Mumbai Court February 2000 Judgments
Metro Exports Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC657
1. When these two applications were taken up for hearing, it appeared that the issue involving a question of law already being settled, the appeals themselves could be disposed of. This was done by granting waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 5,98,825 and Rs. 41,228 respectively.2. The appellants possessed advance licences entitling them to import goods without payment of duty in terms of Notn. No. 203/92-Cus. On having fulfilled the obligation to export, the appellants secured the endorsement of transferability of their licences. The licences were transferred and the goods were imported by the transferee licence holder. At a later point, show cause notices were issued alleging that in the manufacture of export goods, the Modvat credit had been taken.It was alleged that the imported goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(O) of the Customs Act, the transferee importers were liable to pay duty and the present appellants were liable to penalty.In the two orders, the Comm...
Tag this Judgment!Asanand Sons Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT683Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The order of the Commissioner impugned in this appeal confirms the demand for duty on the ground that exemption from Customs duty under Notification 203/92 dated 19-12-1992 will not be available to the goods imported by the appellant for the reason that since the condition in paragraph (V)(a) of the notification, that Modvat credit should not have been availed of in regard to manufacture of exported goods, was not complied with.2. The partner of the appellant firm contends that the exported goods were hand knotted woollen carpets which were not liable to duty in terms of sub-heading 57.01 of the Central Excise Tariff Act under which they were classifiable. Therefore, credit could not have been taken of the inputs used in the manufacture of such carpets.3. We note the departmental representative's contention, that the final product may be exempted from duty does not necessarily lead to the inevitable conclusion that no credit would have been taken. We agree that it is possible that ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and Another Vs. M/S. Shyama Charan Agarwala and Sons
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR44
ORDERR. K. Batta, J.1. Both these appeals give rise to common questions and as such, arguments in the appeals were heard together. Therefore, it is proposed to dispose of the same by common judgment.2. In Appeal No. 3 of 1996, the respondent had entered into a contract agreement No. CECZ/GOA-12 of 1990-91 for provision of married accommodation for 80 MCPOs/CPOs/80 POs and 16 sailors (180 units in all) at Varunapuri, Mangor Hill, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa Naval area (excluding INS Mandovi) and the Work Order was placed vide Letter No. 8319/43/E-8 dated 20-7-1990 for Rs. 2,62,44,057-94. The date of commencement of work was 16-8-1990 and the work was to be completed by 15-11-1991. The last date was extended from time to time till 29-2-1996. During the currency of the contract certain disputes/differences arose.3. In Appeal No. 2 of 1996, the respondent had entered into a contract agreement No. CECZ/GOA/40 of 1991-92 for provision of married accommodation for MCOs/CPOs and JCOs at Goa (excluding ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Pooja Enterprises and Another Vs. the Chief Executive Officer and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR65; 2000(3)BomCR421; 2000(3)MhLj147
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule.2. Learned Counsel for respondents waive service. By consent, heard forthwith.3. The petitioners approached this Court to impugn order dated 2nd February, 2000 passed by the President, Maharashtra Slum Area (I.C. and R.) Special Tribunal, Mumbai. By the said order the tribunal was pleased to grant interim relief in terms of prayer Clause (a) which reads as under :-'Pending the hearing and final hearing of this appeal the respondents be restrained by an order and injunction of this Honourable Court from carrying on any Slum Rehabilitation work of any nature whatsoever without Slum Rehabilitation declaration under section 3-C(1) of Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, in respect of C.T.S. Nos. 1492 of 1527 at Village Kirol, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai.'The said appeal was filed before the tribunal purportedly under section 3-C(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Slum Redevelopment Act. 4. At t...
Tag this Judgment!Aditya Kumar Kedia Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: [2001]248ITR659(Bom)
1. The short point which arises for determination in this petition is whether the Tax Recovery Officer was right in refusing to adjudicate upon the claim of the petitioner under Rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the Assessing Officer has declared the gift deed dated December 2, 1986, as void under Section 281 of the Act. The gift deed is in favour of the petitioner. It pertains to Flat No. 23, 'Belle View', Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai.2. The brief facts of the case are as under :The Tax Recovery Officer (TRO), Ward No. 24, Mumbai, vide order dated November 17, 1989, attached the above flat under Schedule II to the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of tax arrears outstanding in the case of the assessee by name Vinod Bhatia. The attachment has since been continued. By letter dated March 31, 1994, addressed by the advocate on behalf of the petitioner to the Assessing Officer, it was pointed out that the assessee has gifted the above flat to the...
Tag this Judgment!Trimbak S/O Waluba Sonwane Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR665; 2000BomCR(Cri)665; 2001CriLJ3614; 2000(2)MhLj498
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for directions to pay compensation for keeping the petitioner in jail illegally for 43 days and thereby violating his right of personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 2. Crime No. 143/96 came to be registered against the petitioner for offences punishable u/s 379 and 511 read with section 34 of I.P.C. on 27-10-1996 and on investigation Regular Criminal Case No. 15/97 came to be registered against the petitioner for the same offences on 26-2-1997. Simultaneously Crime No. 144/96 was also registered against the petitioner and same came to be transformed into Sessions Case No. 64/97 before the Sessions Judge at Aurangabad. He had applied for bail in the sessions case and his application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on 3-4-97. He therefore, approached this Court and the bail application was allowed on 22-4-97 and he was directed to be releas...
Tag this Judgment!Council for Protection of Human Rights Vs. the State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR821; 2000BomCR(Cri)821; 2000(2)MhLj242
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. The petitioner namely Council for Protection of Human Rights at Aurangabad, claims to be an organisation formed for the protection of human rights and also to voice against the violation of human rights. It does not appear to be an organisation which has registered itselfunder a relevant statute of the State or the Central Government and the learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that after filing the petition in the nature of a Public Interest Petition, it has taken steps to register itself and the application for such a registration is pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner at Aurangabad for registration under the Societies Registration Act, as well as under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. In this petition the prayers made are substantially as under :-(i) The Central Bureau of Investigation be directed to investigate the whole incident of police violence that has allegedly taken place on 6-12-99 on the premises of Vikram Stadium (a police-groun...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Guruswami Oil Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(120)ELT57(Bom)
1. Rule. Respondents waive service.2. Rule made returnable forthwith.3. By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the order passed by CEGAT dated 11th January, 2000.4. Pending appeal, to CEGAT, a stay application was moved by the petitioners, inter alia, on the ground that the Company has been declared sick under the BIFR and in the circumstances, the petitioners were not in a position to pay the disputed duty amount. By the impugned order, the CEGAT accepted the contentions of the petitioners. By the impugned order CEGAT waived the condition of the pre-deposit of the disputed duty amount. However, by the same order, the department was directed to recover the disputed duty amount. Pursuant to the said order, the bank guarantee has been encashed and the amount has been recovered.5. A bare reading of the order of the CEGAT indicates that it is self-contradictory. On one hand the condition of pre-deposit has been waived. On the other hand, CEGAT has declined to give stay of reco...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Guruswami Oil Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(69)ECC784
ORDER1. Rule Respondents waive service.2. Rule made returnable forthwith.3. By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the order passed by CEGAT dated 11th January 2000.4. Pending appeal, to CEGAT, a stay application was moved by the petitioners, inter alia, on the ground that the Company has been declared sick under the BIFR and in the circumstances, the petitioners were not in a position to pay the disputed duty amount. By the impugned order, the CEGAT accepted the contentions of the petitioners. By the impugned order CEGAT waived the condition of the pre-deposit of the disputed- duty amount. However, by the same order, the department was directed to recover the disputed duty amount. Pursuant to the said order, the bank guarantee has been encashed and the amount has been recovered.5. A bare reading of the order of the CEGAT indicates that it is self-contradictory. On one hand the condition of pre-deposit has been waived. On the other hand, CEGAT has declined to give stay of ...
Tag this Judgment!Vaman Prestressing Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2000
Reported in: (2000)(93)LC556Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Since the question for consideration in this appeal is directly covered by a Supreme Court's judgement, we proceed to take up the appeal after waiving deposit.2. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is a job worker who manufactured prestressed concrete sleepers out of raw materials supplied by the Indian Railways and returned finished product to the railways, was entitled in determining the assessable value of these goods in terms of the applicable Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, was eligible not to include modvat credit of the duty paid by a manufacturer on the mild steel inserts, which was used in the manufacture of the steel goods.3. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals)'s has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CCE Bangalore v. Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. and Kirloskar Brothers . However this reliance is entirely misplaced. The Supreme Court's contention was drawn to the judgments in the appeal before i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »