Skip to content

Mumbai Court April 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.

Apr 01 1999

Dangi Financial and Management Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on: Apr-01-1999

Reported in: (2006)STR36

1. The applicants have requested for the stay of the impugned order and dispensing with the pre-deposit of the penalty amounting to Rs. 4,500/- imposed thereunder, in view of the appeal grounds urged that the delay of 43 days in filing the return for the period September 1996 quarter ending and December, 1996 there is a delay of 1 day on the ground that during September 1996, the authorised signatory Rajesh Zamvar was on leave and gone abroad and immediately of his return, it was filed on 26-11-96, and for December 1996 there is an urgent meeting on 15th & 16th January, 1997 and so it was filed thereafter. The turnover of the service charges for the period was Rs. 78.70 p. and the service tax 5% paid was a mere Rs. 3.93. For the quarter ending December 1996 the service tax paid was Rs. 20/- for the taxable service of Rs. 400/- at 5%. The penalty imposed is harsh. Total taxable service, on account of brokerage from December 1996, was only 1711.23, service tax paid Rs. 85.62 for the...


Apr 01 1999

Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. and C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on: Apr-01-1999

Reported in: (1999)LC283Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Applications are for waiver of duty totalling Rs. 4.90 lakhs approximately and penalty Rs. 2 lakhs.2. Advocate for the applicants says that the applicant manufactures panmasala classifiable under Heading 2106.00. One of the ingredients is tobacco which the applicant received and thereafter seives and flavours. To this plain tobacco the applicant adds quimam, which is stated to be consisting of flavouring agent and also containing some proportion of tobacco. He says that this mixture of tobacco with quimam has been leading to chewing tobacco classifiable under Heading 2404.49.He contends that this mixture by itself cannot be chewed and it is not marketable. Preparation of chewing tobacco requires additional jaggery and subsequent fermentation for a number of days in order to break down the tobacco. He contends that the allegation that the applicant purchased tobacco in 1994-95 is not correct; the applicant was receiving on payment of duty such mixture from its own factory. He furthe...


Apr 01 1999

M/S. Colfax Laboratories and Another Vs. the State of Goa, Through the ...

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Apr-01-1999

Reported in: 1999(3)BomCR704

ORDERR.K. Batta, J. 1. The first petitioner; M/s. Colfax Laboratories (India) Limited, is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The second petitioner, Mr. Eric Menezes is the Managing Director and Shareholder therein. The petitioners applied for licence to manufacture cosmetics, namely shaving cream, body talcum, hair cream, cologne for men and after shave lotion under trademark, 'Old Spice', on 14th February, 1968, in terms of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The licence to manufacture the said cosmetics was granted on 15th April, 1968, by the Licensing Authority under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The petitioners also applied for licence under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The Licensing Authority, Commissioner of Excise, granted licence in Form L-1 on 1st April, 1969, for manufacture of 'Old Spice' after shave lotion and 'Old Spice' cologne for men, which were shown under 'toilet preparati...


Apr 01 1999

Apollo Seafoods Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Apr-01-1999

Reported in: 1999(3)BomCR729; 2000(2)MhLj70

ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioner firm was granted advance licence dated 24th March, 1992 under the Duty Exemption Entitlement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Scheme') whereby the firm was authorised to import 440 MTs. of Polyethylene/Polypropylene Moulder Powder/Granules. The licence carried with it an export obligation both in terms of value and quantity viz., Rs. 830 lakhs in terms of value and 1850 MTs. in terms of quantity. This licence was issued for a period of 9 months but its term was extended from time to time till 30th April, 1994. According to the petitioner, by the end of December 1993 it performed export obligations to the extent of 1950 MTs. in quantity with an approximate value of Rs. 670 lakhs and for a reduction in obligation in terms of value, an application was made to the Advance Licensing Committee. On 14th January, 1994, the office premises of the petitioner were raided by the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Goa. Thereafter th...


Apr 01 1999

Shri Madhusudan Parshuram Vs. M/S. Devcon and Another

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Apr-01-1999

Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR13; 1999(3)BomCR732; 2000(1)MhLj447

ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkak, J.1. This appeal arises from Order dated 18th April, 1998 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 276/97/A in Execution Case No. 62/96/A by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji.2. The brief facts relevant for the decision are that the appellant filed an execution application being 62/96/A against the respondents praying for execution of a Sale Deed in terms of Decree dated 28th February, 1996 passed in Civil Suit No. 94/88/A. The Decree required the respondents to execute a Sale Deed of a flat bearing No. 103/ Type 'C' admeasuring 80 sq. metres in area with proportionate undivided ownership rights in the Plot No. 10/A admeasuring 546 sq. metres comprised under Survey No. 9/6 of the village of Pehna de Franca. The appellant had also filed a copy of the draft Sale Deed along with the said application for execution praying for necessary directions in terms of Order 21, Rule 34 of Code of Civil Procedure. On receipt of notice of the said application, the...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial