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.
Arpit S/O Prakash Nimje Vs. the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scru ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Bom59; 2001(2)BomCR203
ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forwith. Heard both sides. 2. Without going into the merits of the contentions in detailed with regard to all the documents and the issues raised in the writ petition, I am of the view that the writ petition should succeed on the sole ground that when the petitioner had relied on the documents at Sr. Nos. 30 and 31, as pertaining to his great-great-grand-father, which relate back to 1913 and 1916, it was inappropriate for the Scrutiny Committee to lightly brush aside the said documents on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that the said document are in respect of his blood relative especially when the petitioner had substantiated his case by giving genealogy to indicate that said Dhondba was related to him. Admittedly, no finding has been recorded that the said documents, or for that matter the genealogy relied upon by the petitioner, are not geneuine. Moreover, no concrete evidence is placed on record to re...
Richardson and Cruddas (1972) Ltd. Vs. Association of Engineering Work ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR723; [2000(87)FLR573]; (2001)IIILLJ698Bom
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for final hearing.2. The Petition is directed against an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal dated October 29, 1999 in a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.3. The First Respondent represented the interest of 45 workers who had been engaged as temporary hands or long years, since 1979, 1980 and 1981 for different batches of workmen. The Petitioner before the Court was originally a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The management of the Company was taken over by the Government of India under the Richardson Cruddas (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1972. Since take over, the Company and its undertakings are being conducted by the Central Government through the instrumentality of the Bharat Yantra Nigam Limited, a Government of India undertaking under the Ministry of Industries, Department of Heavy Industries. B...
Ramesh Son of Pandhari Alone and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-2000
Reported in: 2001(5)BomCR426
R.K. Batta, J. 1. Both these appeals arise out of the same judgment dated 24-10-1994 by which the appellants have been convicted for the murder of Satyawan under section 302 read with section 34 of I.P.C. In addition two of the appellants have also been sentenced under section 323 read with section 34 of I.P.C. for assault on P.W. 1 Ganga. The appellants have challenged their conviction in these appeals.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21-5-1990 deceased Satyawan and his family members were invited at the house of Digambar Wani for meals. While deceased Satyawan was coming towards the house of Digambar Wani, his legs and clothes were entangled in barbed wire near the cattle shed of the accused. At this state some altercation took place between the deceased and Nandu Bahadur, servant of the accused. It appears that the deceased Satyawan, returned back to his house and was once again coming from his house towards the house of Digambar Wani, when the accused Charandas and Vil...
D. Balkrishna and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT631Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing Shri H.R. Shetty, advocate, on the stay application and on hearing Shri KM. Patwari, JDR, for the revenue, it appeared to us that on a short point, the appeal itselt could be disposed of. We do so by granting waiver of pre-deposit of the differential duty confirmed not covered by the revenue deposit.2. The appellants imported Gambier in 10 M.T. lots and declared value of 1700 US$ PMT in five separate consignments. The Assistant Commissioner after giving due notice and after hearing the importers, enhanced the price to 2500 US$ PMT in two consignments and 2500 US$ PMT in the remaining consignment confirming in the process demand to the extent of Rs. 1,93,989/-. The importers filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of their submissions as follows :- "1 have carefully gone through the records of the case and heard the appellant. I observe that the Group has considered the value for assessment purposes on the basis of contemporary import and accordingly less cha...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Special Prints Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT813Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I passed three orders all dated 9-2-1998 against the respondents M/s. Praful Silk Factory later known as M/s. Special Prints Ltd., wherein he confirmed the demands of interest in the case of warehoused goods which were cleared subsequent to the permissible limits laid down under the Customs Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his single order allowed the importers claim and allowed the appeals. Against this judgment the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I directed an appeal to be filed vide an authorisation dated 19-4-1999 utilising his powers under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal was accordingly filed on 22-4-1999 in form EA3 under Rule 216(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Registry pointed out the defects at the time of filing of the appeal as well as in several later communications. On 5-10-1999 the appeal memorandum was filed in form CA3 in terms of Rule 6(1) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules...
Mafatlal Fine Spg. and Mfg. Co. Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT368Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants were not present. On hearing Shri K.M. Patwari for the Revenue this appeal was taken up for disposal.2. The appellants imported an empty tank container for filling up of Mafron Gas for export. At about that time, there was some difficulty in such gas to be imported in the U.S.A. The supplier therefore desired return of the empty container. The Department held that the import of the container was prohibited under the Exim Policy. The Commissioner in the impugned order confiscated the tanker container but allowed the reshipment on fine of Rs. 70,000/-. The appeal is against this order.3. I find that durable containers were importable free of duty in terms of Notification No. 104/94-Cus. dated 16-3-1994. In all Custom Houses, the container cell maintains records to ensure that in terms of this notification, the containers are re-exported within six months. Since the same container is repeatedly imported they are all old and used containers. Such containers imported for ...
impex Syndicate Vs. Collr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC187
1. The dispute in this case is whether the sewing machine motors imported by the present appellants were "consumer goods" in terms of the Exim Policy then in effect. The mind of the Collector is reflected in the following extract of his order: The dispute however is whether these motors are domestic or consumer items or parts thereof or whether they are industrial items. The learned advocate has not produced any evidence nor the importers have shown any literature or any other evidence which could justify treating the items as other than domestic items. The fact that they operate on a wattage of 90 is a clear indication that they are meant for domestic use. The description in the bill of entry indicates these machines as meant for sewing machines. Therefore, they are part of the domestic items. The cartons that they are meant for sewing machines. The invoice also describes them as domestic motors. These facts were not disputed before me at the time of hearing. Therefore, the literatur...
Savalle Chemi Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT93Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants were not present having asked for disposal on merits.I have heard Mrs. Reena Arya, SDR, for the Revenue.2. The appellants took Modvat credit on the strength of certain gate passes. At the time of assessment of the RT 12 returns during the months of September, 1990 and November, 1990, it was found that the gate passes were issued by M/s. Shreeram Tubes Pvt. Ltd., describing the goods as copper tubes. The consignee was M/s. Bright Metals. The consignee processed these goods converting them from copper tubes to copper pipes. The pipes along with the resultant scrap were sent to the present appellant by M/s. Bright Metals along with the gate passes of M/s. Shreeram Tubes duly endorsed in the name of the present appellants. M/s. Bright Metals also sent their own delivery challans.For such conversion the appellants had not taken permission under Rule 57F(2) of the Rules. Both the original and the appellate authorities held the credit to be wrongly taken on the gate passes ...
Hmtd Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT749Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These three appeals and one cross objection relate to the proceeding arising out of the same show cause notice. These are, therefore, being disposed of together vide this single order.2. M/s. HMTD Engineering P. Ltd. were manufacturing excisable goods claiming the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. The goods cleared by them without payment of duty included Evaporating and Condensing units classifiable under sub-heading 8415 and 8419 which products were excluded from the benefit of the said notification. These goods when cleared during the period 1991-92 in fact were liable to payment of duty. Thus duty was quantified at Rs. 3,12,998.40.3. Such coils were made by M/s. Gopi Electronics during the year 1992-93. These goods were supplied by them to M/s. H.M.T.D. Engineering who in turn sold to the Railways. At the material time Notification No.75/87 was in existence. This Notification gave conditional exemption to these goods when manufactured by the SSI unit. The prohibitions sti...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Asian Dyes Intermediates
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT132Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals from the Revenue involved identical facts and are therefore taken up together for disposal.2. Both respondents manufactured excisable goods and had accumulated Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs. Since their production was exported they were eligible for grant of cash refund to the extent of unusable credit. On the applications being made the Jurisdictional Assistant Collector granted refund. In both cases the sanction order was dt. 13-8-98. Subsequently the amounts were paid. On 3-1-1989 show cause notices were issued alleging that in both cases the refund was erroneously paid. It was claimed that the credit had been taken by the respondents before filing due declarations under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It was alleged that refund had been paid on the basis of credit which was not due and was therefore recoverable.The Assistant Collector in identical orders confirmed the recovery.Both assessees then filed appeals. In the common impugned ord...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »