Mumbai Court September 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.
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Hms Metal Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT409Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue in both these appeals being the same, they are disposed of by this common order.2. In the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) has set aside the Additional Collector's finding that the respondent was not entitled to deemed Modvat credit on lead scrap used by it as input for the reason that it is clearly recognizable as non duty paid. The Collector (Appeals) has overruled this decision by applying the decision of the Tribunal which held that the onus of proving that the goods were non duty paid was upon the department and that this onus has not been discharged.3. I have heard the departmental representative. Respondent is absent despite notice.4. I am unable to accept the departmental representative's contention that by application of ratio of Larger Bench decision in Machine Builders v. C.C.E. -1996 (83) E.L.T. 576, the Collector (Appeals) order, as it stands, cannot be confirmed and has to be set aside. This decision has reiterated specifically that mere existence of ...
Kirtibhai Maganbhai Patel Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1999
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT1162Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the order impugned in the appeal the Collector has held the appellant to have evaded duty on an unspecified quantity of biris manufactured by him and cleared without payment of duty, demanded duty of Rs. 323 lakhs approximately and imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/-.2. Advocate for the appellant raises the contention that the only evidences on the basis of which the Collector has come to the conclusion of clandestine manufacture and clearance of biris is the register seized from the premises of Dilip R. Patel, the appellant's brother-in-law. The appellant agreed with the statement of Dilip Patel that the register belongs to him (the appellant). In that register, the appellant had recorded details of kendu leaves used to roll the biris and tobacco sold by him. It cannot be inferred from this register that the appellant manufactured biris, let alone determine the quantities of such biris manufactured. Although initially the notice had alleged that the appellant got the bins manufactu...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Metal Overseas
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT748Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the value of the copper dross imported by the respondent to this appeal by the Commissioner, declared of U.S. $ 1,200 per M.T. was found not to be acceptable by the Additional Commissioner for the reason that the goods were declared initially to be copper dross of 45% purity whereas the copper content of the dross found to be on test, to be around 95%. The Additional Commissioner found that copper ingots had been imported at a value of U.S. $ 2000/- per M.T. and hence valued the dross at U.S. $ 1,900/- per M.T., the difference in the value being on account of the lower content of copper in the dross. On appeal from this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has said that the method of valuation determined by the Additional Commissioner is wrong and declined to uphold in the absence of evidence of contemporaneous import of identical or similar goods, the enhancement of value.2. We have heard the departmental representative. R...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Innovative Prints
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT745Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondent to this appeal took Modvat credit on paper used by it in the manufacture of computer stationery. There was some dispute during the relevant period of the classification of computer stationery. The Board in February, 1991 said that it was classifiable under Heading 4823.90, but later revised its opinion to say that it would be classifiable under 4820.00, and exempted from duty under Notification No. 43/86. The question for consideration in this appeal is, to what extent the credit could be taken of the duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of such computer stationery.2. We have heard the Departmental Representative. Respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice.3. Notification 177/86, dated 1-3-1986 was amended by Notification No.149/87 which limits credit taken of the duty on paper and paper board (other than these manufactured in a free trade zone) or 100% Export Oriented Undertaking to Rs. 800 per ton of actual paid, which however was less. Adjudicati...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Modi Gbc Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT931Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Two questions are required to be determined in this appeal filed by the department against the order of the Collector (Appeals). The first is whether M/s. Modi GBC Ltd., the respondent and General Binding Corporation, (GBC) (a US firm) are related. The second is whether the value of the drawings of the components supplied by GBC is to be added to the value of components of binding, laminating and shredding machines supplied by GBC and imported by the respondent.2. The notice to show cause proposed to hold that GBC and respondent are related persons by invoking Rule 2(2)(iv) of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988. This clause deems to persons to be related if, inter alia "any person holds 5% or more of the total voting stocks or shares or both of them". The Assistant Collector found that 40% of the shares of the respondent were owned by GBC and hence applied this rule to say that they were related. The Collector (Appeals), held that this clause would not apply, because it require fo...
Sharda Ispat Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1999
Reported in: 2000(67)ECC361; 1999(114)ELT389(Bom)
ORDERB.N. Srikrishna, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Sundaram waives service for respondents. By consent, rule is called out and heard.2. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice by the second respondent on 27/30-1-1995. The show cause notice was replied by the petitioner on 12-5-1995. The second respondent made an order on 27-12-1997 against the petitioner. The petitioner filed appeal No. 174/NCP/98 on 25-3-1998 before the Appellate Commissioner of Central Excise under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On the same day, petitioner also moved an application for staying the order passed by second respondent and waiver of pre-deposit requirement under the said section. On 22-4-1999, the third respondent made an interlocutory order rejecting prayer for stay of the recovery and dismissed the application for waiver of the pre-deposit. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner moved this writ petition.3. The petition came up for admission on 7-5-1999, on which day the Divisi...
M/S. Hira Mistan Vs. Rustom Jamshedji Noble and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR618; 2000(1)BomCR716
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. Plaintiffs a partnership firm has filed the present suit for specific performance of the contracts for sale of immoveable and moveable properties respectively. There is also a relief by way of damages. The suit arises thus. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in February, 1976 defendant Nos. 1 to 10 represented by the defendant No. 1 and one Mr. Nicholson represented to the partner of the plaintiff Mr. Suresh Agarwal through a broker Mr. Kirti Tijoriwala of their intention to sell their immoveable and moveable properties as set out and/or described in para 1 of the plaint. The plaintiff, through their partner showed their willingness to discuss and negotiate the matter. A meeting was held between plaintiffs' partner Suresh Agarwal, the defendant No. 1 and Mr. Nicholson representing the defendant Nos. 1 to 10 at which meeting Mr. Tijoriwala was present, it was agreed that the immoveable property would be sold for the price of Rs. 6,81,000/ and moveable properti...
Arun B. Vaidya Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)BomCR623
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Advocates for the petitioner and respondent No. 3 and also A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra.2. The petitioner is a Member of the Governing Council of the Indian Education Society and Chairman of the Buildings Committee, a Sub-Committee appointed by the Governing Council. This petition is filed for quashing and setting aside the charge-sheet filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Case No. CC/10/I & R/91, later numbered as 190/P/97, pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 30th Court, Kurla, Mumbai and for other ancillary reliefs. Even though record of the case was bulky, Shri Sabnis, Counsel for the petitioner restricted his arguments only on four points which are subject matter of the charge-sheet and no grievance was made by the Counsel for the respondents regarding those four points.3. The main allegation against the petitioner in the charge sheet which came to be filed in certain circumstances with which I will deal with later are that the petition...
Shri Vinayak Kamat Tarcar Vs. State of Goa Through the Chief Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)BomCR727
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioner claims to be a 'Dazan' (Associate) of Shree Bhagwati Chimulkarrin Devasthan of Marcela, Goa (hereinafter referred to as the said Devasthan). According to the petitioner, the said Devasthan has bye-laws, duly approved by Port aria (Order) No. 108, which were published in the Government Gazette No. 83 dated 27-10-1910. The said bye-laws contemplate two managing committees, namely one managing committee of 'Mahajans' and the other managing committee of 'Dazans'. The functions of the said committees are distinct and defined in the bye-laws, as can be seen from various articles, especially Articles 3, 4, 10, 23, 29, 33 and 34. The petitioner further contends that the treasury of 'Dazans' is distinct and independent from the treasury of the 'Mahajans'. Respondents No. 5 to 12 claimed that they should be appointed as 'Mahajans' of the said Devasthan, but the same was denied to them, as a result of which, the said respondents moved the Government and obtain...
Bunny Reuben and Others Vs. B.J. Panchal and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1999
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR680; (2000)1BOMLR512; 2000(2)MhLj169
ORDERS.S. Parkar, J. 1. This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the Criminal Case No. 57/S/91 pending in the 44th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Andheri, Bombay filed by the respondent No. 1 as a private complaint.2. The respondent No. 1 filed the aforesaid private complaint for offence under section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 against the petitioners on the allegation that about 75 photographs taken by him of the late Shri Raj Kapoor, a cine star and of the wedding of cine star Dimple Kapadia were published in the book under title 'RAJ KAPOOR The Fabulous Showman' without his permission. The said complaint was filed on July 1, 1991 in which the process was issued against the petitioners by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and, therefore, the present petition for quashing the said complaint.3. The allegations made in the complaint are that the complainant was freelance press photographer and as a free-lance news photographer he was intimatel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »