Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

Continental Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT690Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the order of the Asst. Collector of Customs holding the goods imported by the appellant to be liable to confiscation, and importer liable to penalty, but reducing the redemption fine and penalty determined by the Asst. Collector from Rs.45000/- to Rs.30,000/- and Rs.22,750 to Rs. 10,000/-. Appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. I have rad the relevant papers and heard the departmental representative.2. The appellant had imported balsamodendron mukul also known as gugul and claimed clearance on the ground that the goods were not consumer goods and not in the negative list of imports. The departmental representative found the goods to be widely used in the manufacture of ayurvedic and unani medicaments although they found some use in perfumers and agarbattis. Public notice 117 dated 1.7.93 issued by the licensing authority prohibited import without licence any crude drug used in ayurvedic and una...

Shri Balkrishna Daulati Bansode Vs. Shri Taher Mahmud Sutar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR451; (2001)3BOMLR54; 2001(2)MhLj931

V.C. Daga J.INTRODUCTION 1. This petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25th November, 1988 passed by the Additional District Judge, Satara in Regular Civil Appeal No. 277 of 1987 confirming the judgment and decree for eviction dated 31st March, 1987 passed by the Second Joint Civil Judge. Junior Division, Satara in Regular Civil Suit No. 454 of 1984.THE FACTS 2. The facts necessary to appreciate the rival contentions may be stated briefly :The petitioner is the original defendant/tenant occupying the premises being part of the property bearing C.T.S. No. 93-A purchased under the sale deed dated 4th May, 1983 from Smt. Krishnabai Jadhav, Mahadeo Salunkhe and Smt. Bhagirati Dalavi who claimed to have inherited the same as heirs of Sonubai and Banubai, both daughters of Mhasu Babaji Dubal. Both Sonubai and Banubai died issueless. 3. Smt. Sonubai had let out part of the house bearing C.T.S. No. 93-A to the petitioner, some time in the year 1967, on receipt of rent of R...

John Francis Anthony Gonsalves and anr. Vs. Mrs. Agnes Mary Conception ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2001Bom372; 2001(4)ALLMR98; 2001(4)BomCR577; (2001)3BOMLR310

D.G. Deshpande, J. 1. This petition for probate is filed in respect of the said Will and Testament of John Frederick Gonsalves who died in Mumbai on 3.1.1983. The last Will and Testament is dated 1.4.1979. Petitioner No. 1 is the son so also petitioner No. 2 is the son of the deceased.2. Caveat came to be lodged opposing petition for probate by the caveator/defendant/respondent Mrs. Agnes Mary Conception Rebello who as per the particulars of legal heirs given in the petition is daughter of the deceased. The ground of objections that were raised in the caveat is that the Will is null and void and inoperative in law because even though the alleged Will is dated 1.4.1979. Julia wife of the deceased was alive, thereafter neither she nor any of the heirs accepted the existence of the Will but to the contrary the said Julia acted in such a way as if no Will was in existence. Instances in that regard have been given in the caveat. Caveator further contended that all the legal heirs of the dec...

Mohamed Aslam and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)2258; 2001CriLJ3243

ORDERA.S. Bagga, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Appellants (Original) Accused Nos. 1 and 2 against the Judgment and Order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Greater Bombay, thereby convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 392 read with Section 34 and Section 392 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the appellant No. 1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant No. 2, by the same order is sentenced to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of R Section 200/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six weeks for the same offence.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows :The complainant Auguste Ceasar Remedies (PW No. 2) was serving as Supervisor in...

Veronica Sharad Salvi Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)2122; (2002)104BOMLR50

T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. Petitioner is the sister of Raju alias Philips Kamalakar Shirsat, who is a resident of Byculla (W), Mumbai. Raju has been detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act by order dated 14th November, 2000. The petitioner challenges the said detention order on the following grounds:(a) The offence registered against him was only domestic, in the sense, that he is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code;(b) Two in-camera statements recorded were relating to the incidents which took place in January, 2000 and March, 2000, and the in-camera statements are recorded on 30.6.2000 and 1.7.2000. On account of this inordinate delay, the live link between the prejudicial activities of the detenu and the rationale of clamping a detention order on him has been snapped and as a result of which, the detention order became punitive rather than p...

Prakash D. Sanghvi, H.S.J. Vs. C.C.Ex, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. None of the applicants is present or represent. Mr. B.N. Rangwani, who had earlier represented them has by his letter dated 31.1.2001 communicated that he no longer represent them. There being no evidence of compliance with the terms of the Commissioner's order, the appeals are dismissed....

Sh. Pravinchandra Jayentilal Vs. C.C. (Prev.) Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-original dated 18.1.1984 passed by the Addl. Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. In the impugned order, a penalty of Rs. one lakh was imposed on the appellant under Sec. 114 of the Customs Act.3. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that only allegation against the appellant is that he had received money form one Shri S.S. Gupta and the Tribunal, vide Final Order NO. 2488-91/96-WZB dated 09.08.96, set aside the penalty imposed on Sh. S.S. Gupta. He submits that the appellant is not concerned with the recovery of the foreign currency form the toilet of the air craft. The case of the revenue is that Sh. S. S. Gupta gave a sum of Rs. four lakh to the appellant for being covered into U.S. Dollars and to be credited in his name in Swiss Credit Bank. The allegation against the appellant is that no receipt of money from Shri S. S. Gupta, he handed over the said amount to Sh. Mahendra Shah. His submission is that the ap...

Shri Keshrimal JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC87

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the decision of Collector of Central Excise Nagpur made in Order-in-Original No. 13/89 dt.31.8.89 wherein by which he had confirmed the demand of duty of R.81,285.95 have been imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/-. This order also confiscated 4340 biris and/or RF of Rs. 30/- was fixed. The case of the department was that for the period from 14.2.86 to 21.11.86, the appellant has been clandestinely manufacturing biris and transporting the same and therefore the appellant was liable for duty.The show cause notice dt.8.5.87 was issued only for penalty and not for duty.Subsequently, by an addendum. On 17.7.87 the show cause notice was issued charging the appellants interalia as under: "Whereas on collection of intelligence that Shri Kesrimal Babulal Jain resident of Ramnagar, Gondia (Hereinafter called the `Noticee') was engaged in the manufacture of Hand Made Biris at Ramnagar, Gondia by using fake labels of the different biri manufacturers,...

M/S. Sang Fasteners P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

The application for stay has been filed for collecting an amount of Rs.5,965/- and also penalty of Rs.200/-. The case of the appellant is that instead of putting it in RG 23A Part-II he has wrongly debited to PLA except for the penalty. The amount has already been paid so predeposit of duty amount is not under the consideration, only question is about predeposit of penalty which I waive and stay the recovery. The appeal may come in due course....

Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. Larsen and Toubro Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT316Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the craft, Ramlift VI, imported by the appellant. The importer sought classification of the goods under heading 8905.90 of the tariff and the department was of the view that the goods should be classified under heading 8905.20. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the classification of the goods under sub-heading 20. On appeal from that order, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the claim of the importer to classify under sub-heading 90. This appeal by the department seeks to restore the classification confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner.2. There is no dispute that the craft in question falls under heading 89.05 which is for light vessels, fire floats, dredges as floating cranes and other vessels the navigability of which is subsidiary to their main function, floating docks, floating or submersible drilling or production platform. Sub-heading 20 is for floating or submersible drilling or production platform....