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.
Sunflag Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Additional Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR221; 2003(162)ELT105(Bom)
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. These two Writ Petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugn the adjudication orders made against the petitioners under Section 33 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts in both the writ petitions are to a large extent similar, though differing on marginal aspects. The issues of law thrown up by both the writ petitions are identical. Hence, it would be convenient to dispose of both the writ petitions by a common judgment and order.2. FACTS :(A) Writ Petition No. 2420 of 1987(a) The petitioner is a Public Limited company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Nagpur. Thet petitioner is in the process of setting up an integrated Steel Plant to manufacture mild and alloy steel rolled products at Ekalari/Warthi village of Bhandara district. The project was contemplated in two phases. The first phase comprises installation of sophisticated high technol...
Jyotsna W/O Suresh Jagtap Vs. Suresh John Jagtap
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR14; I(2001)DMC776
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This is a reference made to this Court by the Family Court at Nagpur, purportedly under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, for confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage made by the Family Court.2. The facts giving rise to the present reference fall within a limited matrix as under :3. The parties before us are Christians by religion and they were married on 7-5-1995 as per Christian religious rites and customs at the Methodist Marathi Church, Civil Lines, Nagpur. The marriage ran aground and a petition came to be filed before the Family Court at Nagpur on 31-8-1999 by the petitioner wife under section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of cruelty coupled with adultery. This petition was contested by the respondent-husband. The Family Court tried the petition and by its judgment and decree dated 28-5-2000 allowed the petition and ordered dissolution of the marriage between the parties solemnize...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Devi Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2001
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT93Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These three appeals filed by the Revenue have the same common points and the respondents being the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. Respondents requested for disposal on the basis of the written submissions made. I have heard Smt. Reena Arya, SDR, for the Revenue.3. The respondents were using brass copper scrap purchased from the market as inputs. Deemed Modvat credit was provided for on such inputs in terms of the Ministry's order issued under Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Such credit could be denied if the inputs were clearly recognisable as being non-duty paid or wholly exempted from duty or charged to Nil rate of duty. Show cause notices were issued proposing to deny the deemed credit taken. The grounds made were that the assessees had not taken reasonable steps to ensure that the inputs purchased were duty paid, and that the assessees were not in a position to ensure that the goods purchased from the open market, had suffered central ex...
M/S. Star Footwear Products P. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2001
Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT592Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants were not present in spite of notice. We have heard Smt. R. Arya for the Revenue. We find that the issue is well settled and proceed to decide the case on merits.2. The assessees were availing of benefit of notification 175/86. They were manufacturing two products. On one product they availed the concessional rate of duty to the extent permitted and thereafter cleared the same product on payment of duty. Subsequently they started clearing other product without payment of duty. The show cause notice alleged that for the interpretation of the notification, the clearances should be taken in the chronological order and if the clearance of the one product had exceeded the permissible total limits, the unutilized benefit was not available for the other product. The Assistant Collector relying upon an earlier order of the Collector (Appeals) had placed reliance on the Tribunal's judgment in the case of EL.P.EM.Industries vs. CCE 1989 (43) ELT 599. The jurisdictional Commissi...
M/S. Premier Textile Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2001
Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC115
1. The appellants are processors. For each lot of grey fabrics received, they had filed classification lists and price lists. A notice was issued dated 20.9.1990. The notice stated that the assessees had not stated whether the various charges incurred by the time the fabrics came in their hands had been included in the value of the grey fabrics.The query was also made whether inspection and listing charges had been incurred or not. The following observation was also made - "the profit shown is without any basis and you have not furnished any evidence to show that the profit claimed represents the merchant manufactures profit".2. The Assistant Collector finalized the issue. He referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Ujagar Prints vs. UOI 1989 (32) ELT 493 and made the following observation:- "From the above it is crystal clear that a merchant manufacturer is manufacture under Section 2(f) of Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. Moreover a merchant manufacturer being the '...
Commissioner of Cus. (import) Vs. Lal International
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2001
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT312Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the value for assessment of cloves of Tanzanian origin imported by the respondent.The department, after noting the declared value of US $ 648 per tonne noted contemporaneous imports of cloves @ US $ 850 per tonne, and proposed enhancement of value to this level. The importer agreed for enhancement of the value. The Deputy Collector passed orders inter alia enhancing the value to US $ 850"per tonne. The importer appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that no material had been cited by the Dy. Collector to justify the enhancement of value and set aside that enhancement. Hence this appeal by the department.2. We have heard the departmental representative. The respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice.3. It is no doubt true that the Dy. Collector in his order has not furnished details of contemporaneous import on the basis of which he proposed enhancement of the value. However, if the importer, as he records, h...
Commr. of Cus. (import) Vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2001
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT485Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited, the respondent to this appeal imported unrefined glycerine claiming clearance in terms of value based advance licences obtained by transfer and claimed exemption under Notification 79/95. The DEEC pass book in question specified the exported product to be toothpaste. The department was of the view that the imported crude glycerine could not be used in the manufacture of toothpaste for which refined glycerine is required, proposed denial of the exemption under value based advance licence for the import. The importer waived issue of written notice and its written reply was considered and it was also heard in person. The Assistant Commissioner did not accept the contention put before him that it would utilize the facilities available in its factory to refine the glycerine and therefore the imported glycerine would be suitable for use in the manufacture of toothpaste. He therefore denied benefit of the Notification.2. The importer appealed this order. The ...
Popatlal Jethabhai Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2001
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)429; 2001BomCR(Cri)672; (2001)2BOMLR372; 2002CriLJ794
Dr. Pratibha Upasani. J.1. This Criminal Revision Application is filed by the applicant/accused -Popatlal Jethabhai Shah, being aggrieved by the Order dated 8.11.2000passed by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Kalyan, whereby his application for recalling of all seven prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination was rejected by him.2. The accused is facing trial for offence publishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C. It appears from the proceedings that all the seven prosecution witnesses have been examined. Their cross-examination is over. At this stage, the accused made an application dated 28.1.2000 praying for recalling of all the prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination whose deposition was already over. It was contended in the said application that the Advocate Mr. Kotwal, whom the accused himself had appointed as per his own choice to represent him, could not cross-examine the prosecution witnesses effectively and certain material contradictions remained to be brou...
Ganpat Shankar Waghmare Vs. Smt. Anjalibai Rao Waghmare and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR149; 2001(3)BomCR31; (2001)2BOMLR425; 2001(2)MhLj756
ORDERA. M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the Civil Judge, J. D., Medha, District Solapur dated 16.1.1993 below Exh. 41 in D. F. No. 159 of 1981.2. Petitioner filed an application before the lower Court being Exh. 41 praying for permission to cross-examine the plaintiff. The said applicationwas opposed by the Respondent plaintiff mainly on the ground that the Court has already struck out the defence of the petitioner by passing an order below Exh. 28 dated 24.10.1991 in exercise of powers under Rule 11 of Order 39 and therefore it is not open to the Petitioner to insist for permitting him to cross-examine the Respondent plaintiff. The Court below accepted the said objection on behalf of the Respondent and concluded that since the defence of the Petitioner has been struck of by virtue of provisions under Rule 11 Order 39 of the C.P.C., it amounts to striking out defence of the defendant in all r...
Smt. Manharbala Jeram Damodar and anr. Vs. Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR230; 2001(3)BomCR76; (2001)2BOMLR533; 2001(2)MhLj477
P.I. Rebello, J.1. Admit. By consent of the parties heard forthwith.2. The petitioners herein have approached this Court to impugn the decision of the Principal Judge of the Small Causes Court. Bombay, dated 24th November, 2000 whereby on a notice taken out by the respondents, the suit was transferred from Court Room No. 4 to Court Room No. 2 on the ground of partiality of one of the Judges constituting the Appellate Bench of that Court. The notice was taken out on behalf of the respondents pleading bias on the part of one of the Judges constituting the Bench. In fact it seems earlier another notice had been taken out for transferring the Appeal from Court Room No. 3 to any other Court for the same reason, as the very Judge against whom allegations of bias are raised was also a part of the Bench presiding over Court Room No. 3. On behalf of the petitioners learned Counsel states that another Revision Application has been preferred against the said order which is pending. Be that as it ...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »