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.
Gujarat State Export Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT632Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When these stay application was heard, it appeared that the point of law being settled, the main appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. Both sides agreeing, this was done after granting waiver of the pre-deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs imposed as penalty.2. We have heard Shri V.S. Nankani, Advocate for the applicant and Shri V.K. Choubey, ld. DR for the Revenue.3. The appellants imported Marble. The Commissioner in the impugned order did not accept the declared value as the correct value. He determined the price at US$ 263 PMT GIF as against the declared value of 83.5 US$. The order passed by him reads as under: "(i) I order to finalise the Bill of Entry No. F-10 dated 26.06.1995 taking price @ US$ 263 PMT GIF allowing benefit of Notification No. 204/92-Cus. dated 19.05.1992 to 932.08 MTS of the goods and to recover duty at appropriate rate on remaining 117.967 MTS of the goods. (ii) I impose penalty of Rs. 15,00,0007- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) under Section 112 (a) of the Customs...
Dossa Harjee and Co. and ors. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2000
Reported in: (2000)(92)LC622Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These four appeals are directed against Order-in-Original dated 22.1.1993 of the Collector of Central Excise.2. The appellants in Appeal No. E/4413/93-D are manufacturers of cotton yarn, man-made yarn and cotton/man-made fabrics falling under Chapters 52, 54 and 55 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.The appellant in Appeal No. E/4425/93-D is the Executive Director of the above company. The appellants in Appeal Nos. E/4374 & 4375/93-D are purchasers of the goods in question from the above manufacturing company.3. The principal issue involved in these appeals is whether the product of M/s. Simplex Mills Company Limited (Appellants in E/4413/93-D), which was described by them as "filter cloth" prior to May, 1989 and as "grey coarse canvas" thereafter, is classifiable under Chapter Heading 59.09 as claimed by the Department or under Chapter Heading 52.05 as claimed by the assessees.4. M/s. Simplex Mills cleared certain quantity of the product during the period 1...
Zakir HussaIn and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC219
D.D. Sinha, J. 1. Heard Shri Bhangde, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Gavai, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents and Shri Khapre, the learned counsel for the intervenor.2. Rule. Rule made returnable by consent of the parties.3. This writ petition is directed against the Notification dated 5th May, 2000 issued by the respondent No. 2 whereby plying of the Private Luxury Buses owned by petitioners are banned on the 3 roads mentioned in the said Notification.4. The petitioners have challenged the impugned Notification mainly on the following grounds :1. It is violative of Articles 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(g).2. It is mala fide in nature since the respondent No. 2 has deviated from the normal procedure of calling no objections from the concerned before issuing such Notification.3. It is issued without proper scrutiny of the material I.e. complaints available on record.4. Even if, it is presumed that the respondent No. 2 can put reasonable restrictions on the fundamen...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indo Nippon Chemical Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2000
Reported in: (2000)164CTR(Bom)78; [2000]245ITR384(Bom)
S. H. Kapadia. J.1. The issue relating to whether the value of the closing stock of the inputs, work-in-progress and finished goods must necessarily include the element for which Modvat credit is available has been the matter of considerable litigation. This point arises for determination in this appeal. Correspondingly, the question which also arises for determination in this appeal is : whether the A.O. was justified in invoking the proviso to section 145(1) of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the net method adopted by the assessee resulted in understatement of profits2. In this appeal, we are concerned with the Assessment Year 1989-90. The A.O. made an addition of Rs. 43,15.657/- on account of Modvat. The said addition was made on account of valuation of closing stock onthe basis of Modvat credit availed by the assessee during the year. In the assessee's profit and loss account, the opening and closing stock of raw material were shown net of Modvat credit. The purchases were sh...
Steelco Gujarat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT747Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals arise out of the same impugned order and are therefore being disposed of in this single order.2. We have heard Shri V. Sridharan, advocate, appearing along with Shri R. Nambirajan, advocate, for the appellants and Smt. Reena Arya, SDR, for the revenue.3. The appellants were engaged in the activity of conversion of imported hot rolled steel coils into cold rolled coils and strips. They also maintained a private bonded warehouse wherein imported HR coils were bonded and were ex-bonded therefrom from time to time on payment of duty. The appellants were availing of the Modvat facility. On a visit to the factory a number of irregularities were noticed by the officers. Seizure of unaccounted goods was made. Duty was demanded on goods surreptitiously manufactured and cleared. Duty on scrap cleared without payment of duty was demanded. It was alleged that certain goods were removed from the bond without payment of duty. Irregularities in the availment of Modvat were notic...
Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR207; 2001(3)BomCR825; [2001(90)FLR99]; (2002)IVLLJ278Bom
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Writ Petition under Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution takes exception to the Judgment passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur, dated October 4, 1990, in Complaint (ULPN) No. 228 of 1984.2. Briefly stated, the respondent/union filed the Complaint before the Industrial Court, complaining of unfair labour practice by the petitioners in terms of Section 28 read with Item 9 of Schedule - IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The main grievance in the said Complaint was that with the nationalisation of passenger road transport service, which commenced in the year 1956 in the State of Maharashtra, the services of the ex-employees of private operators were gradually taken over in stages by the petitioners. For this purpose, a settlement was arrived at between the petitioners and the employees of ex-operators and in one such settlement dated April 25, 1956, there h...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sadiq Futehally
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT815Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Each of these applications is filed for condoning the delay of four years in filing the applications under Section 129D(1) of the Act.2. Application attributes the delay to the fact that these applications are against the common order of the Collector, against which one appeal has already been filed on time.3. We find that it is settled by the decision of the Larger Bench in CCE v. Azo Dye Chem. & Ors. - 2000 (39) RLT 403 there is no provision for condonation of delay for an application filed under Section 35E(4) under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The provisions of Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 129E(4) of the Customs Act are in pari materia and the ratio of the decision would apply to this application. The Tribunal therefore has no powers to condone the delay.4. The applications are accordingly dismissed. The appeals are consequently dismissed as barred by limitation....
Goa Paints and Allied Products Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT489Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This bunch of appeals involves the same issue where the appellant is the same. These appeals are therefore being disposed of vide this common order.2. We have heard Shri J.J. Bhatt, Senior Counsel appearing along with Shri M.P. Baxi and Shri Siraj Salilkar, Advocates. The revenue's arguments were advanced by Shri Deepak Kumar, Senior Departmental Representative.3. The appellants manufactured paints. Certain paints were supplied by them to the Indian Navy free of duty in terms of notification 70/77-C.E., dated 7-5-1977 and entry at Sr. No. 3 of notification 64/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995. The first named notification exempted "goods supplied as stores for consumption on board a vessel of the Indian Navy". The entry in the second named notification was worded identically.4. Twelve show cause notices were issued during the period 13-9-1993 to 14-6-1995 covering the period September, 1993 to June, 1995. Eleven show cause notices were answerable to the jurisdictional Assistant Collector. T...
Morvi Vegetable Products Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT821Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Out of the total duty demanded of Rs. 16,61,822.44 a sum of Rs. 4,15,456/- has already been paid in cash. The duty has been demanded on the ground that the refund sanctioned to the applicant by extending the benefit of Notification 115/86 was incorrect.2. Notification 115/86 exempts vegetable product made from cottonseed oil or any of the oils specified in the table to the notification, the mixture of any of these oils with any other oil; from duty in excess of the prescribed limit. The applicant did not avail of the notification during the manufacture of the product and its claim for it by subsequently filing refund claim was accepted. By further proceedings these refund has been questioned on two grounds. The first is that the applicant could not comply with the explanation 4 to the notification, which provides for calculations of the exemption either on the basis of individual charge of oil or on a monthly basis. The second is on the ground that the percentage of the specified o...
Enron Oil and Gas India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT456Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We have heard the advocates for the applicants and the departmental representative on 20-6-2000 and listed the matter today for pronouncement.2. These applications are for waiver of deposit of penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Act of Rs. 50 lakhs on Enron Oil and Gas India Ltd. (Enron for short) and Rs. 10 lakhs on J.M. Baxi and Co. and redemption fine of Rs. 6 lakhs fixed in lieu of confiscation ordered of two vessels belonging to Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. 3. The Commissioner's order was concerned with liability to confiscation of a drilling rig imported by M/s. Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. (Sedco for short) which was initially imported into India in 1988 and subsequently used for off shore drilling in various designated area of Bombay High. These areas have been designated to be part of India by notification issued under the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones Act, 1976. The Commissioner has taken the vie...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »