Mumbai Court November 2000 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Ramesh Nebhnani and Anil Nebhnani

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC495

1. This is the department's application, against the order dated 29.12.95 of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai DRI/VZU/B/23/95/ S/10-24/95 ADJ on the basis of the review order dated 29.12.96, praying for determining the points arising out of the above order namely (1) whether after taking into consideration the facts of the case the impugned order is legally correct and proper, (2) whether by passing an order under 129B of the Customs Act, the Tribunal should modify the impugned order, (a) holding that DRI has full jurisdiction in such matters even if the goods are under assessment by the customs house, (b) enhancing the declared value as proposed in the show cause notice? (c) confiscation of the goods under Section 11(d) and (m) of the Act and (d) imposition of suitable penalty under Section 112A of the Act, and for such other order deemed fit and proper.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant Ramesh and Anil K. Nebhani are partners of Akash Enterprises, which had imp...

Goa Bottling Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC822

1. The applicants manufacture Aerated Waters attracting the provisions of Standards of Weight and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 issued under the Standards of Weights & Measures Act, 1976. Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 relates to the valuation of goods to which the cited rules apply. The assessees factory is situated in Goa.Their products are marketed in Goa and in Maharashtra. The maximum retail price for these states was published. The price was higher for sale in Maharashtra. The MRP were duly printed as applicable on each bottle meant for sale in that particular area. The Explanation -2 to Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read as under :- "Where on any excisable goods more than one retail sale price is declared, the maximum of such retail sale price shall be deemed to be the retail sale price for the purpose of the section".2. The assessees in spite of the difference in the different prices for the different regions, had paid duty on the lower...

Vikas Kaushalkumar Gupta and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)1BOMLR314; 2000(4)MhLj733

B. H. Marlapalle, J.1. The petitioners who are students of respondent No. 2 Engineering College have brought in question the legality and validity of the orders passed by the Principal of the same college on 20th July, 2000 expelling them from the college and disallowing them from appearing in any examination as students of the said college in future.2. The petitioner No. 1 has completed the first semester of second year of Engineering, petitioner No. 2 was the classmate of petitioner No. 1, whereas petitioner No. 3 has completed first semester of second year (Mech.), petitioner No. 4 has completed first semester of 3rd Year (Electronics), petitioner No. 5 has completed first semester of second year (Electronics and Telecommunication), petitioner No. 6 was to appear for final examination of B. E. and petitioner No. 7 has completed first semester of second year (Mechanical). It is alleged that, on 4th February, 2000 they had under some pretext, taken one of their college-mates Devendra ...

Jaimal Shah Vs. Ila Pandya

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(1)ARBLR618(Bom); 2001(2)BomCR72; (2001)2BOMLR67; 2001(2)MhLj297

ORDERR. J. Kochar, J.1. The respondent abovenamed has filed the present chamber summons seeking a direction to dismiss the above execution application. She has further sought a declaration that she is not liable to pay the decretal amount in her personal capacity. She has also sought a direction to the petitioner to make a full and complete disclosure as to the persons/ entities/Companies, the petitioner claims to represent in the execution application and their individual decretal sums. She has further prayed for a direction to the petitioner to make full and complete disclosure of the documents on the basis of which the petitioner had based his claim against her husband. In support of the chamber summons she has filed her own affidavit. The petitioner has filed affidavit in reply.2. The petitioner also has filed a Chamber Summons No. 956 of 2000 for a direction to the respondent to disclose the assets and properties both movable and immovable, which form part of the assets of the dec...

Jaychand Dipchand Kasliwal Vs. Shirish S/O Vasantrao Kotwal and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR99; 2001(2)BomCR350

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This Election Petition has been filed under section 100 read with sections 80, 80A and 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 challenging the election of the respondent No. 1 as a Member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Maharashtra Legislative Constituency No. 75, Chandwad Assembly, District: Nasik. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the election of the respondent No. 1 is null and void on the ground that the respondent No. 1 having committed corrupt practices defined under section 123(3A) and under section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petitioner also seeks an order from this Court directing that the respondent No. 1 be disqualified from contesting election for a period of 6 years. The petitioner claims in his petition that he is citizen of India and resident of Chandwad Taluka, which is in the Nasik district of the State of Maharashtra and that he is an elector of Assembly Constituency No. 75 and that his name has...

Cc (imports) Vs. Patco Trading Corpn. and ors.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(99)LC206Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These four appeals are by the Commissioner against the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in which he has ordered reduction of the fine determined by the Additional Commissioner in lieu of confiscation of the consignment of second-hand diesel engines imported by each of the respondents before us and of the penalty imposed on each of them.2. The ground in the appeal, that there is no reason in the impugned order for reducing the fines and penalties has to be accepted. After saying that he does not find any discussion in the order before him on the margin of profit or enquiry relating to market value, the Commissioner, without any further word, has reduced the fine and penalty.3. If this was the only issue involved we would have allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order asking him to furnish reasons for reduction. However, the advocate for the respondents says that the determination of the margin of profit of such goods is the subject matter of orders of the Commiss...

Modern Industries and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC821

1. (This is an application for stay these) (sic) [These are] two applications for stay of collection of Rs. 2,15,275.85 being the duty and penalty of Rs. 40,000 imposed on the appellant in Appeal No.E/4116-RV/99 (Assessee) and Rs. 10,000 on the appellant in Appeal No.E/4117-RV/99 (that is purchase) of the product.2. Appellant is carrying on the business of manufacturing Cosmetics falling under Chapter 33 of the CETA 1985. In the product manufactured by the appellant assessee, they were affixing brand name "PETALS" on the product namely Nail Polish/Enamel and Nail Polish remover. It is the contention of the department that the assessee was wrongfully availing exemption under Notification No. 140/83, show cause notice dated 6.2.1996. The show cause notice alleged inter alia that the appellant had manufactured and cleared the said product even though the appellants were aware that the trade mark Petals have been owned by M/s. Petals Cosmetics, Ram Niwas, Dhebawadi Road, Agashi Nagar, Kar...

Vadilal Embroidery Unit Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT193Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Each of the appellants before us, M/s. Vadilal Embroidery Unit (Vadilal for short) and M/s. Doshi Industrial Corporation (Doshi for short) were engaged in embroidery of grey fabrics. Each of them paid duty on the embroidered fabrics according to law and, thereafter, handed over the fabrics to M/s. Dura Processors for processing. Notice was issued to both these firms, and to M/s. Dura Processors to pay duty on the activities of processing. The Assistant Commissioner passed two orders holding that Vadilal and Doshi were not liable to pay duty on the processed fabric, relying for this purpose on an order of the Commissioner (Appeals).2. This was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) by the Department. The Department contended in the appeal that the processed embroidered fabric was liable to duty under Heading 5805.19 of the tariff. The Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the order impugned in these appeals before us order disposing of these appeals. He has, in that order, said th...

Jay Bros. Investment and Trading Co. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income ...

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XXII, Mumbai, and it pertains to asst. yr. 1993-94.2. Facts, concerning the only issue in dispute before us, revolve in a narrow compass. The assessee is an investment company having income from dividend and interest. In respect of the asst. yr. 1993-94, the assessee declared income of Rs. 3,53,190. Tax payable on the declared income works out to Rs. 2,03,084. However, tax collected by the Department in the form of TDS was Rs. 5,45,555. Assessee-company filed its return on 29th Dec., 1993, i.e., before the due date to file return under Section139(1) to claim refund of tax. The return was processed under Section143(l)(a) of the Act wherein the income returned by the assessee was accepted. The intimation is dt. 29th March, 1994, wherein the interest payable on the refund was calculated @ 12 per cent on Rs. 3,42,471 for 12 months only i.e., from 1st April, 1993, to 29th March, 1994. The intimation under Sect...

Jitendra @ Jitu Sakharam More and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1175; 2001(5)BomCR172

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Seven persons namely Alex Senna Joseph, Jitendra @ Jitu Sakharam More, Vinod @ Vinya Shantaram Jadhav, Agnelia Zavier Fernandes, Smt. Rajeshri Rajesh Pawar, Nitesh Mahadeo Kasare and Ravi @ Godwin Nandu Pujari were charged by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 1510/1995, 762/1997 and 533/1998 for offences punishable under section 143 r/w 149 or 34 I.P.C., 144 r/w 149 or 34 I.P.C., 147 r/w 149 or 34 I.P.C., 148 r/w 149 or 34 I.P.C., 307 r/w 149 or 34 I.P.C., 302 r/w 149 or 34 I.P.C. and 212 I.P.C. The learned Judge found two of them namely Smt Rajeshri Rajesh Pawar and Ravi Nandu Pujari not guilty on any of the said counts and consequently acquitted them vide the judgment and order dated 14-12-1998. He however, found the remaining five accused persons guilty and convicted and sentenced them in the manner stated hereinafter :---(i) Under section 143 r/w 149 I.P.C. to suffer six months R.I.(ii) Under section 144 r/w 149 I.P.C. to suffer t...