Mumbai Court August 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.
Voltas Ltd. and ors. Vs. Shri S.V. Botre and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR902
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Mundargi for the petitioners, Mr. Malpathak for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. I.S. Thakur, A.P.P. for the State - respondent Nos. 1 and 3.2. All these petitions have been filed by the petitioners for quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the P.F.A. Act').3. Three complaints were filed by the respondent No. 1 in respect of three samples of groundnut oil taken from the petitioners, and since common question is involved in all these petitions, they are disposed of by this common order.4. Copy of the complaint is at Exhibit 'M' page 41 of the Criminal Writ Petition No. 1291 of 1998. According to the respondent No. 1, who is the complainant, a complaint was lodged by Raj Oil Mills regarding unauthorised refilling of guinea brand groundnut oil by Oswal Trading Company, Thane - respondent No. 2 to the complainant. The complainant, therefore visited c...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Gravure Arts
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT655Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal from Revenue was argued by Shri K.M. Patwari, JDR. The assessees were represented by Shri M.H. Patil, Advocate.2. Vide notice dated 6-12-1994, Modvat credit taken on the basis of 21 invoices amounting to Rs. 5,30,557/- was sought to be denied on the following ground : "Invoices issued by a person who is not registered with Excise authority as required to be registered under Rule 57G, are not valid documents for the purpose of taking Modvat credit under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944".3. The Assistant Collector observed that the invoices did not mention the registration number of the dealer and that the pre-printed serial numbers appeared to have been marked afterwards. He ordered reversal of the credit taken. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that subsequently the suppliers were registered on 22-7-1994. In terms of the Board's instructions under Circular No. 76/76/94-CE, dated 8-11-1994 such invoices were acceptable provided the issuing dealer has got hims...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Vasumati Printers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT731Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Vide show cause notice dated 30-11-1994 Modvat credit taken on six invoices totally amounting to Rs. 48,303/- was sought to be denied on the following allegations :- "Invoice is issued by a person who is not registered with Central Excise authority as required to be registered under rule 57G. Hence, the instant invoice is not valid document for the purpose of taking Modvat credit under rule 57G." 2. It is on record that the dealers who issued the invoices, namely, M/s. Parekh Sales Agency got themselves registered under the said rule on 18-8-1994. A circular issued by the Board Bearing No. 76/76/94-CX, dated 8-11-1994 directed the jurisdictional officers to accept the invoice issued by unregistered dealers also provided such dealers got themselves registered before 31-12-1994. The assessees before the Assistant Collector placed these facts. The Assistant Collector held that the cited circular required that such invoices should show the details as were required to be shown in terms ...
Standard Metal Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT449Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants in this case cleared a consignment of Lead Pipes on payment of duty. These goods were received back under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The assessees then filed a refund claim.Show cause notice dated 28-3-1994 was issued alleging that the goods were brought back for re-booking and not for any reason permitted by the said rule. Vide their reply dated 27-4-1994, the assessees claimed that the mention in the D-3 intimation to the effect that the return was for re-booking was wrong but that the goods were remelted, remade into sheets and cleared. The Assistant Collector passed order dated 25-8-1994/24-11-1994 rejecting the refund claim stating that the provisions of the said rule did not cover the return of the goods for re-booking. Before the Collector (Appeals) some case law was cited but he also held that the return for re-booking was not covered by the said rule. On his upholding lower order, this appeal has been filed.2. Shri S.V. Yakkundi, Advocate a...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Vegetable VitamIn Foods Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT39Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the order impugned in this appeal by the department, the Collector has held that the respondent was entitled to take credit of the duty paid on nickel catalyst used in the hydroge-nation of oil a process preparatory to manufacture of glycerine.2. The ground in the department's appeal is that in the process of manufacture of glycerine hydrogenation of oil, results in the manufacture of hardened technical oil and fatty acids. Each of these is separate marketable and excisable product. At the relevant time, each of these was exempted from duty. Therefore, nickel catalyst was used in the manufacture of exempted goods and the duty paid on it would be ineligible for credit by virtue of the provisions of Rule 57C. This ground was further explained by the departmental representative.3. In his order, the Collector noticed that the respondent was carrying on a continuous process by which glycerine was manufactured out of oil.We were told by the departmental representative that hydrogenati...
Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Mcdermott International Inc.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR369
ORDERS. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents at length. By this petition, the petitioners- the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, is challenging an Award dated 30th September, 1993 on various grounds. The brief facts leading to this case are as follows:2. Sometime in the mid of 1970, the petitioners herein, viz. the ONGC, had started the development of its Bombay High Field, and as a part of its continuing development, the petitioners herein, on 17th June, 1985 had published its tender notice No. BOP/SP/PPL/IJK/11(1)/85 inviting bids on the design, procurement, fabrication, inspection, testing and pre-commissioning load out sea fastening tow out, transportation, and installation at offshore site and pre-commissioning and any other work necessary for the final completion of the wellhead platforms II. IJ and IK (collectively) known as 'IJK' Platforms in the Bombay High field.3. The petitioners herein, viz., th...
Baban and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1999
Reported in: I(2000)DMC568
ORDERJ.N. Patel, J. 1. The appellants came to be prosecuted for having committed offences under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Section 304-B read with Section 34 of I.P.C. in the alternative for having committed offence under Section 306 read with 34 of I.P.C. before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara vide Sessions trial No. 143/91 who convicted and sentenced them for having committed offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and ordered to suffer R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default simple imprisonment for 5 months; S.I. for six months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default S.I. for five months and S.I. for a day and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for six months respectively. It is this conviction and sentence which has been challenged by them before this Court in this appeal.2. It is the prosecution's case that deceased Usha was married to the appellant Baban, he was required to stay at his in-law's place alongwith his wife Usha for a pe...
Cce Vs. Omega Packaging Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1999
Reported in: (2000)(91)LC222Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue involved in this appeal preferred by the Revenue is whether the benefit of Notification No. 181/88 dt. 13.5.1988 is available to the Respondents who are manufacturing metal containers out of bottom and top lids purchased from other manufacturer who is using power.2. Shri A.K. Jain, Ld. DR submits that it is an admitted fact that both top and bottom lids which are purchased from M/s. Sterling Components are manufactured by use of power. Following the ratio of the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Standard Fire Works Industries v. CCE , the benefit of Notification is not available as the power has been used in the manufacture of both the lids.3. Shri Gopal Prasad, Ld. Advocate, submitted that the Respondents have not used power themselves. In Standard Fire Works Industries, the steel wire was sent by the manufacturer for cutting into small pieces by the job workers who were using the power and as such it was held by the Supreme Court that the power was used. He relied u...
Raigad Castings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1999
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC69
2. Modification of the stay order is prayed for on the ground that the applicant received the notice of hearing only a day before the hearing and did not have time to engage a Counsel. The records of the Tribunal show despatch of the latter intimating the date of hearing by registered post on 17.04.98 for the hearing which was held on 13.05.98.We cannot believe that it would have taken the letter more than a few days to travel to Nifan village in Raigad district adjacent to Mumbai.The contention advanced by the advocate for the applicant that after the order was passed, the representative of the applicant, who came late sought adjournment has not been substantiated. The bench has not recorded any such happening nor does the departmental representative recalls any such happening. The ground that the order on modification application is bad for the reason that it has been passed without hearing the applicant, therefore fails.3. We are unable to accept the request repeatedly made by the ...
Sujata M. Shet and Mohan Shet Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1999
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC67
1. Applications are for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs on Sujata Shet, the applicant in application C/Stay--1381 /99--Bom and Rs. 10 lakhs on Mohan Shet, applicant in application C/Stay-1382/99-Bom.2. The common advocate for the applicants explains that the penalties have been imposed on the finding that Mohan Shet purchased gold, which he knew or had reason to believe was smuggled, the purported sale proceeds of Rs. 75 of which is under confiscation, and that his wife Sujata Shet assisted him in such sale. He contends that the gold in question was purchased from one Abdullah who was from the same place (Kumta) as the applicant. The applicant in his statement has explained how he took precautions to ensure that the gold, which he purchased from Abdullah, was duty paid and lawfully obtained. Abdullah had told him while though the gold was duty paid he was unable to furnish receipt showing payment of duty for small quantities, but he was able to furnish customs duty recei...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »