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.
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Deelipkumar Hirachand Jain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR479; 2000(1)MhLj635
ORDERJ.A. Patil, J.1. The respondent was involved in C.R. No. 32 of 98 which was registered against him by the Shani Peth Police Station, Jalgaon for the offence punishable under section 407 and 420 of I.P.C. The respondent then moved an application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon by his order dated 13-8-1998 allowed that application and directed that in the event of his arrest, in connection with C.R. No. 32 of 98, the respondent be released on his furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 3,000/- with a surety in the like amount. This order is challenged by the petitioner State in this revision application filed under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Heard Shri Quazi, learned A.P.P. for the petitioner State and Shri Raghuwanshi, learned Advocate for the respondent. Shri Raghuwanshi has in the first instance, raised a basic objection to the maintainability of the revision application. According to him, no revision ap...
Ceat Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(108)ELT336(Bom)
ORDER1. By this writ petition the petitioners seek to challenge the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals) Pune, dated 12-3-1999 (Exhibit 'A' to the writ petition) by which the application of the petitioners for dispensation of the requirement of pre-deposit of duty under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, has been rejected and the petitioners have been directed to deposit the full amount of disputed duty and penalty on or before 30-3-1999 as a pre-condition for admission of the appeal.2. The learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that in view of the limited nature of controversy, this writ petition may be disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.3. Hence rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents, waive service. By consent, writ petition is taken on board for hearing and final disposal.4. Mr. Setalvad, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is most arbitrary and illegal. He submits that the order is a mech...
Cc Vs. Book Channel
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)(84)LC353Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue for decision in this appeal is the classification both for the purpose of tariff as well as for the purpose of Import Trade Control (ITC for short), of goods imported by the respondent. It had declared the goods imported by it as books and claimed classification of the goods under heading 49.01. All goods classifiable under heading 4901 exempted by notification 36/96. Books are classifiable under heading 4909 and imported under the Open General Licence. The Custom House did not accept the contention that the goods were books. It noted that the printing on them indicated them to be used as greetings.Notice was therefore issued proposing classification of these goods under heading 4909 for the purpose of ITC, proposing their confiscation in the absence of a licence and proposing imposition of penalty. In reply, the importer contended that the goods were books. The Assistant Commissioner did not accept this contention. He said that the importer had accepted that the goods we...
Laxmi Enterprise Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC236Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These five stay applications arise out of the same impugned order and are, therefore, being disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants manufactured rubber roll pipes and were availing of the benefit of Notification No. 1 /93 as amended. Their goods were found to be affixed with a sticker bearing the trade names "Parkman-T" as also "Shree Laxmi". The appellants were using this trade mark from 1993. Another unit, namely Parker Polymer Industries, Palghar, was affixing similar goods manufactured by them with the trade name "Parkman PAL". In the belief that the present applicants were using a brand name of another person which activity would deny the benefit of the cited notification in terms of para 4 thereof; show cause notice dated 1-11-1994 was issued seeking to recover duty on such goods cleared without payment of duty. Thereafter four more show cause notices were issued covering different periods. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the duties amounting to Rs. 9,05,490/-...
Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC286Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants manufacture Sugar and Molasses. Some molasses were stored in one steel tank and three Katcha Pits. The RG 1 register showed a combined stock and not separately pitwise, and in the tank. On 15-2-1994, the total stock was 11277.300 M.Ts. For the purpose of Prohibition & Excise Department, a separate register was maintained which showed pitwise stock and also separately the stock in the steel tank. The balance shown in the steel tank Was 2523.400 M.T. Physical stock was taken of the molasses in the steel tank which came to 1408.320 MT. On the shortage of 114.08 MT. duty was demanded amounting to Rs. 2,23,016/-. The Collector having confirmed this amount, the present appeal has been filed.2. I have heard Shri K.G. Kulkarni Consultant for the appellants and Shri K.M. Patwari for the Revenue.3. Before the Collector at the time of personal hearing it was claimed that the shortage was an account of incorrect measurement. It was claimed that separately thereafter when the...
Paramjeetsingh Patheja Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT686Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Applications filed by M/s. Patheja Forging & Auto Parts Manufacturers Ltd. and M/s. Patheja Brothers Forgings & Stamping Ltd., two assessees and its directors. The amounts demanded as duty and penalty are at annexure.2. The common advocate for all the applicants says that he wishes to confine his arguments to financial hardship. He says that each of the assessee is a sick industrial undertaking as defined in Section 3 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act. Besides a letter dated 13-10-1998 of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR for short) to Patheja Forgings & Auto Parts Manufacturers was cited. He relies upon the balance sheet for 1996-97. He states that no further balance sheet was prepared due to shortage of staff, but has no evidence in support. He contends that this balance sheet shows loss of Rs. 15.51 crores. He cites on behalf of the other assessee, extracts from what is stated to be from the provisional balance sheet, according to which l...
F. Pudumjee and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC521
1. The appellants imported spare parts for paper making machines and sought clearance under 2 REP licences. The Jurisdictional officers felt that such licences issued under para 192 of the ITC Policy 90-93 A.M.did not cover import of spares. The importer did not have another licence. They waived issue of formal show cause notice. After hearing them, the Additional Collector passed the impugned order confiscating the goods and prescribing a fine for redemption thereof. Against this finding, the present appeal has been filed.2. I have heard Shri C.S. Lodha, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri V.K. Suman for the Revenue.3. The relevant provisions of Para 192 at the material time read as under: "192 (1) REP licences issued against export of products listed in Appendix 17 Part I and licences issued under para 184(4) of this book, are also valid for import of any other items of raw materials, components, tools, consumables and packing materials listed in Appendices 3 & 5 Part A and...
Atlas Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC158Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant, who at the relevant time was the owner of the craft M.V. Kashi Sagar, filed two applications for transhipment permits of wireless set and accessories. The first was filed in December, 1992 an application. The applicant asked for transhipment of the goods from the Air Cargo Complex, Sahar where had arrived from Zurich for exportation per Kashi Sagar to Bombay Off Shore. The second application was filed in January, 1992 for export of similar goods arrived from United Kingdom for exportation per the same vessel. The transhipment was permitted in both the cases. Transhipment on the first permit shows that the goods in question were one on Hay Bunder. No duty was paid on the goods in question.2. The department issued notice in March, 1993 proposing recovery of the duty on the goods. The notice alleged that the vessel was on the coastal run during the period in question and hence duty was payable on the goods permitted to be cleared without payment of duty. The extended pe...
Ushma Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC948Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Para Chloro Benzene Sulphonamide (PCBS) which did not attract Central Excise duty at the material time. They received Crude Mono Chloro Benzene (CMCB) on payment of duty. This input was required to be purified before being used in the manufacture of PCBS. The appellants, therefore, applied for permission to remove the CMCB for purification to job workers in terms of Rule 57F(2) even though they had not claimed any Modvat credit on the said inputs. A show cause notice dated 19-5-1992 was issued alleging that duty was payable on pure MCB received from the job workers which in turn was used in the manufacture of PCBS. In the show cause notice the present appellants were claimed to be principal manufacturer and were held liable to pay the duty on the goods manufactured by the job workers. The period covered under the show cause notice was April, 1987 to March, 1989. The Collector in the impugned order confirmed the duty and also imposed...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Borachem Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT781Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Borachem Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., the respondent to this appeal by the Commissioner, is engaged in the manufacture inter alia of ranitidine tablets 150 and 300 mg. It claimed classification of these products under Heading 3003.20 of the Tariff Act, as medicaments (other than patent or proprietary) other than those which are exclusively used in ayurvedic, unani, siddha, homoeopathic or bio-chemic systems. The department found that the product contained on its packing, and on the labels of their container a name MAGNUS. This name according to the department attracted the provisions of Note 2(ii) of the chapter, and therefore the product was classifiable as patent or proprietary medicament. Notices were issued accordingly proposing reclassification of the product under 3003.20 and demanding duty payable in addition as a result of that classification for goods already cleared. The assessee, in reply, took the stand that MAGNUS was only a name of the division of M/s Boots Pharmaceut...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »