Mumbai Court November 2000 Judgments
SachIn Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT108Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Sachin Textiles Pvt. Ltd. had filed Appeal No. E/1215/94-D along with stay petition No. E/Stay-696/94-D.S. In disposal of the stay application, the appellants were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as a precondition to hearing of the appeal. Later, vide Order No.664/96-D, dated 6-11-96 [2000 (126) E.L.T. 1168 (Tri.)] the appeal was allowed. On 16-12-96, the appellants requested the Department to refund the pre-deposit. The jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner rejected the claim on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order holding that the amount deposited in pursuance of CEGAT's order would not fall under the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants on 18-11-98 once again lodged the refund claim. After substantial correspondence and agitation finally on 23-4-99 the claim was sanctioned and the cheque was issued on 24-5-99. The appellants then requested for interest at 15% per annum on the b...
Tag this Judgment!P and B Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2000
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT187Tri(Mum.)bai
1.In this case the question involved is whether penalty can be imposed for wrongful availment or credit as barred by limitation.2. Assessee is engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products falling under Chapter Sub-heading 3003.10 of the CETA, 1985 and was availing modvat credit facility under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, the appellant received bulk drugs some time in 1989 at concessional rate of duty at 5% in terms of Notification No. 31/88. But they took Higher Notional Credit at 10% Adv. Show Cause Notice issued on 15-4-1993 by department inter alia proposing levy recovery of the modvat credit wrongly taken as well as levy of penalty. The Order-in-Original confirmed the demand. In the Order-in-Appeal the appellate authority held that the recovery of duty is barred by limitation but upheld the imposition of penalty on the ground that limitation will not be applicable to penalty. Hence the present appeal by the assessee in respect of confirmed of the penalty.3. It is...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Hirji Gada Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2000
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC673
1. The above appellant has challenged the above captioned impugned order dated 19-5-1994 praying for setting aside the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed tinder Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act by Collector of Customs (Preventive) under the above order.1. The brief facts of the case are that on 10-5-1991 on a secret and specific information against the appellant and Pankaj Lalji Haria, that they are dealing in foreign marked gold to recover 25 gold biscuits or its sale proceeds, DRI officers of Bombay Zonal unit searched the premises No. 4/6,1st floor, Laxmi Bhawan, Bora Bazar Street, Fort, Bombay and recovered foreign currency in different denomination of different countries. Pankaj Lalji Haria was present during the search of room in the above premises, who has deposed that it is the sale proceeds of contraband gold. Officers seized the foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 10,21,934.00 (LMV) in the reasonable belief that the same is liable to confiscation under the provisions of Custo...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmed Adenwala Kola Vs. V.M. Dosi, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Con ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)857; (2001)2BOMLR646; 2001(2)MhLj515
S. S. Parkar, J.1. The appellant has impugned in this appeal his conviction and sentence under the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act recorded by the Special Judge in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 93 of 1994 by Judgment and order dated 7th January, 1997.2. The brief facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant under the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act are as follows :The Customs Authorities had received information that some passengers going to leave Bombay by Ethiopian Flight scheduled at 4.45 hrs. on 8th March, 1994 were suspected to be carrying contraband with them. The Customs Officers, therefore, collected the copy of manifest and found that names of nine suspect persons were found on the manifest. The appellant was one of those nine persons. All the nine suspect persons were intercepted by the Customs Authorities between 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. They were intercepted after they had completed their immigration and their identity was confirmed from passport, air-ticket and boarding card. Thei...
Tag this Judgment!Bharamu Subrao Patil Vs. Narsingrao Gurunath Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Bom104; 2001(2)ALLMR429; 2001(2)BomCR126; (2001)1BOMLR545; 2001(2)MhLj348
ORDERF. I. Rebello, J.1. By the present Chamber Summons Respondent has moved this Court to contend that Election Petition No. 16 of 1999 be dismissed under section 86(1) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 and/or Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the Petition discloses no cause of action. A few relevant facts may be set out.On the Petition being presented on 6th December, 1999, order was passed to issue Summons for appearance and filing written statement. The same was made returnable on 17th June, 2000. Matter has thereafter come up on various dates. In between on 18th February, 2000 the Respondent took out the present Chamber Summons. Written statement was filed on 31st January, 2000. In para 3(u) of the written statement the Respondent had averred that there is no cause of action for filing the present Petition. In paragraph 4, it is averred that the Respondent was advised and accordingly craved leave to take appropriate proceedings including Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Shamjibhai Dharod Vs. Mrs. Neeta Ashok Dharode and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Bom142; 2001(2)BomCR502; II(2001)DMC48; 2001(2)MhLj115
V.C. Daga, J. Heard the parties.Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service.1.The present petition arises out of the interim order passed by the 3rd Family Court, Mumbai in M. J. Petition No. A-1853/1997. By the said order the petition moved by the father for removal of minor child from the custody of mother was rejected, maintaining the order of access to the child operating in favour of the petitioner-father. The Family Court's decision is based on the ground that the welfare of the child would be best served by his mother.In order to test the legality of the impugned order, it is necessary to arrive at the crystallised legal position of law on the subject.LAW ON THE SUBJECT 2. Law on the subject is almost settled. The paramount consideration governing custody of the child is the welfare of the child and not legal rights of the parties. In normal circumstances natural guardian is entitled to have custody of the minor child and it is father, who has first right to have the cu...
Tag this Judgment!Rajaram Gajanan Gangal and ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR673; (2001)3BOMLR495; 2001(2)MhLj279
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. Rule, Returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the Respondents waives service. Heard both the sides.2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 3rd January, 2000 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Centre No. III, Panvel, Dist. Raigad rejecting the petitioners claim for payment of 40% of the amount of award dated 5th February, 1998 passed by the Respondent No. 1, which was towards their share for compensation as the landlords of the land which has been acquired.3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the land in question is an agricultural land at village Karanjade, Taluka Panvel, Dist. Raigad. The said land was acquired for New Bombay Project in the year 1970. The acquisition proceedings culminated in the Award passed by the authorities on 19th September, 1986. Subsequently, since an Award in respect of the neighboring land, which was also acquire...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Duphar-interfran Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2000
Reported in: [2001]104CompCas629(Bom)
K.K. Baam, J. 1. The petitioners herein Duphar-Interfran Limited have filed this petition seeking sanction to the scheme of arrangement for demerger between Duphar-Interfran Limited and Duphar Pharma India Limited. This sanction is sought as the pharmaceutical division of the petitioner-Duphar Interfran Limited is sought to be demerged to Duphar Pharma India Limited. 2. Notice of this petition has been published in the newspapers. Notice of the same has also been sent to the Regional Director. Shri Joy, who has appeared on behalf of the Regional Director, has stated that the Regional Director has no ejection to the sanction of the arrangement embodied in the scheme of arrangement. 3. However, an application is made on behalf of the shareholder Renuka Datla seeking to oppose the sanction of the scheme. It is the case of the shareholders that the scheme is designed to benefit a group of shareholders, namely, Vasant Kumar and his family and the foreign collaborators group consisting of So...
Tag this Judgment!Sicom Limited Vs. Prakash Pai (Shri)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR689
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The plaintiffs, a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, is carrying on the business of giving finance to the needy borrowers. The above suit has arisen from the transaction between the plaintiffs and one M/s. Firth (India) Steel Company Limited of advancing a short term loan of Rs. 50,00,000/- on the terms and conditions contained in the plaintiffs sanction letter dated 9-1-1996 following their agreement dated 6-2-1996. The said company is not impleaded as a defendant in the above suit. The plaintiffs have also not annexed a true copy of the aforesaid agreement dated 6-2-1996 between the plaintiffs and the said company on the basis of which the plaintiffs had advanced the aforesaid amount of Rs. 50 lakhs as short loan to the said company. It further appears that the present defendant being the Managing Director of the said company gave his irrevocable personal guarantee securing the said loan given by the plaintiffs to th...
Tag this Judgment!Navnit V. Shroff Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-2000
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT61Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We have heard Shri V.N. Kantawala, Advocate on the miscellaneous application.2. Vide order dated 30-3-1994, the Additional Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai confiscated certain goods and permitted their redemption on a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. This order was upheld by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai vide his order dated 12-5-1995.An appeal was filed against this order on 23-8-1995. The miscellaneous application was filed on 20-4-1999 seeking directions to be given to the cargo manager, Sahar Air Cargo Complex for supply of information to the applicants evidencing sale in auction of the goods which were confiscated in the impugned proceedings.3. Shri Kantawala submits that the Tribunal has the power to make such directions.4. In terms of Rules 40 and 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules the Tribunal may make certain orders in connection with the appeals filed before them. However, the language of Rule 40 does not extend the authority of the Tribunal over officers ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »