Mumbai Court April 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. M/S. Saico Engg. and Fabricator ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The amount involved in this appeal is less than Rs. 50,000/- only of modvat claim. In exercise of powers given to me in terms of second proviso to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, I dismiss the appeal....

Ruhi Rubber Industry Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. Copies of the order-in-original which gave rise to these appeals has not been produced despite notice issued to it. The appeals are accordingly dismissed under Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 -...

M/S. Ravindran Nair, Partner of Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Notice has been issued under Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1983.The address has been properly indicated in the notice registered by the Tribunal as mentioned in the appeal form.As the appellant has not complied with the notice, appeal stands dismissed....

M/S. C.G. Glass Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT707Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides the appeal itself was taken up for disposal on granting proforma waiver of deposit of duty of Rs.8,01,127/- and penalty on Rs.30,000/-.2. The appellants availed of modvat credit facility. Certain invoices on which they had taken modvat credit during the period September, 1996 to November, 1996 and April, 1997 to July, 1997 were issued by dealers.The provisions of Rule 57GG(4)(C) read as follows:- "All the copies of the invoice issued by a first stage dealer and a second stage dealer shall also be marked at the top in bold capital letters as first stage dealer and second stage dealer respectively." 3. The aforesaid invoices did not bear such markings. The credit taken thereunder was held to be inadmissible and was reversed under rule 571 and the penalties were imposed under rule 173Q. His orders having been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), the present appeal is before the Tribunal.CCE vs. J.K.Synthetics Ltd. 2000 (115) ELT 787 where certain irregularities ...

M/S. Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise an ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants manufactured pharmaceuticals. Their availment of credit under rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was denied in the case of air-conditioners and weighing balances. In these two appeals contest is made of the denial.2. In the following cases it has been held that for the manufactures of drugs and pharmaceuticals air-conditioners are permitted to be capital goods.3. Weighing machines are declared to be capital goods in the following judgments where the assessee was identically situated:-CCE vs. Blue Cross Laboratories Ltd. 2000 (120) ELT 416. In the case of CCE vs. Indo Rama Synthetics India Ltd. 1999 (113) ELT 481 (T) weighting balances have held to be admissible....

Commissioner of Customs (P), Vs. Shri K.D. Hirani

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)LC79Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides I find that the law being well settled, the appeal itself could be disposed of. This was so done.2. The respondent owns a motor garage. Search in these premises resulted in resulted in seizure of seven foreign made car engines as well as six cars fitted with such engines. These engines were used and admittedly of foreign origin. The respondent identified the owners of the cars. Bills showing purchase of the engines were produced. In some cases the bills were stated to be in the possession of the owners of the cars who had given the cars for refitment. He gave the location of the persons from whom the engines had been brought. The case was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner resulting in confiscation of the engines and imposition of penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order observed that the goods were neither listed under section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 nor were they prohibited in terms of section 11 of the Act. He set aside the orders of co...

Manmal Shirchand Oswal (Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs Vs. Sahebjad ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR348; 2001(4)BomCR182; (2001)3BOMLR166

S. A. Bobde, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the original plaintiff whose suit for possession of the suit premises was decreed by the Trial Court. In an appeal carried by the Respondents, the decree was refused by the Appellate Court, against which this Second Appeal has been admitted.2. The suit premises are a portion of one shed of a piece of property, totally admeasuring 478 sq. yards on final plot No. 141/A situated at Karad, District Satara. Since the transaction is of the year 1966, the portion of the property which is the subject matter of the suit has been described as a 2 Anna share from the total 478 sq. yards. This 2 Anna share is referred to suit property for the sake of convenience. At the outset. It must be noted that there is no dispute whatsoever as to the other portion of the property, that is, the 14 Annas share of 478 sq. yards.3. The appellants purchased the suit property from one Ashabai Shaikh by a registered Sale Deed dated 14.1.1966 Exhibit 23. By this register...

Mohamed Harshad Mohamed Ashraf Khan @ Rizvi Vs. Mr. M.N. Singh, Commis ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1564; 2001(3)BomCR724; (2001)3BOMLR724; (2001)3CompLJ113(Bom); 2001(3)MhLj525

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner - detenu impugns the order dated 18.1.2001 passed by the First Respondent Mr. M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai, detaining him under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981 (Amendment - 1996). (Hereinafter referred to as the M.P.D.A. Act).The detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 18.1.2001 was served on the petitioner-detenu on 21.1.2001 andtheir true copies are annexed as Exhibit A and B respectively to this writ petition.2. The prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu prompting the First Respondent to pass the Impugned order are contained in the grounds of detention. Their perusal shows that the impugned order is founded on 1 C.R. namely C.R. No. 266/2000 of Nehru nagar police ...

Subhash Raghunath Ingale Vs. State and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)4BOMLR170; 2001(3)MhLj671

N.V. Dabbolkar, J.1. Heard leared counsel for the respective parties.2. In this matter, present petitioner had filed a complaint with the Sillegaon, Police Station, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad, against the present respondent Nos. 2 to 9 for the offences punishable under sections 420, 468, 34 of Indian Penal Code on the allegations that they grabbed the amount from the Government in respect of the scheme for compensation to the agriculturists, whose standing ready sugar cane crop was not harvested during crushing season of 1995-1996.3. After investigation, the police have filed report praying for directions to prosecute the present petitioner for lodging a false complaint. Said prayer was allowed by the J.M.F.C., Gangapur and a notice was issued to the present petitioner as to why he should not be prosecuted for lodging a false complaint. The petitioner challenged the decision by Criminal Revision No. 243 of 2000 before the Court of Sessions Judge. Aurangabad. The revision peti...

Special Land Acquisition Officer (5) and R.J.D. Cooper (Dr.) Vs. Mahar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR479

A.B. Palkar, J.1. This is a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of a land of which acquisition has been given up afterwards by the Government. Following facts which are more or less matters of record need to be stated in order to appreciate the controversy.2. Claimant R.J. Copper is resident of Pune. He is owner of land bearing CTS No. 382, Matunga Division, admeasuring 1258.33 sq.meters situated at Antop Hill Road, Wadala. Claimant being resident of Pune could not supervise the land personally and he had also come to know that it was being trespassed by anti-social elements. Therefore, he decided to dispose of the land and had approached certain agents. He had received some offers. However, on 1-7-1962 a notification was issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act that the land was required for carrying out housing scheme of Maharashtra Housing Board and as such for public purpose and was decided to acquire. In view of this claimant could not carry...