appeal from this order, the Collector (Appeals) took the view that when inputs were received, credit was correctly taken, and that the goods were not cleared under a general exemption notification, and that therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee deliberately availed credit.3. The department's contention in the appeal is that the finished product in the manufacture of which inputs were used were cleared without payment of duty and hence provisions of Rule 57C are attracted.4. Respondent contends that the good...
Godrej Soaps Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC232
1. The appeal has been taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. The appellant manufacture, inter alia a brand of soap named 'Cinthol Fresh'. M/s. Marico Industries (Marico for short) is a manufacturer of coconut oil sold under the brand name Parachute. This manufacturer decided to supply free of charge along each bottle of Parachute oil sold, a cake of Cinthol Fresh soap. For this purpose, it purchased from the appellant 1,084 MT of the soap. The order was placed on 13-11-1997 for supply of the entire quantity before end of January 1998.3. The appellant filed for goods to be cleared a declaration of price in which it claimed as the assessable value Rs. 582/- for 15 kgs. of soap. The department found that the assessable value declared by the appellant for sales to its dealers varied depending upon the location of the dealer between Rs. 1210.46 and 1083.49. Enquiries with the appellant as to the justification for the lower price to Marico having deni...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »