Mumbai Court August 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.
Devidas Bajirao Lakhade Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-2000
Reported in: 2001(5)BomCR34
R.K. Batta, J.1. The appellant was tried for murder of Vithalrao Khaire under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution had examined eight witnesses in support of the said charge. The trial Court convicted the appellant of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is subject matter of challenge in this appeal.2. According to the prosecution case, the incident was witnessed by one Mahadeo (P.W. 5) and a deaf and dumb girl. The incident took place on 4-5-1992. The statement of P.W. 5 Mahadeo was recorded on 14-5-1992. The statement of deaf and dumb witness was recorded on 1-8-1992 before the panchas, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 who are examined in the Court. The deaf and dumb witness and the Head Master who had interpreted the gestures made by the deaf and dumb witness on the strength of which the statement of the said witness was recorded, had not been examined by th...
Gulab Babusaheb Bargiri Vs. Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Elec ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR390
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides.2. This Civil Revision arises out of the order passed by the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Ichalkaranji dated 12-2-1999 whereby the respondents were impleaded on their own accord. The respondent has contended before the Court that though the reliefs sought in the suit being related to electricity connection only against the State Electricity Board, the plaintiff traced out his right that emanates from disconnection by the Electricity Board of the connections which the plaintiff was using. In other words, the Electricity Board had disconnected the electric connection belonging to the respondents, who were newly impleaded.3. Plaintiff has tried to make out a case in the plaint that his cause of action arises from the act of disconnection of electricity connection which made the plaintiff to apply for fresh electric connection independently. In this context, the respondent approached the ...
Mahavir Exports Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (E.P.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT635Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The dispute in this case is of valuation of Men's Exclusive Woven Trousers. The value per piece declared in the export document under claim for drawback was Rs. 168.89. The Customs conducted an investigation on the suspicion of over-valuation. The Customs were of the opinion that similar garments were avilable for Rs. 100/-. The statement of the proprietor of the exporter unit was recorded. He was asked about the costing of the trousers. In his statement dated 29-10-1999, he gave the cost of material and labour at Rs. 108.50. This included the interest and risk factor but not the profit. He admitted that if cash is paid for the fabrics, then the price would have reduced from 68.82 to Rs. 49.50 per piece of 1.1 meter. He categorically denied the allegation of over-invoicing. In the second statement recorded on 01.11.1999 also he maintained his stand and stated that negotiated price was as was shown on the documents. He was shown a sample which was much cheaper. On examination he poi...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. West Coast Diesels Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT103Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the order impugned in this appeal by the department the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the respondent was entitled to affix the brand name 'Alfa', 'Delta' and 'Kangaroo' which had been assigned to it by M/s. Economic Traders and M/s. Economic Traders (Gujarat) Ltd. He overruled the view of the Joint Commissioner that the two deed of assignments where these brand names were assigned to the respondents are not valid because the assignment have not been registered with Trade Mark Registry in accordance with the provisions of Section 45 of Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958. He also did not accept the view that the assignment of the brand name 'kangaroo' was made after the partnership firm Economic Traders had been dissolved and therefore not valid. He therefore held that the respondent was entitled to avail of benefit under notification 1/93.2. After hearing the departmental representative, we are unable to see justification for any interference with either of these conclusion.S...
Pranlal B. Timbedia Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT162Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is against the order of the Collector imposing a composite penalty on the appellant under Sections 112 and 114 of the Act of Rs. 10 lakhs. In his order the Collector finds that the appellant had conspired with other persons to export to London a consignment of hashish concealed in consignment of mango chutney. The Collector says that the appellant and other conspirators went to Gamdevi in Gujarat to arrange to buy the mango chutney. He records the presence of appellant in meeting of some of the other conspirators where they discussed the arrangement for export of hashish. He says that the appellant received from one person and handed over to another the keys of a godown in which the hashish had been stored.2. It is the contention of the advocate for the appellant that none of these acts amounts to an attempt to export the hashish. The appellant's acts fall short of the attempt, and could not be labelled preparation.It is only an attempt to export which renders the goods ...
Apoorva Advertising and Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: (2006)STR170
1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming imposition of penalty on the appellant of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. I have read the memorandum of appeal and heard the departmental representative.3. The penalty has been imposed on the appellant for the reason that it did not file the return in respect of the service tax payable on advertising services rendered by it. The appellant does not deny the delay in filing the return. The delay attributes it to the fact that it discontinued its business from 1-4-1997. The return has not been filed for the quarter ending December, 1996. It contends that the service tax for the period from November, 1996 till March, 1997 has been paid.4. The adjudicating authority or the appellate authority did not dispute the payment of the tax within the time specified by law or the correct amount of such tax. The failure to file the return woul...
Chowhan Exports Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT833Tri(Mum.)bai
2. After having read the stay application, we find that the appeal itself can be decided and therefore proceed to do so after waiving deposit of the penalty imposed on the applicant.3. The appellants M/s. Chowhan Exports Limited applied for and was granted an advance licence, the goods imported under which would be entitled to the benefit of Notification 203/92 subject to the conditions in that notification being fulfilled. It transferred this licence. There is no finding or allegation that such transfer was not in accordance with law, the ultimate recipient of the licence being M/s. Sunil Chemical Industries. In the order impugned in this appeal the Commissioner has held that goods made by M/s. Sunil Industries would not be entitled to the benefit of Notification 203/92 for the reason that Modvat credit has been availed in the manufacture of exported goods. He has imposed a penalty under section 114A of the Act on M/s. Chowhan Exports Limited. It is the legality of this penalty that ...
Dhiren Chemical Industries Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT189Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant was a manufacturer of organic surface active agent and preparations in the form of emulsifiers made out of such surface active agents. Notification 101/66 exempted from payment of duty surface active preparations made out of organic surface active agents on which duty has been paid. The appellant filed, between 1986 and 1991 fourteen classification lists, showing both kinds of products and claiming the benefit of Notification 101/66 for the emulsifiers. Each of these classifications was approved. In 1991 the department commenced investigation into clearance of emulsifiers. These investigations resulted into issue of notice of 1-8-1991 demanding duty on emulsifiers cleared between 1st July 1986 and 30th June 199 (sic). The notice alleges that the goods cleared by the appellant as emulsifier were not in fact surface active preparations but only surface active agents to which the benefit of Notification 101/66 would not be available. The notice mainly relied upon a repor...
Kiran Sagarmal JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT825Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 3.00 lacs imposed on the applicant.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) finds that the applicant was concerned with the smuggling of 12 gold bars which he gave to Vithal Chilka for carriage during which Chilka was intercepted by police and the gold seized.3. The contention of the advocate for the applicant, that since the gold was seized by the police, it would not have been seized under the reasonable belief that it was smuggled and hence the provisions of Section 123 of the Act will not be available to the department, it then has to be proved that the gold was smuggled, has to be accepted at this stage. The seizure was made by Mumbai city police on whom no powers under the Customs Act are conferred. The decision of the Tribunal in K.Beeman v. CC, 1987 (29) E.L.T. 128 holding that Section 123 of the Act will not apply to the gold seized by the police for which judgments of the Gujarat High Court and Madras High Court are cited wo...
Rajendra Sanghvi Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT638Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The facts leading to filing of the four appeals briefly are as follows. Two bills of entry were filed in the Air Cargo Complex in February, 1994 for consignment, which has arrived from Hong Kong. The bills of entry were filed by M/s. Bharat Water Works. Rajendra Sanghvi (appeal C7455/95) was a partner at the relevant time of this firm. The bills of entry declared the goods to be "plastic moulded parts".Examination of the goods showed them to consist of parts of wrist watches -back, ring, washer, screw, dials, hands etc. In the course of enquiries by the department, five statements of Rajendra Sanghvi were recorded. Rajendra Sanghvi said that his business was the manufacture of photo conductive plate, assembly of photographic equipments, apparatus and accessories thereof. He said that he was introduced to Anil Shah by his (Sanghvi) cousin, Navin Vora, a share broker. Anil Shah told Sanghvi that he was to import parts of watches in the pretext of processing for stamping transfer foil...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »