Mumbai Court February 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.
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Yash Laboratories
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT469Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals are against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of two appeals before him, one relating to the classification of the product "Eukroma" and the other relating to the duty demanded by not accepting the classification claimed by the respondent.2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the claim of the manufacturer that the product is a medicament classifiable under heading 3003.10, and not, as the department contents, cosmetic product classifiable under heading 33.04. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepts that the active ingredient of the product is hydroquinone, an ingredient specified in the United States Pharmacopoeia and used as a depigmentation agent. He has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in Nicholas Laboratories India Ltd. v.C.C.E. - 1991 (56) E.L.T. 843 holding that the product melamine cream containing the same active ingredient as a medicament and not cosmetic.He has relied upon the affidavits of a ...
B.P. Nayak, and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC115
2. On an information received by them, the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence identified and picked up on 21st February 1995, five persons from the Nariman Point branch of the Syndicate Bank, Mumbai. These five persons Sayyed Munawar, Khan Imtiaz Murtuza, Mohammed Ibrahim Basheer, Hussein Shaikh Abubakar and Zakir Hussein Rehmatullah, were carrying four sacks. Zakir Hussein told the officers that the two sacks with him contained Rs. 50.78 lakhs which had been withdrawn by him from the current account of Acrobond Exports. Sayyed Munawar said that the two sacks with him contained Rs. 50 lakhs, which he had brought from shop No. 27 in Manish Market. The shop belongs to Mustafa Majnoo Iqbal, and Hussein. He said that the money was the sale proceeds of various types of smuggled goods. Officers seized the currency under the belief that it was the sale proceeds of smuggled goods.3. The resulting investigations brought to light the following facts.Rs. 92,28,625 debited to the cur...
Atlas Radio and Electronics India Vs. C.C.E. and C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT119Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant had classified the signal general and pattern generator manufactured by it under Heading 90.31 of the Tariff in its classification filed on 1986. This classification list was approved by the department and appellant paid duty at the rate appliable to this heading. The appellant revised the classification in 1992, putting the goods under Heading 19.30. This classification list was also approved by the department. Clearances under this heading continued until 1994.The show cause notice issued to the appellant in 1994 took the view that the goods were classifiable under Heading 85.43 and accordingly demanded duty on clearances made between 1988 and 1992. The extended period contained in the proviso under Sub-section (1) of Section HA was invoked on the ground of suppression of facts and misdeclaration. The Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. Hence this appeal.2. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the department had been regularl...
Pfizer Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT251Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Pfizer Ltd. filed a bill of entry at the Air Cargo Complex, Sahar for clearance of "Promotional matter", the classification of which was claimed under Chapter 49.01 of the Tariff. This chapter heading is for printed books and other such printed matter. A Custom House agent, M/s.Pan Oceanic & Forwarding Services, was appointed by the importer to clear the consignment. Examination of the consignment by the Custom House showed that what was imported was not printed matter but light pointers. These, it was explained to us, are something in the nature of electric torches used to point to particular objects on a screen in the course of lectures or audio-visual presentations. The Custom House found, the classification claimed to be incorrect, and the value declared of Rs. 500/- far too low. The required import licence was also not produced. On these facts being made known to the Custom House Agent and the importer, they waived written notice but were heard by the Additional Collector ...
Siemens Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT255Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The application is for waiver of deposit of Rs. 65.41 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 7 lakhs.3. Duty has been demanded, and penalty imposed, on the finding of the Commissioner that the benefit of Notification 108/95 will not be available to the goods supplied by the applicant to a project which was financed by the Government of India from out of a loan of the World Bank. The Commissioner has found that the condition that the notification contains for furnishing a certificate issued by the international agency concerned that the goods have been supplied to a project financed by international organisation, that and the project has been approved by the Government of India, has not been complied with. The counsel for the applicant says that in identical circumstances involving the same notification which was denied for the same reasons as advanced by the Commissioner, the Tribunal has extended the benefit of the notification in its decision in Nestor Pharmaceuticals v. CCE, 4. The department...
Carrara Marble and Granite Vs. Commr. of Cus. (E.P.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT654Tri(Mum.)bai
2. Each of the two consignments imported by the appellant have been held by the Commissioner, in the two orders impugned before us, not to be marble as claimed by the importer, but to be "other calcareous stones". The Commissioner in coming to his conclusion relied upon an opinion of the Geological Survey of India, Nagpur, who tested the samples of the importer's consignment. The report of the Survey says that the imported material is a variety of limestone which does not show evidence of metamorphic recrystallisation and therefore it is not marble.3. The Commissioner has declined to permit cross-examination of the experts of the Survey who furnished this report on the ground that the Survey is an ancient and reputed institution. That may be so. However, that by itself does justify refusal of the cross-examination. We had observed in a similar matter (Sundeep International v. CC, Appeals E/821 "We do not find the age and reputation of the Geological Survey of India itself enough to ju...
Fibro Plast Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT446Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant before us imported high density polyethylene and cleared it under an advance licence issued to M/s. Prem Plastics, and transferred to the appellants, claiming, and being granted, the benefit of Notification 203/92. Subsequently the department came to the conclusion that the licence was forged. An appeal was filed to the Commissioner (Appeals) seeking to set aside the order in assessment passed in the bill of entry for the clearance of the goods and "to levy appropriate duties of customs under Section 12 of the Act". In the order passed in appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order of assessment and said "The goods which were allowed clearance without charging any are liable to pay customs duty as applicable".2. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that it is now settled law that duty which are short levied or not levied cannot be recovered without issue of a show-cause notice under Section 28 of the Act and merely setting aside the order o...
Union of India Through the Gen. Manager Vs. M/S. Laxmi Vishnu Textile ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC1; I(2002)ACC171; 2002ACJ171; 2001(2)ALLMR587; 2001(3)BomCR35; (2001)2BOMLR350; 2001(2)MhLj381
A. M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution takes exception to the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, S. D., Solapur dated 3.11.1992 in Special Civil Suit No. 172 of 1991.2. By the impugned order the Court below has pronounced upon the issue of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit, as filed, notwithstanding the express bar contained in section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.3. Briefly stated the respondent No. 1-plaintiff instituted a suit against the petitioner/defendant No. 1 and respondent Nos. 2 and 3-defendant Nos. 2 and 3 before the Court of Joint Civil Judge, S. D. Solapur being Spl. Civ. Suit No. 172 of 1991 after coming into force of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.4. Before examining the rival contentions it would be appropriate to advert to the relevant provision of the said Act which reads thus :'13. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal.-- (1) The Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on...
Smt. Sonabai Digambar Jagtap Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)427; 2001BomCR(Cri)804; 2001CriLJ2129
Dr. Pratibha Upasanl, J.1. Heard Advocates.2. Rule. Ms. Kantharia, learned A.P.P.. appearing for the respondent-State and Mr. Deshmukh, appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 waive service. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and taken up for hearing.3. This criminal writ petition is filed by the mother of the original complainant, who is the victim of gang rape. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the accused who are at present lodged in Yeravada Central Prison. The alleged incident of gang rape took place in village Dhalaj, Taluka Indapur, District Pune, on 24.2.1999.4. It appears from the proceedings that after the alleged incident of gang rape, the victim Sangita was threatened by one of the accused, namely, respondent No. 2 Balu Khartode. Thereafter, the house of Sangita was torched by the accused and this case is not committed to the Court of Sessions. The family of Sangita which consists of her disabled father and mother along with her siblings, was forced to leave the native pla...
Smt. Chhabubai Balwantrao Shinde and ors. Vs. Gulabrao Balwantrao Shin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Bom486; 2001(4)ALLMR559; 2001(4)MhLj37
S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The brief background in this case is that one Gulabrao Balwantrao Shinde along with his two sisters viz. Sau. Prabhavati and Sau. Nalinibai had filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 199 of 1981 before the 6th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division at Jalgaon against Smt. Chhabubai Balwantrao Shinde being step-mother of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are the children of one Balwantrao Bhagwantrao Shinde out of his first marriage whereas the defendant No. 1 Smt. Chhabubai Balwantrao is the second wife of the said Balwantrao. The said Balwantrao died on 27th June, 1954. The said Balwantrao had married Smt. Chhabubai after the death of his first wife and out of the second marriage with Smt. Chhabubai Defendants Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 were born viz. four daughters Lilabai,Ranjanabai, Padmabai and Pushpabai. The case of the plaintiffs before the trial Court was that agricultural suit land Gat No. 441 admeasuring 2 Hec. 27R. situated at village Tarsod, Tal Jalgaon and in a...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »