Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

intervalve (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC699

1. These two appeals relate to the same appellant and have common facts. These are therefore being disposed of vide this single order.2. We have heard Shri Dinesh Parekh, advocate for the appellants and Smt. Reena Arya, SDR, for the Revenue.3. Intervalve, B.V., a company in Netherlands, entered into an agreement on 8-3-1989 with Eureka Investment Pvt. Ltd. The agreement was to permit Eureka Investment Pvt. Ltd. to manufacture and sell Butterfly/Check valves using the know-how given by Intervalve. The agreement in paragraph 9 provided as under : It is expressly declared by Intervalve that to its best knowledge and belief the use by the Licensee of the Trade Mark will not encroach on the rights of third parties." Mr. Parekh submits that at a later date the name of the Indian company was changed to Intervalve (India) Pvt. Ltd. but he has not placed on record relevant documents. The Indian company filed classification list claiming benefit of Notification 175/86 from September, 1990 to Ju...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Multronics Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT144Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The facts involved in this appeal are as under : - The respondents imported "Video Games" classifying them under sub-heading 9504.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, and claiming clearance thereof under SIL. The Assistant Commissioner held that they were appropriately classifiable under sub-heading 9504.90 and that the licence did not cover this sub-heading. In this belief he confiscated the goods, imposed a fine for their redemption and also imposed a penalty on the importers. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) relying upon the sub-notes in the HSN found that the appropriate classification as was claimed by the importers. On his setting aside the lower order and allowing the appeal, the present appeal has been filed by the Revenue.2. We have heard Smt. Reena Arya for the Revenue and Shri S.P. Mathew for the respondents.3. The various contentions made in the appeal memorandum are the reiteration of the statements Assistant Collector. 95.04 Articles for Funfair, Table or Parlour...

Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC813

1. For the reasons recorder below we waive the pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,10,550 and penalty of Rs. One lakh and stay recovery thereof and dispose of the appeal itself at this stage.2. Credit of Rs. 61,200 has been denied on the ground that this amount of credit has been taken by the appellants on the basis of the invoices which were not in their favour. Our attention has been drawn by the Ld.Counsel for the appellants to 2 invoices in question clearly showing despatch to M/s. Voltas Ltd. A/c. Hindustan Lever Limited (the appellant). Therefore, these invoices are not in the category of endorsed invoices as held by-the Commissioner in the impugned order and they are documents which are valid duty paid documents for the purpose of credit as held by the Tribunal in the case of Larsen & Toubro Limited v. CCE . Obviously, there is no dispute regarding the receipt of the goods on their part. Following the ratio of the judgment of the Tribunal cited, we hold that this amount of credit ...

Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. Best Brand Products Ltd. and anr.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC188

1. I have heard Shri Ravindra Jain on behalf of the appellants (sic) [respondents] and Shri B.K. Choubey for the Revenue.2. In the case certain goods imported by the appellants were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, in terms of a notification issued under 11A of the said Act prohibiting import of goods bearing a brand name of the importer. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order holding that the brand name visible on the imported goods did not resemble that of any person in India. Against this judgment, the Revenue have filed an appeal but have not filed an application for stay of the operation of the order-in-appeal.3. In the meanwhile on the strength of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) the importers have been seeking refund of the fine and penalty. Shri Ravindra Jain claims that the Custom House has not responded and in fact the letters address [addressed] to the Commissioner have not even been acknowledged. It is in the light of this situatio...

Shri Bapurao Shankar Chavan Vs. Shri M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Polic ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)2BOMLR1013

ORDERVishnu Sahai, J. 1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who describes himself as friend of the detenu Kashinath Namdeo Naravade has impugned the detention order dated 4.8.2000 passed by the First Respondent Mr. M. N. Singh. Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay detaining the detenu under sub-section (1) of sections of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996).The detention order along with the. grounds of detention which are also dated 4.8.2000 was served on the detenu on 20.8.2000.2. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned order is founded on one namely C. R. No. 53 of 2000 under section 447 of the I .P.C. read with sections 26(1) and 30 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 registered on the basis of a compliant dated 8.3.2000 lodged by one Bhimrao Laxman Chougule at Kandivli (East) P...

Arjun Ganpati Devendra Vs. Shri M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Gr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)806; (2001)3BOMLR534; 2002CriLJ790

Vishnu Sahai. J.1. Through this Writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner who describes himself as the brother of the detenu Anna Dorai alias Dilli Ganpati Devendra, has impugned the detention order dated 30.8.2000 passed by the 1st Respondent Mr. M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, Detaining the detenu under subsection 1 of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. IV of 1981) (Amendment 1996).The detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 30.8.2000 was served on the detenu on 5.8.2000 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures A and C respectively to this petition.2. A perusal of the grounds of detention (Exhibit 'C') would show that the impugned order is founded on one C. R., viz. C.R. No. 38/2000 under Sections 354, 324 and 504 of the I.P.C. registered at R.C.F. Police Station on the basis...

M/S. M.B. Development Corporation Vs. M/S. Manilal Patel and Co.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR533; (2001)3BOMLR567; 2001(3)MhLj685

ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent.Mr. R. D. Vora waives notice for Respondents in all the matters.2. AH these petitions can be disposed of together as they involve common question.3. Briefly stated, the Respondent company, which is stated to be a partnership firm, instituted suits in the Court of Small Causes Court at Bombay for a declaration that they are tenants in respect of the suit property. In response to the said suits the Petitioner - original defendant filed reply raising objection that the suits filed by the Respondent were not maintainable since the same were filed by a firm which was admittedly dissolved prior to the institution of the said suit. In the context of the objection raised, Mr. Vashistha Manilal Patel, who claims to be one of the partner of the said dissolved firm - Respondent herein, filed Int. Notices praying for permission to withdraw the suits with liberty to file fresh suits for the same cause of action. The Court below m...

Marathwada Janta Vikas Parishad and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR217; 2001(4)BomCR126

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By this Public Interest Litigation, Marathwada Janta Vikas Parishad and a local agriculturist are challenging a major irrigation project undertaken by the State of Maharashtra and Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation known as 'Khadakpurna Project' on the upstream of Purna river, mainly on the ground that this project would adversely affect the beneficiaries of the earlier Purna project. In this writ petition the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Irrigation Department, Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Central Water Commission through its Chairman ; Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation through its Executive Director and the Executive Engineer of the Vidarbha Irrigation Khadakpurna Project Division are arrayed as respondents.2. The erstwhile Government of Hyderabad had undertaken the major irrigation cum power project known as 'Purna Project' in the year 1955. This project was an Irrigation cum Hydro Power Pr...

Kaushalyabai Dinkar Mule Vs. Dinkar Mahadeorao Mule

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2001)DMC580

ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The applicant had filed proceedings for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umrer vide judgment dated 16.10.1995 had come to the conclusion that the applicant had proved that the respondent No. 1 refused and neglected to maintain her; she was subjected to cruelty and, therefore, she resided separately from the respondent No. 1; that the applicant had proved that she had no source of income and she was unable to maintain herself. It appears that the respondent No. 1 had relied upon the Divorce Deed in which the present applicant had relinquished her claim to maintenance. The case of the applicant in respect of this divorce was that the same was obtained by force by the respondent No. 1. The Magistrate answered the issue relating the said Divorce Deed being obtained by force, in the negative and in view of the clause in the Divorce Deed by which the applicant had given up her right of maintenance, the Magistrate dismissed the...

Moosa Haji Patrawala P. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The common question for consideration in these two appeals is whether the notional interest on the advance payment of the price paid by the buyer to each of the appellant manufacturers should be added to the assessable value of the goods. The Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbia in appeal E/1583/96 and Commissioner (Appeals), Pune in appeal E/1625/96 both held it to be includable. The reasoning advanced by the Commissioner (Appeals) Mumbia is that but for these advances, the manufacturer would have resorted to commercial borrowing. The reasoning advanced by the Commissioner (Appeals) Pune is that the goods are tailor made and therefore it cannot be shown that there has not been a nexus between the advance and the price and the advance amounts to additional consideration.2. Any part of the price paid in advance by the buyer to the manufacturer of the goods does not become an additional consideration.It continues to remain part of the price and that character does not charge by its being p...