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.
Vithal Ramchandra Devkhar and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR872; 2001(2)BomCR760
V.K. Barde, J.1. The two petitioners have filed this petition as public interest litigation. Petitioner No. 1 was the Member of the Rahuri Municipal Council-Respondent No. 4 at the relevant time. He was a nominated independent Member of the Municipal Council. While petitioner No. 2 was the permanent resident of Rahuri, a town situated in Ahmednagar district.2. The petitioners have contended that respondent No. 3 Shri L.R. Bihani who has expired during the pendency of the writ petition (and now his Legal Representatives are brought on record) was running cinema theatre, known as Usha Chitra Mandir, in CTS No. 417 of Rahuri. It was a quasi permanent building.3. The petitioners have contended that the development plan of Rahuri under the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the M.R.T.P. Act') was sanctioned on 17th September, 1976, was published under the Government Notification, Urban Development and Public Health Department, and the same came in f...
Dayanand Ramahaskutti S/O. Ramahaskutti Vs. State (Through Public Pros ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)BomCR902
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Irshad Agha, Counsel for the applicant and Ms. Winnie Coutinho, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent.2. The Revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th January, 2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Margao in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1997 whereby the appeal preferred by the present applicant/accused was dismissed.3. The facts giving rise to the prosecution of the accused are as follows :-5-1996, at about 2.30 a.m., at Bhatpal, the accused was driving vehicle (Tata pickup) on a public road. He gave dash to the stones fixed by the side of the road and the pickup van fell down in the river and turned turtle, thereby causing injuries to Devidas Kurle, who succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The injuries were also caused to Namdev Vithal Piranker, who was also one of the occupants of the pickup van. The Canacona Police Station filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 279, 337 and 3...
Shreno Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2001
Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC428
1. The above appellant has preferred this appeal against the above captioned impugned order dated 16.3.95 praying for quashing and setting aside the same.Brief facts of the case are that Appellant manufactures Nuclear Reactor, Boilers, Machinery and Mechanical appliances and parts, falling under Chapter 84 of Tariff Act, holding Central Excise Licensee No. AR/W/DN/III/6/SI/86. Appellant had applied for permission under Rule 56B of Central Excise Rules to remove semi-finished "Extruded Muminium Tubes" for the process of redrawing of the tubes as per specification, which A/as purchased from M/s. Bance Products Ltd., Baroda, which was rejected by Collector In the ground that it continues to be Aluminium tubes, before and even after redrawing process, and described as finished product and no semi-finished products requiring some process for finished goods. Appellant was well aware that it was an Excisable finished joods received under GPI after due payment of Central Excise duty, falling ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Esdee Paints
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2001
Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT716Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the 'bituminous black' manufactured by M/s. Esdee Paints, the respondents. The chemical test by the department found it to be a "paste of bituminous material". According to the respondent it consists of bitumen solvent.2. The Assistant Collector has classified the product under heading 3210.90 as a paint or varnish. He was guided by the fact that the substance was used to paint the chassis of motor vehicles. He found that the solvent evaporates on application, leaving behind a protective surface. He said that the material was quite different from mixtures used for road surfacing and for the similar use, and therefore would not be classifiable with them under heading 27.15. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that there is nothing in the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System of Nomenclature to exclude the classification of the product under heading 27.15, and accepted the manufacturer's claim for suc...
Ravindra Kantilal Desai Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2001
Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC476
1. This appeal is filed by the above appellant, against the above captioned order dated 19-2-1999 praying for Quashing and setting aside, the orders of Lower Authorities.1. The brief facts of the case are that in persuance of intelligence, the officer of DRI Bombay kept survellance at Hotel Ambassador, Bombay in the evening of 16-4-1993 and nabbed a person delivering three suitcases to a couple in the lobby of the said Hotel. They were Nimish C. Gheewala and Mr. Mahendra Shah and Mrs. Bharati Shah, as disclosed.Couple were staying in Room No. 406. Before panchas, DRI officers escorted them with suitcases into the room. Suitcases were opened and examined by officers, which were stuffed with strips of 10 tablets each, with the marking AZANTAC 150 RANITIDINE written, Mahendra Shah couple admitted that they were to carry it to London as personal baggage and tablets were to be delivered to one Anand Patel of London.There were 6803 tablets worth Rs. 1,36,000/-They were seized as attempted t...
Kantibhai J. Kiyada and Rajesh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2001
Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC439
1. Both the above applicants have challenged the above captioned impugned order dated 22.3.2000 in the above 2 appeals, and have sought for waiver of pre-deposit and recovery of Rs. 1,70,087.27 Central Excise duty with equal penalty and interest at 20% PA on the duty among under Section 11AB of Central Excise at under Section 11AC and penalty of Rs. 50,000 under Rule 173Q from M/s. Rajesh Industries, and penalty of Rs. 10,000 from Kantibhai J. Kiyada partner of M/s. Lalkrupa Castings Rajkot under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules may be stayed, by staying the operation of order in original dated 10.2.98 of Deputy Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise Rajkot.The grounds on which the above relief sought are that the applicants have a very strong Prima facie case on merits and law. The facts of case in brief are that applicant Kantibhai J. Kiyada's partnership Co.M/s. Lalkrupa Castings manufactures casting and cast articles under Chapter heading 7325 of Tariff Act. Applicant M/s. Raje...
Rani Sati Fabric Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2001
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT537Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Two appeals, one by the assessee and one by the department, and a cross-objection by the assessee to the department's appeal has been filed against the order of the Collector. The Collector in that order adjudicated on a notice issued to the assessee. The notice alleged that the assessee had evaded duty by misdeclaring the composition of the fabrics processed by it. The duty on processed fabrics was based partly upon their value and partly upon their composition. Different rates of duty were leviable on fabrics of cotton blended fabrics containing less than 70% by weight of polyester fibre or yarn, and fibres containing 70% or more polyester fibre or yarn. The notice cited as evidence statement of nine merchant manufacturers and the challans under which grey goods has been received and the gate passes showing their clearance. These challans contain descriptions such as "48 X 52" Spun X Tex, Dobby. The Collector in his order finds that these descriptions are insufficient to determin...
Shahad Chemicals Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2001
Reported in: (2001)(97)LC473Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In its order the Tribunal has said that it noted that no specific evidence has been produced in support of the contention that price of the container which was supplied by the appellant was included in the value of the finished product and that it is only in those cases where the containers were brought by buyers the price was not included. It, therefore, remanded the matter for verification to the Assistant Commissioner.2. Counsel for the applicant contends that the issue before the Assistant Commissioner for consideration was that whether the cost of the packing supplied by the buyer should form part of the assessable value and that this had been decided by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Polymer v. CCE . The question for verification, therefore, does not arise.3. The departmental representative emphasises that the Assistant Commissioner had found the drums to be second hand.4. The show cause notice is entirely unclear. It alleges that the drums in which the applic...
Maersk India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2001
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT444Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The vessel MV Bux Crown arrived at JNPT on 12-9-1995. The agents M/s. Maersk India Ltd. filed an IGM on the same date. There was an LCL container containing cargo meant for various importers. Certain machinery parts contained in the container were not manifested.Subsequently, the agents requested for amendment of the IGM on 31-10-1995. Penal action was proposed on them under Section 112 of the Customs Act on the observation that unmanifested goods were liable to confiscation. The agents waived the issue of show cause notice as well as the personal hearing. The Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs. two lakhs on the present appellants under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence, the present appeal.2. Shri Gomes appearing for the appellants submitted that subsequent to the order and payment of penalty, the amendment to the manifest was permitted. He submitted a photocopy of the amended IGM on 1-12-1995. It is his statement that subsequently the goods were cleared in due course ...
Jaysing Daulatsing Rawal and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)MhLj177
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. The petitioners seek to quash the F.I.R. No. 38/99 dated 28-3-1999 lodged at Police Station, Dondaicha, District Dhule. It is the contention of the petitioners that the alleged F.I.R,, on the face of it, does not disclose any offence either under the provisions of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market Committee (Regulation) Act, 1963 or the Rules made thereunder or even under the provisions of the Indian Pena! Code. It is further the contention of the petitioners that the complaint is purely with political motivation and lacks bona fide on the part of the complainant as the same has been filed to malign the name of the petitioners few days earlier to the election of Legislative Assembly knowing well that the petitioners are strong contenders of the candidates for Assembly Constituency. It is further contention of the petitioners that as the offences under the said Act are not cognizable offences and in view of Section 56 of the said Act, prosecution can be ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »