Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Shree Sai Shraddha Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Hearing notice issued to the appellants has been returned undelivered with the postal remark "Company Closed returned to Sender".We therefore direct issue of fresh notice to be served upon the appellants (sic) the Commissioner returnable on 22.11.2001.2. Copy of the note sheet order to be issued to Jurisdictional Commissioner and copy of the note sheet order to be also handed over to the Ld. DR for the annual transmission....

Asmaco Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Adjournment was requested on the ground that the counsel is away on vacation. We however find that the appeal itself could be disposed of (which the departmental representative consents to) and decline to adjourn.2. The appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) demanding duty on the goods manufactured by the appellant on the ground that they were not entitled to the exemption contained in notification 203/92 for the reason that modvat credit had been availed of in the manufacture of the exported goods.3. The copy of the licence under which the goods were imported,which has been produced in the appeal, indicates as limiting factors both value and quantity. The licence appears thus to be a quantity based licence. This is confirmed by the fact that DEEC book issued with the licence clarifies that the goods that they may be imported under it are entitled to the benefit of notification 204/92. This notification does not contain any condition relating to availing of modvat c...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal by the Commissioner, is whether the respondent was entitled not to include, determining the assessable value of the goods that it manufactured, the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of these goods which is available to it as modvat credit. The value was based on the cost of production of the goods.2. The judgment of the Supreme Court in CCE vs. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd 2000 (112) ELT 353 confirmed the conclusion in the order of the Tribunal appealed before it, that, in cases of the type that are under consideration, duty paid on the inputs that is available as modvat credit in determining the value. There is therefore no ground for interference....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Prophyla Biologicals Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The revenue seeks condonation of delay of approximately 14 days in preferring the above appeal, the grounds for the delay are explained as delay in obtaining various documents/records and connected papers from Divisional Office/Range Office and as a result, delayed the processing of the file. We find that the only papers that have been filed are the adjudication order and the impugned order in appeal. The office of the Assistant Collector is situated at Belapur as well as the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) and in the same premises, In similar situation in more than on case the Tribunal has held that no ground for condonation has been made out. We also note that the authorisation for filing of the appeals states that the appeal has been filed within the statutory period of three months as required under Section 35E(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and yet an application for condonation which is necessary is being filed this would show how the mind of the Commissioner has be...

Sangeet Syntex Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Since the substantial appeal has already been filed and is pending before the Tribunal and this appeal has been filed by way of abundant caution. It is dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed....

Hicel Pharma Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants were directed to make a predeposit of Rs. 15 lakhs within a month from the receipt of stay order No. C1/1884/WAB/2001 dt.25.7.2001. The copy of the stay order was issued to the address for service given at the appeal memorandum filed before the Tribunal, however the order has been returned with the postal remark "Factory Locked hence returned to sender". In view of the above we dismiss the appeal for non-compliance of statutory requirement of Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962....

Anil Madhav Gore Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR464; 2002(1)BomCR146

A. M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This Appeal takes exception to the order passed by the Bombay City Civil Court, dated March 29, 2001 in Notice of Motion No. 5495/2000 in L. C. Suit No. 6510/2000. By this order, Notice of Motion has been dismissed and prayer for interim Injunction during the pendency of the suit has been rejected.2. The Appellant has challenged the action initiated by the Respondent Corporation under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act in respect of subject structure being an unauthorised structure, by way of suit before the Bombay City Civil Court. In this suit, the Notice of Motion for interim injunction during the pendency of suit was filed, which has been dismissed by the Trial Court by the Impugned order.3. The first point argued on behalf of the Appellant is that the structure was originally owned by Dayashankar Mishra and was erected much before 1982, therefore, a protected structure. In support of this submission reliance has been placed on the Notice is...

Kalpana Omprakash Nighot Vs. Omprakash Bhauraoji Nighot

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)2299; 2002BomCR(Cri)441; (2002)1BOMLR709; 2002(1)MhLj79

1. The applicant had filed Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 318 of 1994 for recovery of arrears of maintenance. The applicant had paid process fee for issuing notice to the non-applicant and the applicant continued attending the Court till 21-11-1996. The case of the applicant is that in November 1996, her father fell ill and she had to go to her father's place where she had to stay till September 1997. The said application was dismissed on 30th September 1997. The applicant filed application for restoration which was rejected vide order dated 19-10-2000 on the ground that since 1994 the applicant had not taken steps for service on the non-applicant that the applicant had not filed any documentary evidence about illness of her father and that Rule 22 of the Family Court Rules 1988 clearly empowers the Court to dismiss the proceedings in case the party fails to take effective steps for service of notice within a period of six months. Learned Advocate for the applicant has urged before me...

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Babasaheb Anna Mali and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2002)ACC642; 2002ACJ642; AIR2002Bom27; 2002(2)BomCR682; (2002)1BOMLR22; 2001(4)MhLj562

R.M. Lodha, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment/ order passed by the learned single Judge on 4-9-1992 whereby the learned single Judge upheld the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Kolhapur on 16-1-1986 directing the present appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 3750/- towards 'no fault liability' under Section 92-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Though the amount involved is meagre, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that as the question of liability of Insurance Company in respect of pillion rider under third parry policy of insurance is involved, the appellant is desirous of the decision In the matter and accordingly we heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The respondent No. 1 herein Babasaheb Anna Mali (for short 'the claimant') filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the deceased respondent No. 2 (now represented by his legal heirs) as opponent party No. 1, re...

Pacific International Traders Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(142)ELT544(Bom)

A.P. Shah, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The petitioner is a foreign based company engaged inter alia in the business of trade in electronics goods. By the present petition, petitioners are seeking a direction to return and/or re-export the goods imported by them from Hong Kong which are unclaimed by the buyers. The petitioners are owners of the said goods. The goods were supplied on 'consignment basis' but the buyers in India have refused to accept the goods and clear the same. The consignment arrived in India sometime during October/November, 2000. The petitioners contacted the buyers and repeatedly requested them to clean the goods but the goods were not cleared. The submission of the petitioner is that since the buyers have refused to take the consignment the petitioners as owners of the goods are entitled to the return thereof.3. It is an admitted position that the bill of entry has not been filed and the buyers have vir...