Mumbai Court March 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.
Charms Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. and 5 Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC542
1. These six appeals involve consideration of common issue and are therefore disposed of by this order.2. The appeals E/1085, 1189 and 1221/95 are against the orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune and the others against the order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat and Nagpur.3. The question for consideration in each of these appeals is whether the department was entitled to include in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, the interest, not paid or collected, on the advance taken from the customers.4. We have heard the Counsel for the appellants except in the case of India Hume Pipe Company Ltd., and Sunrise Industries Pvt. Ltd., the appellants in E/1221-V/95 and E/4561-V/95. These appellants are absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have read their submissions in the appeal memorandum.5. The common thread running through in each of the impugned orders is that, if he had not taken advance, ...
H.K. Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT676Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Goyal Traders, appellant in appeal C/212/93 imported into Bhavnagar port a ship for the purpose of being broken into scrap. On inspection of the ship, the officers at Alang, where such breaking up takes place found in one of the folded tanks of the ship which was designed and used as carrier of live stock, 284 tonnes of cattle feed.The department was of the view that cattle feed was "consumer goods" as defined in the Import Policy for the relevant period, issued notice to the importer proposing confiscation of the cattle feed under Clause (d) of section 111, and the ship under Clause 115 of the Act. Penalty was also proposed by invoking section 148 of the Act on M/s. H.K. Shipping Services, whom the department found to be the agent of the seller of the vessel. These proceedings culminated in the issue of the order of the Collector impugned before us ordering confiscation of the cattle feed and the ship with an option to redeem them on payment of line of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 3 la...
Avol House Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC545
1. After having heard the parties on stay application, we are of the view that the appeal itself could be decided and with the consent of both sides, proceed to decide the appeal.2. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner imposing penalty under Section 114A of the Act of Rs. 3,53,721 on the appellant.The reason for which the Commissioner imposed penalty is that appellant took Modvat credit in the course of manufacture of leather garments which was exported under an advance licence scheme. The appellant transferred the import licence obtained as a result of the export by M/s. Luster Chem Corporation which caused import to be made of goods which were accrued due to free clearance under notification 203/92.3. From the fact as narrated above, there is nothing to show that the provisions of Section 114A are attracted. It is not possible to say whether Modvat credit was in fact taken. Reliance by the applicant on the certificate of the Asstt. Commissioner, Mod. V, New Delhi dat...
H.K. Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC529
1. M/s. Goyal Traders, appellant in appeal C/212/93 imported into Bhavnagar port a ship for the purpose of being broken into scrap. On inspection of the ship, the officers at Alang, where such breaking up takes place found in one of the folded tanks of the ship which was designed and used as carrier of live stock, 284 tonnes of cattle feed.The department was of the view that cattle feed was "consumer goods" as defined in the Import Policy for the relevant period, issued notice to the importer proposing confiscation of the cattle feed under Clause (d) of Section 111, and the ship under Clause 115 of the Act. Penalty was also proposed by invoking Section 148 of the Act on M/s. H.K. Shipping Services, whom the department found to be the agent of the seller of the vessel. These proceedings culminated in the issue of the order of the Collector impugned before us ordering confiscation of the cattle feed and the ship with an option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 3 la...
Smt. Vaishali Pramod Pisal Vs. the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)352; (2001)1BOMLR634
Vishnu Sahai. J. 1. Through this Writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who styles herself as the sister-in-law of the detenu Vinod Sakpal @ Vinod Gulab Pisal, has impugned the Detention Order dated 29th May, 1999 passed by the 1st Respondent Mr. R. H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining the detenu under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act. 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment-1996) (hereinafter referred to as the M. P. D. A. Act.). The Detention Order along with grounds of detention which are also dated 29th May, 1999 was served on the detenu on 31st May. 1999 and their true copies are annexed as Exhibits 'A' and 'C' respectively to this petition, 2. The prejudicial activities of the detenu warranting issuance of the impugned Detention Order are contained in the grounds of detention (Ex-'C']. Their perusal...
Virendra Mohan Bhardwaj Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)4BOMLR531
S.S. Parkar, J.1. The petitioner who is an Advocate has filed the present petition for quashing of Criminal Case No. 2798/P of 1994 pending in the Court of 44th Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri, Bombay for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 114 of Indian Penal Code registered under C. R. No. 927 of 1986 by the D. N. Nagar Police Station.2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of this petition for quashing the proceedings, arise in the following circumstances :The State Bank of India, Jogeshwari (West), Bombay branch filed a complaint on 8.10.86 against one Kishore Vinayak Bidaye for the offence of forgery and using forged documents to induce the Bank to part with the cash amount of Rs. 5,50,000/-. The said Kishore Vinayak Bidaye is shown as accused No. 1 in the complaint. The name of the present petitioner was added subsequently on the basis of the investigation madeby the police after recording statement of Chintaman Vishwanath Panshikar. As p...
MohiddIn Basha Abdul Razak Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Bom18; 2000(3)ALLMR777; 2000(4)BomCR423; (2000)2BOMLR656
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. This Appeal from Order arises from the Oral Judgment dated 29-10-1990 passed by the City Civil Court at Bombay in three Notices of Motion in L.C. Suit No. 4031 of 1978 filed by the plaintiff against the defendants/respondents. At the outset I may clarify that the respondents in the Notices of Motion were not the defendants in the suit and they were impleaded in the Notices of Motion.2. The plaintiff had filed the suit against the Bombay Municipal Corporation and one Indrajit S. Patel praying for permanent injunction against them, their servants and agents in terms of prays Clause (a) in the suit. It further appears that he had also taken out three Notice of Motion for various reliefs. The defendants as well as the respondents have contested the Notice of Motion. It is the main grievance of the plaintiff that the defendants and the respondents have committed breach of the interim orders passed by the Court and therefore, they were guilty of Order 39, Rule 2-A(1) o...
Sau. Prema Bhasker Jadhav and ors. Vs. Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR234
ORDERH.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner No. 1 wife has filed a petition for divorce against Respondent No. 1 husband and it is pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan. The parties were married in June, 1985 and they have three children who are all minors and who are Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 (through Petitioner No. 1), The grounds of divorce are having sexual relations with other persons - Section 13(1) and cruelty Section 13(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Alternatively she has sought judicial separation under Section 13-A of the said Act. Petitioner No. 1 wife has made very serious allegations against respondent No. 1 husband. It is alleged that apart from instances of physical cruelty, he is going to prostitutes and, therefore, she fears that because of him, she may get infection which could be dreadful. It is further alleged by her that the instances of physical torture and sexual harassment have taken place in the pres...
Tulsidas V. Patel Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-2000
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC801
1. These two appeals arise from two orders which, in turn, relate to the same show cause notice. The facts covering both the appellants being common, these two appeals are being taken up together for disposal vide this single order.2. We have heard Shri H.C. Jain, advocate for Tulsidas V. Patel (hereinafter called as "TVP"). Shri M.M. Patel, advocate appeared for M/s. Bharat Vijay Velvet & Silk Mills (hereinafter called as "BWM").Shri B.K. Choubey argued for the revenue.3. The charges made in the show cause notice were that certain consignments of polyester yarn imported by BWM on the basis of a letter of authority granted against an import licence held by the State Trading Corporation, were actually imported by TVP. It was alleged that TVP had purchased the licences/LA. It was alleged that such purchase was in contravention of the provisions of the Import & Export (Control) Order. It was therefore contended that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of th...
Jogindernath Mehra Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-2000
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC779
M/s. L.D. Textiles Industries Ltd. were incorporated in 1995. Three brothers namely J.K. Mehra, T.K. Mehra and V.K. Mehra were its directors. On 14-11-1986 the Additional Chief Controller of Imports and Exports passed an order whereby L.D. Textiles and their directors were debarred from making any imports, receiving import licences/CCPs, buying from canalising agencies and importing any goods under OGL upto March, 2000. In 1995 M/s. Obron Impex Pvt. Ltd. was formed. The directors were Ajay Mehra son of J.K. Mehra and Sachin Mehra son of V.K. Mehra. In August, 1997 certain goods were imported by Obron Impex. Pursuant to an information that Obron was a front company created to overcome the obstacle of debarment, the customs monitoring such imports. Polyester staple fibre imported by Obron was seized. Statements of the concerned persons were recorded and documents seized from their premises were examined. The investigations showed that in order to save octroi duty the industrial licence ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »