Mumbai Court April 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.
Kashinath S/O. Rupchand Nawakhare Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3091
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Daga, learned Counsel for the appellant-accused and Shri Badar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.2. The instant Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12-7-1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 1994 whereby the present appellant-accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.3. It will be appropriate at this stage to consider few relevant facts of the prosecution case which have given rise to the prosecution of the present appellant-accused for the offence charged.As per the prosecution case, in the night of 13th Oct. 1993 at about 9.00 p.m. when all the family members of the deceased were at home, it is alleged that the appellant-accused started abusing womenfolk of the family of deceased Vishwanath in filthy language. Deceased Vishwanath, therefore, asked his wife Nirmala (PW 5)...
Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC317
1. On hearing Shri P.N. Kalra for the applicants and Shri K.L. Ramteke for the revenue on these four applications for waiver of deposit of total duty amounting to Rs. 37,27,399.52 and penalties amounting to Rs. 20,00,000, it appeared that at this stage itself the appeals could be taken up for disposal. This was done by granting waiver of the pre-deposit of the duties and penalties referred to above.2. The assessees manufactured "molten sulphur" among other commodities.The classification claimed by them was under heading 2505 of the CETA.Show cause notice dated 29.1.1998 was issued alleging that the appropriate classification for this commodity was under sub-heading 2804.90. It was alleged that the assessees' classification was deliberate with intent to evade payment of duty. Duty amounting to Rs. 22,76,428 was demanded for the extended period from September 1994 to January 1997. Allegations as to penalty were also made.3. Prior to this show cause notice other show cause notices were a...
Sputnik Stamping Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC589
1. The common question arises for consideration in these 27 appeals. It is whether each of the appellants was permitted to import second/defective cold roll grain oriented electrical steel sheets in terms of an import licence which was granted to them. The REP licenses which were issued were of two types. One of them permitted "items permissible in column 4 against product code no. 61-0010-00-010 appendix 17 of the import export policy 88-90/Vol.I/as amended subject to the conditions and restrictions laid down therein read with paragraph 204.1 of the import export policy 1990-93/volume 1. The second permitted "items allowed for import items allowed as per column 4 of appendix 17 against product code 610010-09 of import and export policy Vol. 1 of AM 88-91 amended upto date with face value restrictions and conditions stipulated therein." 2. The importations were made during the validity of import policy 1990-93. Paragraph 196 of this policy, one of the provisions of dealing with REP li...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs Vs. Bharat Handicrafts
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT586Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in which he has held that an action of the Asstt. Collector not qualifying (sic) a product in the absence of a show cause notice/ on the basis of the discussion at a personal hearing with regard to other issue covered by the notice, was not correct.2. The ground in the appeal, which the departmental representative emphasized, is that the matter having been discussed with the Asstt.Collector during the hearing, his action in proceeding with the classification is proper and legal. The departmental representative further emphasizes that according to law, action including penal action could have been taken by the appellant for clearing the goods without classification list and the Asstt. Commissioner has in fact exercised leniency towards the assessee by his action.3. The Asstt. Collector himself records that classification list has not been filed for chip dryer in question. If that is the case and this article has been clea...
Hindustan Organic Chemicals Vs. Commr. of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC34
1. On hearing Shri P.N. Kalra for the applicants and Shri K.L. Ramteke for the revenue on these four applications for waiver of deposit of total duty amounting to Rs. 37,27,399.52 and penalties amounting to Rs. 20,00,000, it appeared that at this stage itself the appeals could be taken up for disposal. This was done by granting waiver of the pre-deposit of the duties and penalties referred to above.2. The assessees manufactured "molten sulphur" among other commodities.The classification claimed by them was under heading 2505 of the CETA.Show cause notice dated 29.1.1998 was issued alleging that the appropriate classification for this commodity was under sub-heading 2804.90. It was alleged that the assessees' classification was deliberate with intent to evade payment of duty. Duty amounting to Rs. 22,76,428 was demanded for the extended period from September, 1994 to January, 1997. Allegations as to penalty were also made.3. Prior to this show cause notice other show cause notices were...
Bombay Gas Public Ltd. and ors. Vs. Bombay Gas Company Employees Union ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR230; [2000(86)FLR162]; (2000)IILLJ509Bom
Ranjana Desai, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 25-O and 25-R of the Maharashtra Act No. 3 of 1982. The petitioners also seek setting aside of the impugned order dated March 13, 1987 passed by the Industrial Tribunal Maharashtra and restoration of the order dated November 23, 1983, passed by Shri N.G. Kimmatkar, the then Minister of State for Labour, Government of Maharashtra. Alternatively it is prayed that it be declared that the permission for closure of the Coal Glass plant at Lalbaug, applied for by petitioner No. 1 the Bombay Gas Public Limited Company shall be deemed to have been granted with effect from November 16, 1983. Other consequential reliefs are also sought. The challenge to the constitutional validity of Sections 25-O & 25-R was not pressed and hence we need not address ourselves to it.2. We may begin with the facts -Petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company which used to carry on the business of producti...
Hind Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-2000
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC650
1. The appellants processed man-made fabrics. Their classification list effective from 25.4.90 bearing Sr. No. 87/90 was approved on 15.5.90.The benefit of Notification No. 61 /87 as amended by Notification No.46/90 was claimed by them. In a subsequent classification list effective from 7.11.90 which was approved on 14.12.90 also the benefit of the same notification was taken. 3 show cause notices were issued.The first was dated 14.9.90 covering the period 20.3.90 to 30.6.90. The second one was dated 8.10.90 covering the period July 90 Sept. 90. The third one was dated 23.1.91 covering the period October, 90 to December, 90. The allegations made were identical. It was stated that the benefit of the Notification was not available due to changes in the Tariff with effect from 20.3.90 whereby all the sub-headings relating to several headings including heading 54 were removed from the schedule to the Additional Duties of Central Excise Act, 1985. The basis for the allegation was that the ...
Sopher and Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-2000
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT481Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These appeals are against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) classifying data switches under Heading 84.71 of the Central Excise Tariff.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented. We have read the submissions in the memorandum of appeal and heard the departmental representative.3. In the common order, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the data switches were used to connect a number of personal computers to peripheral devices, printers etc. These switches store the data from the central processing units of the computers so that it can be used by any one of a number of peripheral devices to which they are connected so as to speed up operations and expand the total capability. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon Note 5(b) to Chapter 84 in support of his view that these are to be classified as automatic data processing machines under Heading 84.71. He finds that these switches meet the two requirements in this note, that they are connectible to the central processing ...
Joaquim Alemao and 4 ors. Vs. Commr. of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC329
1. On 4.2.2000 the Tribunal issued an order bearing No.C-II/362/2000-WZB dated 4.2.2000 declining permission to Shri M.J.Sethna, learned senior counsel to file two affidavits the details of which were recorded in that order. On the case file the record was made that the case would be posted for further hearing on 6/7th April, 2000 when Shri Sethna would advance further arguments, subject to the instructions of the respondent Commissioner. Today Shri Sethna, learned Senior Counsel continued his arguments. At one stage he came to deal with the point of quantification of the gold allegedly smuggled citing from paragraph 128 of the impugned order. At this stage he submitted that the Government had filed a writ petition bearing No. 11192/ 2000 on 31.3.2000 challenging the Tribunal's cited order dated 4.2.2000. He placed on record a copy. The prayer made before the High Court reads as under: (a) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari...
Gaurihar Baburao Batane and ors. Vs. Ashok Banudas Gajare and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-2000
Reported in: (2001)1BOMLR609; 2000(4)MhLj667
Vijay Daga, J.1. The writ petition Is filed at the instance of original plaintiff/decree holder and assignee of the plaintiff/decree holder and same Is directed against the order dated 26th March. 1997 passed below Exhibits 33 and 50 and order dated 29th August, 1997 passed below Exhibit 73. Both the orders are passed In Regular Darkhast No. 126 of 1996, by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karad upholding the contention of the objections respondent No. 1 in writ petition.2. The objections were filed by the objections respondent No. 1, objector/third party to the execution of the decree. The said objections` were treated as objections under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('C.P.C.' for short), marked Exh. 33.3. The application for amendment (Exh. 50) was also moved by respondent No. 1 to join him as party to the said execution proceedings, so as to amend the execution application marked as Exh. 33, which was subsequently renumbered as Miscellaneous Civil Application No....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »