Mumbai Court September 2000 Judgments
C.C.E. and C. Vs. Garware Plastics and Polyester
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT777Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Garware Plastics and Polyester Pvt. Ltd. the respondent to this application manufactures in its factory at Valuj polyester chips. It cleared major part of the polyester chips without payment of duty under Notification 217/86 by following the procedure description in Chapter 10 of the Central Excise rules to its factory at Chikalthana. At this factory, chips were used in the manufacture of polyester filament which was cleared on payment of duty. For paying this duty, the assessee utilised Modvat credit taken by it at its factory at Valuj of the duty paid on the inputs, which was required to make the polyester chips.2. This being objected to by the department proceedings were initiated by issue of notice. Adjudicating on this notice, the Asstt. Collector disallowed the credit. The reason for disallowance was that the final product at Valuj factory was polyester chips, which it had cleared at nil rate of duty under Notification 217/86. Therefore the provisions of rule 57C, which prohi...
Tag this Judgment!Universal Cassettes and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC628
1. The appellant is recording master tapes supplied by Gramophone Company of India Limited (GCIL) and producing copies on the cassettes.Show Cause Notice dated 6.9.1994 was issued stating that the price charged by GCIL or Music India Limited (MIL) should be considered as normal price under Section 4 of the Act and final approval to be given to the price lists filed by the appellants. Differential duty was sought to be demanded thereafter. By the order dated 10.9.1985 the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand against which an appeal was filed before the Collector (Appeals), who by his order dated 6.1.1995 remanded the matter after following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ujjagar Prints' case . Against the 2. Shri DD Gwalani, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the order of the appellate authority is wrong, inasmuch as he has tried to approve the approach of the Assistant Collector in working out the price as per Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules. He states ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhor Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT790Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellants could take Modvat credit of the additional duty of customs paid on a consignment of polyvinyl chloride resins taken partly at its factory at Borivli and partly at its other factory at Bhor. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Collector has held that this is not permissible, and that in such situation credit can only be taken on the basis of subsidiary certificate.2. An identical issue had come up for considering earlier before the Tribunal. In its decision in STS Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE -1999 (111) E.L.T. 870, the Tribunal found that the appellant before it, a company which owned two factories, had taken credit of the additional duty paid on a imported consignment partly in one factory and partly in another.The bill of entry was filed in the name of registered office of the importer. The Tribunal was of the view that the entire amount of credit without objection could have been taken by either of the factory...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Nirma Chemical Works Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT809Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondents to this appeal availed Modvat credit of the duty paid on low density polyethylene. Notice was issued incorporating the department's view that credit could not be taken for the reason that goods were exempted from duty by notification and therefore what was paid by the manufacturer was not duty. The Asst. Collector confirmed the demand issued in this regard. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that duty had been paid by a person other than the appellant before us and had been treated duty by the department for long.Therefore the appellant before him was entitled to take credit of this duty. He therefore allowed this appeal. Hence this appeal by the department.Everest Converters v. CCE - 1995 (80) E.L.T. 91, which has been followed in a large number of decisions, it has been held that the fact of exemption of goods from duty does not mean that they are not liable to duty at all. The manufacturer can pay duty notwithstanding such exemption. It would then follow...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Felix Pinto and ors. Vs. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. and ors. an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR171; (2001)1BOMLR129; [2001]104CompCas707(Bom); (2000)4CompLJ302(Bom); 2001(1)MhLj512
F. I. Rebello, J.Heard forthwith.1. This Motion raises the following important question of law :-Can an injunction be dissolved at the instance of a party not a party to the suit or as a corollary, can the Court dissolve an injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff, after satisfying itself that the subject-matter of the dispute has to be protected, by dissolving the injunction and restricting the final reliefs sought for by the plaintiff, at the instance of a stranger, to whom it cannot finally issue any direction as a part of the decree, which could be executed.2. Plaintiffs as the owners of shares of defendant No. 1 Company, have filed the suit seeking various reliefs. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No. 1 was holding 2900 shares and plaintiff No. 2 was holding 1800 shares under Folio No. 148934. Out of these shares 1500 shares belonging to plaintiff No. 1 and 600 shares belonging to Defendant No. 2 had been transferred from the name of the plaintiffs to the defen...
Tag this Judgment!The Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd. and ors. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR159; 2001(2)BomCR370; (2001)1BOMLR137; 2001(2)MhLj392
ORDERF. I. Rebello, J. 1. Plaintiffs waive service. Heard forthwith. 2. Defendant No. 2, by the present Motion, has sought a relief to set aside the ex parte decree dated 4th December, 1998 and also for a relief to set aside the ex parte order dated 26.6.1998 whereby the suit was restored. A brief narration of facts is necessary for disposing off the Motion. 3. Defendant No. 2 is an undertaking of the Government of India and also registered under the Companies Act as a Limited Company. Defendant No. 2 exports and imports various metals and other precious goods. In the course of import and export during the year 1986-87 they had availed the services of the first Defendant's ship. The shipping charges were duly paid in accordance with the Arbitral Award sometime in the year 1989. 4. On 28th August, 2000 to the utter surprise of Defendant No. 2, the bailiff from the office of the Sheriff of Bombay visited the office of DefendantNo. 2 and attached Defendant No. 2's office premises as Maker...
Tag this Judgment!Govindrao Namdeorao Shirsat Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR543
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. Through the present petition, the petitioner is asking for the relief that the respondent-State be directed to amend Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for the purposes of brevity); by providing reservation of seats for various Backward Classes and Tribes, while making the appointments of Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors. In the alternative, he has asked for the relief in the nature of declaration of Rule 11 as unconstitutional and for striking down the same. He has also prayed the appointment of the respondent No. 2 (now deleted) as Government Pleader in the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, be cancelled. Along with the above-said reliefs, the petitioner also has asked for certain ancillary reliefs.2. To understand the case of the petitioner and to find out his entitlement for reliefs he has asked for, it would be necessary to narrate t...
Tag this Judgment!Nandeshwar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2000
Reported in: II(2002)DMC71
R.K. Batta, J.1. The appellant along with four others was tried for the murder of his wife Lata Nandeshwar Khobragade under Section 302 read with 34,1.P.C. as also for causing disappearance of evidence of murder under Section 201 read with 34,1.P.C.2. The prosecution had examined 11 witnesses to prove the said charges. The prosecution case in brief is that the appellant had, by twisting the neck of his wife, caused injuries to her as also injuries by beating, which resulted in her death. The deceased was clandestinely buried at night in the forest and on the next early morning, the appellant along with his son Roshan P.W. 2 who was an eye-witness of the incident, left the village. The incident in question is reported to have taken place on 24.10.1992 and the appellant was arrested on 8.11.1992 from the 'Hut' in the field of Kamal P.W. 7's grandfather.3. The Trial Court accepted the evidence of child witness P.W. 2 Roshan arid: other circumstances on record including the un-natural disp...
Tag this Judgment!Nandeshwar S/O Bhagwan Khobragade Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)84; 2001CriLJ4351
R.K. Batta, J.1. The appellant along with four others was tried for the murder of his wife Lata Nandeshwar Khobragade under Section 302 read with 34, I.P.C. as also for causing disappearance of evidence of murder under Section 201 read with 34, I.P.C.2. The prosecution had examined 11 witnesses to prove the said charges. The prosecution case in brief is that the appellant had, by twisting the neck of his wife, caused injuries to her as also injuries by beating, which resulted in her death. The deceased was clandestinely buried at night in the forest and on the next early morning, the appellant along with his son Roshan P.W. 2 who was an eye witness of the incident, left the village. The incident in question is reported to have taken place on 24-10-1992 and the appellant was arrested on 8-11-1992 from the 'Hut' in the field of Kamal P.W. 7's grandfather.3. The trial Court accepted the evidence of child witness P.W. 2 Roshan and other circumstances on record including the unnatural dispo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sunsip Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT203Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal seeks to challenge the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the value of the citric acid declared by the importer is to be accepted and there was no basis for its endorsement in the order of the Asstt. Collector impugned before him.2. The Collector (Appeals) found that while an invoice had been cited of another import of citric acid on the basis of which it was proposed to increase the value of the citric acid under consideration, the details of that importation had not been furnished.3. The appeal seeks to question this on the ground that both the importations were made more or less at the same time, is irrelevant. It is not as necessary that the importation is about same time, but it is also necessary that the goods with which the goods under assessment are sought to be compared must be identical or similar, if the Rule 5 and 6 of the Valuation Rules are applied. In the absence of any details as to the country of origin or the importation, the quantity,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »