Mumbai Court January 2001 Judgments
Usha Intercontinental (India) Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: (2001)(96)LC294Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the duty demand of Rs. 18,92,881.82 made on the appellant under the impugned order in Original No.9/97/CAC/CC-I dated 27.1.1997 of the Commissioner of Customs-I, New Customs House, Mumbai.2. Brief facts relevant to the dispute are that the appellant is a merchant exporter. The imported materials under DEEC scheme. The materials so imported were cleared without payment of customs duty as provided under Notification No. 159/90-Cus dated 30.3.1990. The goods were imported as replenishment in view of exports already undertaken and the appellants were not entitled to sell the goods in view of the provisions contained in para 250(2) of Exim Policy. Under the policy, if the exported goods had availed themselves of modvat facility in respect of inputs used in their production, the goods imported by way of replenishment could not be sold. The appellants had also bound themselves to the Customs Authorities to this effect. Being merchant exporters, the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Clad Material System
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT249Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Collector (Appeals) has held that galvanising or electro- plating of wires and strips, which the respondent does amount to manufacture so as to result in the emergence of a new and different commodity.2. The Collector (Appeals) has been guided by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gujarat Steel Tubes v. State of Kerala - 1989 (42) E.L.T. 513 that galvanising of tubes is not a process of manufacture and it does not change the essential characteristic of pipes or tubes, altering neither their structure nor their function.3. The appeal questions this finding on the ground that galvanising and electroplating are different process and the ratio of the Supreme Court's judgment should not apply to a case of electroplating.4. We are unable to agree. The processes are no doubt quite different.However, the net result is the same, depositing of metal on a sheet or article of metal. In the case of galvanising the metal is deposited by dipping the art...
Tag this Judgment!Sunheri International Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (G)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT480Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has ordered adjustment of fine of Rs. 1.00 lakh in lieu of confiscation of goods already having been exported and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant on the ground that the goods which were exported by it were liable to confiscation under Clauses (d) and (i) of Section 113 of the Act.2. The advocate for the appellant does not deny that the proportion of synthetic fibre in the exported yarn was not in accordance with the declaration which was filed. He however points out that the export of the goods were not prohibited and not made under a claim for drawback.The provisions of Clauses (d) and (i) of Section 113 of the Act therefore will not be attracted.3. The departmental representative emphasises that the object was to get undue benefit under the DEEC scheme. That may be so. Confiscation of goods cannot however be made except in accordance with law. Since the export of the goods is not prohibited Clause (d) of Se...
Tag this Judgment!J. Kapur Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Civil A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Bom193; 2001(2)BomCR304; (2001)2BOMLR327; 2001(3)MhLj688
ORDERB. P. Singh, C. J.1. The Petitioner herein, who claims to be a frequent air traveller, travelling by Indian Airlines and Air India, has filed the instant Writ Petition in public interest with a view to bring to the notice of this Court the plight of the air travellers who are exposed to grave risks on account of flying of ageing aircraft which have outlived their design economic life by the Indian Airlines, Respondent No. 4 and the Air India. Respondent No. 5, which are Government Companies and Public Sector Undertakings. He has prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, viz., the Union of India, the Director General of Civil Aviation and the Director, Airworthiness. In the office of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, to discharge the statutory duties invested in them under the provisions of the Aircraft Act, 1934 and the Aircraft Rules. 1937 in respect of safety and airworthiness of the aircr...
Tag this Judgment!The Bank of Tokyo-mitsubishi Ltd. Vs. M/S. Chembra Estates and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR10; 2001(1)BomCR842; (2001)2BOMLR501; [2001]105CompCas52(Bom)
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This Reference to a larger Bench has been made to resolve the conflict of opinion between two learned Single Judges of this Court in a matter arising under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act. 1993. The facts pertaining to the Chamber Summons are not very material for the determination of the controversy before us. However, in order to understand the controversy, we have formulated the following issues, on'which there appears to be conflict, and which need resolution:-'(a) Whether this Court would continue to have jurisdiction to Issue directions to the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, after the coming into force of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, even in cases where the Court Receiver, High Court, was appointed as Receiver in Suits failing within the purview of Section 17 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act. 1993? (b) Whether, in such matters. Court Receiver...
Tag this Judgment!Sbi Home Finance Limited Vs. Credential Finance Limited and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Bom179; 2001(2)ALLMR1
B. N. Srikrishna, J.1. This Appeal is directed against an order of the learned Single Judge (Rebello, J.) dated 3rd August, 2000 made in Notice of Motion No. 908 of 2000 dismissing the Notice of Motion as against the second Respondent and vacating the ad-Interim injunction orders as against the third and the fourth Respondents. The learned Single Judge has narrated the facts in detail in the order and. therefore, it is not necessary to reproduce the facts in extenso. However, some of the salient facts required for decision of the Appeal may be recounted.2. There is an agreement for bill discounting on certain terms and conditions between the Appellant-original Plaintiff and the first Respondent (original first Defendant) under which the Plaintiff had extended certain facilities to the first Respondent. These were guaranteed by the second Respondent (original second Defendant). The Appellant, therefore, brought a Money Suit for recovery of Rs. 13,42,00,023/- against the first and second...
Tag this Judgment!Dyes and Chemical Workers Union Vs. Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR638]; (2001)ILLJ1252Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J. 1. By an order made on November 18, 2000, the Hon'ble Chief Justice has referred to this Division Bench for resolution of a conflict of opinion between two learned single Judges.2. The circumstances under which the conflict has arisen are as under:'While deciding Writ Petition No. 4527 of 2000 one of the learned single Judges (KOCHAR, J.) took the view that for the purpose of application of Section 25-K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), the test to be applied is whether on an average per working day for the preceding twelve months 100 'workmen' as defined in Section 2(s) of the said Act were employed in the industrial establishment. In this view of the matter, the learned single Judge expressed an opinion that employees of contractors, mathadi workmen and workmen of other associate industrial establishments with which there was no functional integrality were not liable to be included for the purpose of computing the av...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Daulat Mohade Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1109; 2001(5)BomCR674
B.P. Singh, C.J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 294 of 1995 has been preferred by accused No. 1, Ravi Daulat Mohade, against his conviction by the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 474 of 1991, while Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 1995 has been preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the acquittal of co-accused, Deepak Shankar Somawanshi. Both the appeals have been heard together, and we now dispose them of by a common judgment. 2. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 294 of 1995, Ravi Daulat Mohade (hereinafter referred to as 'accused Ravi'), and accused No. 2, Deepak Shankar Somawanshi Respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'accused Deepak'), were put up for trial before the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 474 of 1991 charged of the offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. By his judgment and order dated 29th March, 1995, the Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay found...
Tag this Judgment!Rukhaminabai Vithalrao Jogdand Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)955; 2001CriLJ2109
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. On a complaint filed by Geeta Bharat Badar, charge sheet was filed against three accused, who are facing trial under Sections 498-A and 313, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said trial, Examination in Chief and Cross-examination partly of the complainant Geeta Bharat Badar was recorded and on the basis of the same, a notice was issued to the present applicant under Section 319, Criminal Procedure Code. The present applicant field reply raising preliminary objection that on the basis of incomplete examination of complainant Geeta Bharat Badar, action could not be taken under Section 319, Criminal Proceedure Code. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on Gulam Mondal v. Nazam Hossain , and Sannarevanappa Bharamajappa Kalal alias Kuncharkar v. State of Karnataka : ILR1990KAR1205 . It was also urged in the said reply that the incident had taken place about seven years ago and the Admission Register as well as records are required to b...
Tag this Judgment!Neon Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC224
This is an application for stay of collection of duty of Rs. 7,74,332 and the penalty of Rs. 75,000. The question involved is about claiming of the modvat in respect of the inputs procured from 100% EOU (E.O.unit). The appellate authority and the adjudicating authority had held credit is on the basis of duty is paid by the EOU. Which should be the basis of calculation in respect of Modvat in terms of Section 12 of the Customs Act? This is because the supplier of the raw material was an EOU. The matter is not res integra. Larger Bench decision in the case of Vikram lspat v. Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai 2000 (20) ELT 800 (Tribunal-LB) has been given in favour of the assessee where the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Tribunal in its second judgment in the case of Commissioner v. Weston Electronics Ltd. 1997 (95) ELT 624. In view thereof there is a strong prima facie case in favour of the appellants. I therefore waive payment of the duty and penalty imposed and stay the r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »