Mumbai Court October 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.
Commissioner of Customs (P) Vs. Global Talesystem P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT244Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Ahmedabad vide his order dated 10-6-1996 confiscated certain offending goods but refrained from imposing penalty on any of the 10 no-ticees to the show cause notice.Against the order of confiscation an appeal was filed. The Tribunal vide Order Nos. 3772-73/96-WZB, dated 11-12-1996 disposed of the appeal by reducing the fine in lieu of confiscation prescribed by the Commissioner. This order was passed on 28-4-1997. The Central Board of Excise and Customs directed the Commissioner to make an application to the Tribunal for determination of legality and propriety of the Commissioner's order. This order was passed by the Board in terms of the power vested under: Section 129-D(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, the subject provision reads as under : SECTION 129D. Powers of Board of Commissioner of Customs to pass certain orders. - (1) The Board may, of its own motion, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which a Commissioner of Customs...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Prakash Motiram Mishra
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT147Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In all these appeals the issue involved is whether in the case of man-made fabrics on which additional excise duty is leviable, they can be confiscated, and the persons concerned in that regard in the textile mills are liable for penalty, for failure to maintain the account properly of stock in the RG 1 register, regarding the production, and the packing register, and the daily production, report, and the variation with lot numbers on the packing slips in the gate pass and the packages intercepted on 12-10-1992 by the Central Excise officers.The order-in-original confirms the duty of Rs. 1,36,811.44 recoverable under Rule 9(ii) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944. The seized man-made fabrics was held to be not liable for confiscation under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, and so also the truck in which they were found carrying the goods. Penalty was not imposed on these respondents under Rules 17...
Shri Shriniwas R. Shelar Vs. Girish Kanhaiyalal Oswal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR12; (2001)1BOMLR47; 2001(1)MhLj541
ORDERD. G. Deshpande, J.1. The contempt petition is filed by the tenant and civil application is filed by the landlord. (For the sake of convenience the parties herein after referred to as the landlord and the tenant). Following is the background of the contempt petition and the civil application.2. The landlord had filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 236 of 1991 against the tenant before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ratnagiri for recovering possession of the suit premises under section 13(1)(hh) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as the Bombay Rent Act). The landlord succeeded in the suit and got a decree. The tenant preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Ratnagiri, but the tenant's appeal was also dismissed by the District Judge, Ratnagiri by an order dated 4.12.1995. The tenant then filed a Writ Petition No. 482 of 1996 against the landlord and against two consecutive orders passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Divis...
Bappasaheb Bhanudasrao Jadhav and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Bom273; 2001(4)ALLMR440
Barde, J. 1. The petitioners are agriculturists who cultivate sugarcane crops on their land situated at Navgaon Tq. Paithan Dist. Aurangabad. They are the sugarcane grower members of the respondent No. 4 --Co-operative Sugar Factory and they are known as 'A' -- class members of the said Society. The petitioners have contended that they are supplying sugarcane to the said sugar factory since 1981-82. However, the respondent No. 4 -- Sugar factory failed to pay the price of sugarcane sold by them, within stipulated period of fourteen days after the supply of sugarcane. A statement is annexed with this petition indicating as to when the sugarcane was supplied by the petitioners to the respondent No. 4 factory: when the payment was made for the said sugarcane supplied by the petitioners. It is the contention of the petitioners that on certain occasions there was late payment.2. The petitioners have contended that the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 which is notified as per the provisions of ...
Jyoti Gautam Patil (Smt.) Vs. Presiding Officer and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR725
J.N. Patel, J.1. Heard Mr. Anjan Dey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Dangare, leaned Asstt. Government Pleader for the respondent No. 3. 2. The petitioner was elected as a member of Waigaon Gram Panchayat, Tahsil Samudrapur, District Wardha, which has total 9 Members in the Gram Panchayat. Thereafter a meeting was called for election of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch in accordance with sub-section (2) of section 33 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The meeting was convened on 2-8-2000 at 2.00 p.m. in accordance with Election Rules of 1964. The petitioner, therefore, filed her nomination under Rule 6 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as 'Election Rules of 1964') for contesting the election to the post of Sarpanch. Rule 11 of the said Rules provides as under :-'11. Quorum.---(1) The quorum necessary for the meeting called for the election of the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch shall be one-half of the total...
Govind Anantrao Upadhya and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR449; 2001(3)BomCR587
V.K. Barde, J.1. The petitioners have contended that land Survey No. 157, now Block No. 371, situated at village Manjrath, Taluka Manjleaon, District Beed, was in the name of their father Anantrao Upadhya, who died in the year 1948. The said land was not a made mash land or a service inam land, but it was a community service inam land. District Beed was the part of erstwhile Hyderabad State. The Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Inam Abolition Act') came into force on its publication in Official Gazette on 28th July, 1955. The Inam Abolition Act had received the assent of the President of India on 16th July, 1955. The Inam Abolition Act was adopted by the Bombay (Hyderabad Area) Adoption of Laws (State and Concurrent Subjects) Order, 1956; it was further amended by the Bombay Act No. 64 of 1959, adopted and modified further by the Maharashtra Adoption of Laws (State and Concurrent Subjects) Order, 1960; and, now, it is having the ti...
Waluj Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT707Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Commissioner in the impugned order confirmed the duty amounting to Rs. 23,11,686.19 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the appellants. The appellants have filed an appeal against this order and also an application for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty confirmed and the penalty imposed as well as stay of recovery thereof.2. We have heard Shri Rohan Shah, Advocate appearing alongwith Shri Mohan Salian, Advocate and Shri K.M. Patwari, JDR for the Revenue.3. The applicants manufacture aerated beverages under the brand name "bislery club soda". The benefit of Notification No. 175/86, dated 01.03.1986 was claimed by them. In the show cause notice dated 31-12-1992, it was alleged that the benefit of this notification was not available to them inasmuch as the holders of the brand name M/s.Acqua Minerals P. Ltd. were neither central excise licencee nor eligible for the benefit of the said notification. It was alleged that in terms of paragraph 4 of the said notification, the ben...
Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT239Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant imported between June and December, 1997, various consignments of capital goods required for setting up of a plant to manufacture refrigerators employing technology that would not require the use of Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC for short). In the bills of entry filed for clearances at Jawahar Custom House of these consignments, duty free clearances in terms of the exemption contained in serial no.122 of the Table of Notification 11/97 was claimed. This entry exempts from payment of duty on goods classifiable under tariff heading 84, 85 or any other chapter of the Customs tariff, for - (a) substitution of ozone depleting substances, and (b) setting up of a new capacity with non ODS technology. The refrigerators hereto manufactured by the appellant employed freons as a cooler. This belongs to the category of CFC, which are now recognized to deplete the ozone layer of the atmosphere. This entry has evidently been inserted in pursuance of the Montreal Protocol on environmental...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Tektronix Automation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT164Tri(Mum.)bai
The respondents manufactured and cleared excisable goods on payment of duty on 14-1-1993. The goods were returned by the customer and were received back in the respondents factory on 9-4-1993 under D-3 declaration under Rule 173H. At a later date i.e. on 1-8-1993, the formal rejection of the very goods by the customer was received by the respondents. Although, initially, the procedure under Rule 173H was adopted in respect of the defective goods, on 21-7-1993, the respondents filed a refund claim under Rule 173L. The assessees maintained and filed detailed accounts of the returned goods and the processing undertaken thereupon in terms of Rule 173L(2). The reconditioned goods were later cleared on 18-10-1993 once again on payment of duty. The refund claim was rejected by the Asstt. Collector on limitation. The relevant portion of his order reads as under :- "As far as the case law cited is concerned, I find that here the refund has been claimed under Rule 173L and therefore, procedure ...
Vxl India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT710Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We are concerned in this appeal with the liability to pay duty by VXL India Ltd., the appellant before us, on a Cadillac Seville car. The car was imported in November, 1992 by Rashmiben Patel. Clearance was claimed and allowed under the provisions of Open General Licence (OGL for short) Appendix 6, Item 52 of the Import Policy. This permits importation of motor vehicles without a licence by a person who has been in possession and use of the car for a year prior to its importation. Subsequent to its clearance, the car was sold by the importer to the appellant through a broker.2. Enquiries by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) subsequent to the clearance of the car showed that the car was manufactured not in 1989 as declared to the customs, but in 1992. These enquiries also showed that Rashmiben Patel, the importer, had been living in the USA when the car was imported, and had not taken any steps to transfer her residence to India. Notice was therefore issued to Rashmiben ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »