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.
Collr. of Cus. Vs. Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC559
2. M/s. Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. thereinafter referred to as "RPL" filed bill of entry dated 3-9-1990 for clearance of centrifugal gas compressors. The classification claimed was under sub-heading 8414.59 with benefit of Notification No. 59/87-Cus. Duty as leviable on goods under this classification amounting to Rs. 2,62,56,090/- was paid.Subsequently the goods were examined. The background technical material was studied and the importer's officers were questioned. The said compressors used from gas as the flow gas. Since this was a refrigerant gas and since the process involved cooling of the raw material, the Customs officers were of the opinion that the goods were appropriately covered under sub-heading 8414.30. The difference in duty between the goods falling under the rival classifications would amount to Rs. 5,97,65,428.77. For ITC purposes the claim of the importers was that the goods merited classification under OGL in terms of entry at Sr. No.20(2) of Appendix 1 Part B of...
Ramkrishna Vidyut Ayurvedic Vs. C.C.E. (A)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT618Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an application for stay of collection of duty of Rs. 6,39,272/-. When the application for stay was taken up, it was thought that the appeal itself could be disposed of despite the objection of the DR. We have taken up the appeal itself after waiving the pre-deposit.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of ayurvedic medicaments. One of the products which they manufacture is "mahabhringraj tel". The product, it is claimed by the appellants, is ayurvedic medicine to cure various diseases namely irritation in eyes, sleeplessness, mental depression, etc. The active ingredients used in the product are hirde, beharde, avalkathi, nagar motha, kachara, makayacha pala and bramhicha pala which are know to possess the curing effect for various diseases. It is also claimed by the assessee appellants that the vegetable oil is also used merely as a medium for the active ingredients to reach the sculp to provide the necessary relief. The aforesaid herbs used as active ingredient...
Nimesh JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC665
1. Vide order dated 8.10.99 despatched on 2.11.99, the present applicant was directed to deposit Rs. 50,000 as pre-condition for hearing of the appeal. In the order, the Tribunal had indicated that the recovery for the remaining sum was not stayed and that the revenue was free to recover the amount using legal means. In this modification application, it has been maintained that in terms of Section 35F, the Tribunal is not competent to pass the order favouring both sides. On this ground, the prayer is made for modification of the order.2. Shri Biradar did not file any case law in support of the contentions made.3. We have carefully considered the submissions. Section 35F in its entirety reads as below: Deposit, pending appeal, of duty demanded or penalty levied--Where in any appeal under this Chapter, the decision or order appealed against relates to any duty demanded in respect of goods which are not under the control of Central Excise authorities or any penalty levied under this Act,...
Bhaichand Dyeing and Printing Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT596Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing Shri S.S. Srivastava, Advocate for the applicants and Shri K.L. Ramteke for the revenue, it appears that the issue having been decided by us earlier, the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal.2. The appellants operate under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. Initially their capacity was determined as per the number of chambers declared by them.Subsequently the Commissioner included the total rail length of galleries in calculating the number of chambers. This resulted in the addition of 0.35 chambers in the calculations giving to the redetermination of the annual capacity. The appeal has been filed against this re-determination.3. In the grounds of appeal as argued by Shri Srivastava, it is claimed that the galleries cannot be treated as chambers. It is also argued that the assessees were not given opportunity to be heard thereby urging the proceedings to be remanded.4. The same arguments had come up befor...
Forte Lubricants (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT587Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility of the appellant to import, without an import licence, additives for mixing with lubricants for improving the performance of internal combustion engines. In the order impugned in the appeal the Collector held the goods to be consumer goods import of which was prohibited without a licence.2. It is not in dispute that the goods in question are additives for lubricants or that they are to be used with lubricants for internal combustion engines to reduce carbon deposits and to otherwise improve the engine performance. The goods have been classified for the purposes of levy of Customs duty under the Heading 38.21 of the Tariff. The import policy at the relevant time was the one, which followed the Harmonised System of Nomenclature of the Customs Corporation Council (now the World Customs Organisation). The entries in the policy therefore, were except in some cases, identical with the entries in the Customs Tariff. It would...
Sesa Goa Limited Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC45
1. This is an appeal where the question involved is whether fabrication of centering involving cutting of steel plates and angles to the required size by labour and gas, fitting, welding and drilling of the members would come within the term "manufacture" or not.2. The appellant entered into an agreement M/s. U.P. State Bridge Corp.Ltd. services to make, out of the steel plates and angles supplied by M/s. U.P. State Bridge Corp. Ltd. free of cost, steel plates and angles of required shapes and perforations. The work according to the appellant was to be carried out by the appellant was to shape and perforate the steel angles and plates supplied by the U.P. State Bridge Corpn.'s requirements. These angles and plates when put into the required shapes and perforations were to be used by M/s. U.P. State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. to make various assemblies desired by them for support of the Mandovi Bridge Construction. The adjudicating authority after issuance of show cause notice had held that th...
Sewa Polymers Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT621Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These three applications relate to three appeals arising out of the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals). These are therefore being disposed of in the single order.2. In the original proceedings the duty amounting to Rs. 8,24,193/- was confirmed against the assessee unit and a penalty of Rs. 8,24,000/- was imposed. Penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- each was imposed upon Shri S.K.Gupta, partner and Pawan Kumar Agarwal, incharge of the assessee unit.This order was upheld by the Commissioner. These three appeals were thereafter filed. Prior to the original adjudication order being passed, the assessee unit had deposited a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only). The current of standing is of Rs. 1,48,193/- towards penalty.3. On hearing both sides and on considering the issues involved, we find that the appeals themselves could be taken up for disposal. We do so, after granting waiver of the balance amount of penalty of Rs. 1,48,193/-.4. The assessee unit manufactured "Microcellu...
Heilenlab Vs. Commissioner of Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC448
1. These two Appeals Nos. E/1818-R&V and E/2156-R&V/99-Mum have been filed by the appellants respectively against the decisions made by the Commissioner-ll, Central Excise, made in Order-in-Original No. V-Adj (CH-30) 15-221/92, 35 to 38/99 dated 29.4.1999 and Order-in-Original No. V-Adj (CH-30) 15-54/98,44-48/99 dated 18.5.1999 whereunder he ordered as follows:________________________________________________________Appeal No. Old No. Deposit of Penalty Duty________________________________________________________1818/99 35 to 38 19,01,965 3,00,000 (Appeal 1818/99)2156/99 44-48/99 1,33,893 2,00,000 6,11,322 (2156/99) 2. The appellant is a manufacturer of patent or proprietary medicaments falling under Chapter 30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. It is a small scale unit and it is duly registered to manufacture excisable goods under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules made thereunder. The appellant has been manufacturing her own patent or proprietary medicament...
Hebertsons Ltd. Vs. Kishore Rajaram Chhabria and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR14; 2000(3)BomCR617; (2000)2BOMLR269; 2000(3)MhLj550
Acts/Rules/Orders:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 1, Rule 10(2)Cases Referred:Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum, in A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 886;Jivanlal Damodardas v. Narayan, 73 Bom.L.R. 814;Amon v. Raphael Tuck and Sons Ltd., 1956(1) All.E.R. 273;Neyvely Lignite Corporation v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 1004;State Bank of India v. Podar Mills Ltd., 1993 Bank.J. (Bom.)185 : A.I.R. 1991 Bom. 370;State Bank of India v. Podar Mills Ltd., 1988 Bank.J. 296 (Bom.) : A.I.R. 1989 Bom. 215;H. M. Kasim v. South Indian Bank, A.I.R. 1991 Ker. 221;Ramesh Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, 1992(2) S.C.C. 524;Aliji Momonji & Co. v. Lalji Mavji, 1997(1) Bom.C.R. 464 : J.T. 1996(7) S.C. 53H. L. Gokhale, J.1. This is a chamber summons taken out by two companies seeking to join as party defendants in a suit which is filed by the plaintiff company against one K.R. Chhabria and 10 others. Mr. Kadam has appeared for the applicants in support of this chamber ...
Shri Arjun Tukaram Shetgaonkar and Others Vs. Smt. Urmila Vaikunth Des ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR406; 2000(3)MhLj830
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This revision application arises from order dated 18-1-1999 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 141/1992/II by the IInd Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa. By the impugned order, the trial Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent to bring them on record as the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff in the suit.2. The impugned order is sought to be challenged on the ground that the suit having been instituted by the Director of Company founded on cause of action based on the proceedings of the meeting of the Board of Directors and the resolution passed therein, to declare the same to be null and void, the right to sue in such suit does not survive on the death of the plaintiff who had filed the suit in her capacity as the Director of the Company.3. The contention of Shri S. Usgaonkar, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners is that the cause of action to institute the suit by theoriginal plaintiff arose in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »