Mumbai Court January 2001 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.
Mohan Shet Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC455
1. These two appeals are against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai. In that order he has ordered confiscation under Section 121 of the Act of currency of Rs. 75 lakhs seized from the possession of Mohan Shet, the appellant in appeal 403; imposed penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on Mohan Shet and of Rs. 2.5 lakhs on Sujatha Mohan Shet, his wife.2. Mohan Shet and his wife run a shop in the name of Dhanalaxmi Jewellers at Matunga, Mumbai. The proprietor on record is Sujatha Mohan Shet, his wife. The customs officers searched her house and the shop on 30th May, 1997. They found Rs. 75 lakhs in the house which they seized on the belief that it was sale proceeds of smuggled gold. They also found some documents stated to be incriminating. In the course of their investigation they recorded statements of Mohan Shet, Uday Ravankar and Naresh Thakkar who worked for him in his flat; Sujatha Shet, Kamalesh Bakashi Sharma, an accountant who maintains the accounts of Dhanalaxmi Je...
Hindustan Hosiery Industries Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: (2001)(97)LC459Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Six appeals are by M/s. Hindustan Hosiery Limited, the manufacturer, one by S. Chakravorty, General Manager and one by Anand Kejriwal, its Director, were argued before us today.2. The appeals are against the order of the Commissioner confirming the demand for duty on the crimped yarn produced by the manufacturer, imposing penalties on the manufacturer and its manager and director.3. The Commissioner's order adjudicated upon five notices issued to the manufacturer. All of them were issued on different dates in 1994 and 1995, and demanded duty on the yarn cleared by the manufacturer within the period not exceeding six months from the date of each notice.4. The representative of the appellant says that six appeals have been filed by the manufacturer because initially one appeal was filed and subsequently in accordance with the requirement of the registry that an appeal must be separately filed against each show cause notice, five appeals were again filed. It would then follow that one...
Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Isovolta (i) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT462Tri(Mum.)bai
1.In the order impugned in this appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon an earlier Appellate Order No. A-350/94, dated 17-10-1994 has held that the product manufactured by the respondent was not classifiable as an insulator under Heading 85.46 and set aside the demand for duty issued in this regard.2 The departmental representative cites the decision of the Tribunal (unreported) in Appeal E/711/95-Bom, which was filed by the department against an order Collector (Appeals) against the same respondent. In that decision the Tribunal has held the goods to be rightly classifiable under Heading 85.46.3. The contention of the representative of the respondent is that the goods, which consist of strips of mica laminated with resin, cannot be used as insulators in that form. It is only when the product is subjected to heat and pressure that it can function as an insulator. He has however, absolutely no evidence of any kind in support of his contention. It appears to us that the product a...
S. Chakravorty Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT797Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Six appeals are by M/s. Hindustan Hosiery Limited, the manufacturer, one by S. Chakravorty, General Manager and one by Anand Kejriwal, its Director, were argued before us today.2. The appeals are against the order of the Commissioner confirming the demand for duty on the crimped yarn produced by the manufacturer, imposing penalties on the manufacturer and its manager and director.3. The Commissioner's order adjudicated upon five notices issued to the manufacturer. All of them were issued on different dates in 1994 and 1995, and demanded duty on the yarn cleared by the manufacturer within the period not exceeding six months from the date of each notice.4. The representative of the appellant says that six appeals have been filed by the manufacturer because initially one appeal was filed and subsequently in accordance with the requirement of the registry that an appeal must be separately filed against each show cause notice five appeals were again filed. It would then follow that one ...
Ashok C Shah, Vinodkumar Jatia and Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC80
1. These three appeals are against the common order of the Collector of Customs, Bombay imposing penalties under Clause (a) of Section 112 of the Act inter alia of Rs. 10 lakhs on Ashok C. Shah, Rs. 10 lakhs on Vinodkumar Jatia and Rs. 5 lakhs on H.R Dagha & Company The order of the Collector confiscating the sale proceeds of the imported goods is not challenged by any of the appellant before us.2. The two bills of entries presented for warehousing the goods imported into Bombay showed the importer to be A.V. Impex, 22, Belvedere Road, Mazgaon, Bombay. The proprietor of this firm is Ashok C. Shah. The department found that the goods were correctly described as defective low carbon sheets in one case and coils in the other. It however, found that the value of the goods was misdeclared, being much lower than that ought to be. It also found that the import licence required for their clearance was not produced. It is not the case of anybody before us that the value was not misdeclared...
Crest Chemicals Vs. Commissioner or Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT573Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeal E/1669/97 is against the order of the Commissioner classifying the products manufactured by the appellant under Chapter 39 of the Tariff, instead of under Chapter 29 as claimed by the appellant.Appeal E/1670 is by B.S. Shetty, Director of S.M. Dyechem Limited, against penalty imposed on him. Appeal E/789/96 is against the order of the Commissioner holding that PEG 400 manufactured by the appellant was misdeclared as PEG 200 and therefore wrongly classified under heading 29.05 of the Tariff instead of correctly classifying under heading 39.07 and demanding duty on the score, and imposing penalty. Appeal E/846/96 is against penalty imposed under Rule 109A for the reason that the appellant knowingly dealt with goods manufactured and cleared without payment of duty by Vasudha Chemicals Limited.Vasudha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. CCE, the Tribunal had considered the classification of polyethylene glycol of various kinds, including the PEG 300, PEG 400, PEG 600 manufactured by...
Shri Sheriyar D. Foujdar Vs. Maharashtra State Textile Corporation Lim ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR310; 2001(2)BomCR756; (2001)2BOMLR269; [2001(90)FLR397]; (2001)ILLJ1207Bom
B. N. Srikrishna, J.1.This writ petition is brought by a worker Sheriyar D. Foujdar who finds himself without a remedy today for reasons of his own making.2. The Petitioner joined service as an employee in a textile undertaking known as Empress Mills, situated at Nagpur. and owned by the 2nd respondent Company. On 1.12.1979, the petitioner was transferred to Bombay (now known as Mumbai) to work in the head office of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent Company was in financial difficulties as a result of which winding up proceedings were taken up before this Court in Company Petition No. 183 of 1986. A winding up order was made and provisional liquidator was appointed on 14.5.1986. Upto 31.4.1985, although the petitioner was rendering service in the head office of the 2nd respondent Company at Bombay, he continued to be on the muster roll of the Empress Mills, Nagpur. With effect from 1.5.1985, even this situation was changed and the petitioner's name was transferred to and shown on ...
The Zoroastrian Radih Society Vs. Mrs. PervIn Nariman Jogina and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR675; 2001(2)BomCR621; (2001)2BOMLR399; 2001(3)MhLj450
ORDERH. L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Mr. Bharucha in support of these two Notice of Motions which are taken out by the plaintiff and Mr. Vashi appears for the defendants.2. The plaintiff is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and amongst others its alms and objects are to undertake, organize and perform beneficial acts In the Interest of Parsi Zoroastrians meaning thereby persons who are Parsi by birth being born of Parsi parents and also professing Zoroastrian religion. This plaintiff Society is a owner of land situated at Oshlwara, Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai known as 'Behram Baug'. Over the years, it has developed a residential colony meant for the Parsi Zoroastrfans on that land. The persons who are interested in staying In that residential colony had to be Parsi Zoroastrians as stated above and had to sign necessary declarations for that purpose.3. The case of the plaintiff-Society is that husband of defendant No. 1, one Narlman Gusta Jogina hailing from Agra,...
Shri Giridhar H. Pednekar Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR589; 2001(3)BomCR129; (2001)2BOMLR451; [2000(85)FLR825]; 2001(3)MhLj638
A. M. Khanndlkar, J.1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by respondent No. 4 and confirmed by respondent No. 5 in appeal, imposing punishment of stoppage of next increment for a period of one year with permanent effect, having held the petitioner guilty of alleged misconduct in a departmental enquiry.2. Only two points have been pressed on behalf of the petitioner. The first point raised is that the impugned order passed by the authority is vitiated due to failure to supply the Enquiry Officer's report to the petitioner and for not affording opportunity to the petitioner. The second point is that the impugned order of punishment was passed against the petitioner by the City Engineer and the appeal against the said order is provided before the Commissioner, but the appeal was heard and dismissed by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Zone II, by order dated 20.3.1987, who was not competent to deal with the same.3. Insofar a...
Raju Alias Rajesh S/O Natthuji Dongre Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)470; 2001(5)BomCR647
P.S. Brahme, J.1.Appellant Raju alias Rajesh Natthuji Dongre was tried alongwith other three accused for the offence under section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. for committing the murder of one Purushottam Marotrao Gohate in Sessions Trial No. 210 of 1992 in the Court of Third Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha and by the judgment and order dated 31st March, 1995, he was convicted of the offence under section 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for six months, while the other accused were acquitted. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.2. The prosecution case in brief is that deceased Purushottam was residing with his brother Yuwaraj (P.W. 6) and Sister Vanita (P.W. 7) at village Bori within the jurisdiction of Karanja Police Station. His marriage was to take place on 30th May, 1991, but he was done to death on 23-5-1991 in an incident that took plac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »