Mumbai Court November 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.
Commr. of Customs (i) Vs. Prmier Automobile Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-2000
Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT742Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this case in spite of two notices, the appellant Commissioner of Customs (I), Mumbai did not file the verification in the proper form.The Departmental Representative submits that he has also written to Commissioner of Customs (I), Mumbai. In this case, even though the matter is completely in favour of the department viz. unjust enrichment in respect of captive consumption decided by the Supreme Court in Solar Pesticide case [2000 (116) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) the Department did not take enough steps to remedy the defects which could have been remedied for which notices have been given. The procedural aspects cannot be condoned because it is a time tested one. Here in this case we are dealing with the verification. The verification is not for an idle formality. It contains solemn undertaking that what is contained in the appeal is within the knowledge of the signatory to the appeal. In case the statement is not true, the provisions of Section 193 of IPC may come into play and such a de...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. H. Kumr Gems Inc.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC709a
1. Appeal No. C/1250/R/99-Mum was filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad on 13.12.1999. A letter was sent to him asking for three more copies of the CA5 form since the appeal had to be filed in the requisite numbers. In the absence of compliance a show cause notice was sent on 7.8.2000. On two occasions the case was posted for hearing of compliance. In the absence of continued lack of compliance we hold that the appeal is improperly filed and dismiss the same....
Mohd. Yakub Mulla and anr. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)(95)LC591Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals arise out of the common impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III. They are, therefore, disposed of vide this single order.2. In the show cause notice dated 8.9.1992, duty was demanded amounting to Rs. 4,81,293.73. Three grounds were given for this demand in the annexure to the show cause notice. The first was that certain goods were manufactured by M/s. Samarth Engineering Works but that the goods were cleared without payment of duty and without cover of Central Excise gate pass but on the strength of bills raised by M/s. Mulla Fabricators. The show cause notice cites the statement of Shri Mohd.Yakub Mulla (also an appellant before us today) who was the principal partner in M/s. Samarth Engineering Works, M/s. Mulla Fabricators as well as in M/s. Industrial Engineering Services. The show cause notice does not give details on which this charge was made. Copy of this statement of Shri Mulla made on 11.3.1992 is on record. We have perus...
Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC707
1. On hearing Shri D.M. Mehta, learned consultant for the applicants and Shri J.M. George for the department, we find that the issue being limited this appeal could be taken up for disposal. Both sides agreeing, this was done.2. The appellants manufactured potassium carbonate and hydrogen peroxide. These goods were exported by them under claim of drawback.The assessees had taken input stage credit of the duty paid on the materials used in the manufacture of these two products. Four Orders-in-Original were passed disallowing Modvat credit totally amounting to Rs. 52,31,163. The assessees filed four appeals which were disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals) in a single order. The Commissioner observed that the assessees had availed of drawback at brand rate on hydrogen peroxide. The Commissioner observed that in this situation the appropriate authorities would have taken into account the availment of Modvat credit and would have reduced the quantum of Modvat to that extent. On this gr...
M/S. Goyal Traders, M/S. Arya Ship Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC491
1. Shri Vishal Agarwal, learned Chartered Accountant, argues that in the instant case the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner without following the principles of natural justice. In this case the appellant is a ship breaker. They have imported a vessel named "M.V.Krusevac" sometime on 19.7.1991. On arrival the vessel was provisionally assessed and thereafter a final assessment was made on 31.3.1999 calling upon the assessee to pay Rs.31,122/-. It was case of the assessee that the order-in-original was made without following the principles of natural justice. Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed belatedly by about 74 days and in the said appeal no application for condonation of delay has been filed. Shri Vishal Agarwal who undertakes to file the Vakalatnama argues that the impugned order is wrong inasmuch as no notice has been issued by the lower authority. He further states that law does not require a written application for condonation of delay. He also t...
Pandit Ramchandra Mulik and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1139
Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. Through this appeal the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 31st January, 1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadhinglaj, in Sessions Case No. 36/1996, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter : - All under Section 302 read with 34 of the I.P.C. to suffer imprisonment for life. In addition appellant Pandit Ramchandra Mulik under Section 324 of the I.P.C. to suffer 1 year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer 6 months R.I. 2. Shortly stated the prosecution case runs as under :- The appellant Ramchandra Narayan Mulik is the father of the appellant Pandit Ramchandra Mulik. Appellant Babu Gundu Kamble is his associate. The appellants, the informant Mahadev Bapu Jadhav P.W. 3 and the deceased Tukaram who was the younger brother of the appellant Ramchandra Narayan Mulik at the time of the incident were residing at village Ardal. Ramchandra Narayan Mulik despite having been given in adoptio...
Ramdas Mahadu Devare Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)57; (2002)3BOMLR685
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. By the impugned judgment in Sessions Case No. 147/96 on the file of 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nashik, the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under section 304(ii) of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R. I, for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/ - in default to suffer R. I, for one year.2. When the appeal was taken up for hearing nobody has appeared for the appellant who is in jail. However the appeal cannot be dismissed for default in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bani Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh. Hence we are disposing the appeal on merits.3. The prosecution case is that the accused Ramdas is the resident of Navibez where he is running a grocery shop. He has three brothers namely Tulshiram. Mahadu and deceased Shamrao. Deceased Shamrao is the youngest brother of accused. All the brothers had partitioned their properties and each of them was staying separately. It is the case of the pr...
NaraIn G. Mirchandani and anr. Vs. Vinodrai R. Vora and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR654
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court dated 18-9-1990 in Appeal No. 382 of 1987. That appeal was filed by the present respondent No. 1 challenging the award passed by the Co-operative Court dated 27-8-1987 in Case No. C/I/442/1158/79 of 1987. That dispute was filed by the present petitioner claiming the order of eviction against the respondent No. 1. It was the case of the disputants that the disputant No. 2 is a Co-operative society, in whose building the disputant No. 1 is an allottee of flat No. 406 on the 4th floor. The disputant No. 2 is the tenant Co-partnership Housing Society and the disputant No. 1 is the member of that society. It was alleged that by leave & licence agreement dated 25-6-1970, the disputant No. 1 granted licence of the flat to the respondent No. 1. It was the case of the disputant No. 1 that this licence was created in favour of the respondent No. 1 contrary to the...
Venugopal Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC134
1. We are concerned in this appeal with import of goods declared to be component part of ventilating and recyling goods. M/s. Venugopal Engineering Pvt. Ltd., the appellant before us, imported these goods; the goods were declared in the eight bills of entry filed by it for their clearances to be parts of ventilating hoods, classifiable under heading 8415.90 of the tariff. The department was of the view that the goods were really nothing other than as parts of air-conditioners classifiable under heading 8415.90 of the tariff at a rate of duty higher than that applicable to goods of heading 8414.90. Investigation conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence led to issue of notice proposing classification of the goods as parts of air-conditioners; their confiscation under Clause (m) of Section 111 of the Act and penalty on the importer. After considering the cause shown and hearing the appellant the Collector passed the order impugned in this appeal. He has confirmed the classifi...
Yakub I. Yusuf Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC129
1. This group of appeals is against the order of the Commissioner ordering confiscation of 25 kilograms of gold which he found to have been imported by Yakub Yusuf, the appellant in appeal 518/86, and imposing a penalty on him under Section 112 of the Act. Each of the other appellant claims (in the case of Sahil Laly and Faiyaz Laly, who are minors through their parents) that he or she had imported 5 kilograms of gold, entitled to clear it on payment of duty in foreign exchange as provided by Notification 117/92 through Yakub Yusuf.2. The contentions raised by Mr. Sujay Kantawala, advocate for appellant Yakub Yusuf and Mr. H.S. Dave, advocate for the other five are common. These are that the five appellants, other than Yakub Yusuf who are members of an extended family, enlisted the aid of Yakub Yusuf for purchasing the gold and bringing it to India. They had asked Yakub Yusuf to declare it before the Customs. The Commissioner has wrongly denied these claims.3. Let us first consider th...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »