Mumbai Court January 2000 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.
Mr. Manzoor @ Mansoor @ Manoj Ahmed Sayed Ahmed Vs. Shri R.H. Mendonca ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR632; 2000BomCR(Cri)632; (2000)2BOMLR696; 2000(3)MhLj398
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner detenu Manzoor @ Mansoor @ Manoj Ahmed Sayad Ahmed impugns the detention order dated 12th April 1999 passed by the 1st respondent Mr. R.H. Mendonca, The Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, detaining him under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. IV of 1981), (Amendment-1996), hereinafter referred to as 'MPDA Act'. A true copy of the detention order is filed as Exhibit 'A' to the petition.2. The prejudicial activities of the petitioner detenu warranting the issuance of the impugned detention order are contained in the grounds of detention which are also dated 12th April, 1999, a true copy of which is filed as Exhibit 'C' to the petition. A perusal of para 5 of the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner detenu has been detained as ...
Balaji Enterprises and 3 ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC333
1. These four applications relate to four appeals arising out of the same impugned order. From 15.7.1999 on three occasions the applicants were directed to appear for the hearing. M/s. Kaso Agro Products Ltd. sought adjournment of the hearing scheduled on 26.8.1999. None of the other applicants ever responded to the intimation. For today's hearing telegraphic intimations were sent apart from the normal intimations.The applicants were cautioned that in their absence their applications would be decided ex-parte. In spite of these directions none of the four applicants was present today.2. In the impugned order the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla had imposed penalties on seven importers. Penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 each was imposed upon M/s. Balaji Enterprises and M/s. Tirupati Enterprises as well as on M/s. Paramount International. On M/s. Kaso Agro Products Ltd. the penalty imposed was Rs. 2,50,000. The present applications seek waiver of pre-deposit of these penalties.4. Consignments of t...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Avi Photochem Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT947Tri(Mum.)bai
1. I have heard both sides. The Bench in its order had held that since the densitometer in question was an essential requirement for manufacture of finished goods in the appellants' plant, it can legitimately considered to be an input and hence Modvat credit would be available of the duty paid input.2. It cannot be in dispute that by use of this product no change is brought about in any substance. Hence the question arises whether such products, which are not by themselves directly used to produce substances, but without which the production of goods in a factory is impossible are within the meaning of Rule 57Q. Therefore I propose to refer the question as framed whether densitometer and similar goods which by themselves do not directly produce or process any goods or bring about change in any substance but without which, the production or processing or bringing about change in the substance cannot take place is capital goods within the meaning of Rule 57Q. The registry may draw up st...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Asian Paints (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC339
1. When the appeal came up for admission today, I felt the appeal could be disposed of at the admission stage itself. Therefore I have taken up the appeal with the consent of both sides.2. In this case the assessee M/s. Asian Paints (India) Ltd. was issued a show cause notice for wrong availment of notional credit at a later date which was not admissible contravening the provisions of Rule 57A.The amount involved is Rs. 10,599. In four cases the assessee has availed Modvat credit on 28.4.1992, 14.6.1992, 29.7.1992 and 18.4.1992.Extra Modvat credit was availed on 23.8.1992, 13.8.1992, 18.8.1992 and 28.7.1992. This has been sought to be denied by the Adjudicating authority and by order dated 18.6.1997 the Assistant Commissioner denied it. An appeal was filed and the Commissioner (Appeals) following the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Mysore Lac & Paint Works Ltd. , disagreed with the view of the department and allowed the availment of the Modvat credit by the assessee...
Poddar Tubes and Pipes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)LC667Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In both these matters, while hearing the stay application, the ld.Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has disposed off the appeal before him by dismissing the same for non-compliance of the stay order, without hearing the applicant, and without even considering the modification application filed prior to the passing of the impugned order. In support of this contention, he has cited the rulings of the bench in the case of Electronics Devices, Orgo Pharmaceuticals, Vector Systems, Thermokb Equipment Company, Premnath Monga Foods in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 89; 1999 (113) E.L.T. 310; Order Nos. C-II/1881-83/WZB/1999, dated 20-7-1999; Order Nos.C-II/3086-3105/WZB/1999, dated 15-11-1999 and 1993 (63) E.L.T. 245 respectively.3. On going through the impugned order in both the cases it is seen that the order was passed on the ground that "since till date the appellant has not produced any evidence of payment in this office, I have no alternative but to di...
Advance Mechanical Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-03-2000
Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT475Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These five applications relate to five appeals filed against the same order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot. These are therefore being taken up together for disposal.2. On hearing Counsels S/Shri V.B. Sheth and V.S. Nankani for the applicants and Shri K.L. Ramteke for the revenue, it appeared that at this stage itself the main appeals could be taken up for disposal. This was so done, after granting waiver of the duties confirmed and the penalties imposed in the proceedings. M/s. Advance Mechanical Works manufactured Crankshafts out of forgings purchased from another manufacturer. These forgings bore the brand name "Adico". The Crankshafts were made by machining and finishing. The brand name continued to remain intact during these processes. M/s. Advance Mechanical Works were operating under the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. and No. 1/93-C.E. from time to time. One of the condition in the first named notification was that the manufacturer benefiting there fro...
Tata Ssl Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-01-2000
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT603Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing both sides on the early hearing application, we have decided to take up the appeal itself for disposal.2. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirms the finding of the Asst. Commissioner, that amounts paid by the appellant, a steel mill, to the Steel Development Fund, Engineering Goods Export Assistance Fund and Joint Plant Committee Cess are includible in the assessable value of the iron and steel products manufactured by the appellant cannot be sustained. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in SAIL v. CCE - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 249 has held these charges not to be includible in the assessable value....
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›