Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Chandradevi Jaiswal Vs. M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Greater Bo ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1991; (2001)4BOMLR433

Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. Through this Writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; the Petitioner who styles herself as the mother of the detenuRajeshkumar Patiram Jaiswal, has impugned the order dated 16.3.2001passed by the 1st Respondent Mr. M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police,Brihan Mumbai, detaining the detenu under Sub-section 1 of Section 3 ofMaharashtra 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 16.3.3001, was served on the detenu on 21.3.2001 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures A and B, respectively to this petition. 2. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned order is founded on one C.R., i.e. C. R. No. 125/2000 under Sections 170, 365, 376(g), 392, 34 of the I.P.C., registered on the basis of a complaint dated 25.6.2000. lodged by Smt. Hasin...

Kirti Babulal Shah Vs. Ito

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)77TTJ(Mumbai)30

ORDERM.K. Chaturvedi, Vice PresidentThis appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-XXXIX, Mumbai, and relates to the assessment year 1997-98.2. I have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before me. Intimation dated 4-8-1997, under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was sent to the assessee. The benefit of indexation cost of acquisition of units under UTI MEP-91 and UTI MEP-92 was denied while computing long-term capital gain on repurchase of the said units of the UTI. Assessee filed application under section 154, which was rejected, Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of assessing officer. Being aggrieved of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The short question before the Tribunal is whether the benefit of indexation could be allowed to the assessee in respect of the capital gain arising on repurchase of units referred to ...

D.K. Polyn Industries, Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These four application relate to four appeals filed against a common order passed by the Commissioner. These are therefore taken up together for disposal.2. M/s. D.K.Polyn Industries are manufacture in 100% Export Oriented (EOU) sector, Shri Kapadia is the partner and S/Shri Shah and Slavi are persons who had purchased certain goods from it.3. On checking of stock of yarn in the EOU unit shortages of processed yarn of over 1 lakh kilogram was noticed. The partner of the unit Shri Kapadia accepted that these goods were sold by them for cash without the cover of invoices and without discharging the burden of duty. The two traders accepted purchase of these goods. After issuing show cause notice and after hearing the concerned persons, the Commissioner confirmed the customs duty amounting to Rs.61,12,328/- against the unit and also imposed penalty of equal amount on them. He imposed penalty of Rs.10 lakhs on Shri Kapadia under Section 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962 and of Rs.1 lakh each ...

Jindal Cosmetics and Plastic Mfg. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT536Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants imported side panels with control knobs claiming them to be components of portable butane gas stove and sought classification of the imported goods under Customs Tariff heading 7321.90 as parts of gas stove and clearance under OGL. The authorities below have held that the goods acquired the essential characteristics of completion/finished product by virtue of application of Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation of the Customs Tariff Act, and accordingly required specific licence for importation. The Commissioner hence confiscated the goods with option of redemption on payment of fine of Rs.1.5 lakhs.In addition he imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/- Hence this appeal.2. We have heard both sides and seen goods in question. There is no dispute that only side panels, with control knob were imported. It is also not disputed that drip pan, burner and pan supports were also required to make it a complete stove. The question therefore that is to be decided is whether...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Repl Engineering Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above application for early hearing filed by the Revenue is allowed and we take up the appeal itself for disposal.2. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the decisions of the Tribunal in order No. C-1/4362-4364/WZB/1998 holding that the activity of making cable joint kit does not amount to manufacture. The Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court and also the CBEC circular dated 27/03/1997.3. In the ground of appeal before the Tribunal the Revenue has not contested the reliance by the lower appellate authority on the Tribunal decision cited supra. Since the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly followed the decisions of the Tribunal on the same issue in the respondent's own case no infirmity arises in the impugned order.4. We accordingly uphold the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and reject the appeal....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Borosil Glass Works Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(78)ECC805

1. The application by the Revenue for early hearing of the above appeal has been filed on the ground that the issue is recurring in nature, namely the issue relating to classification of the products such as single and multi-necked vessels and also decoration made on plain glass. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection in granting early hearing.2. In view of the fact that the issue is recurring, we fix the appeal for hearing 18^th October, 2001. Miscellaneous application is hereby allowed....

Lacure Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT169Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The impugned order of the Commissioner demands duty from, and imposes penalty on the appellant on the ground that the benefit of exemption contained in notification 203/92 had been wrongly extended to the goods imported by it. The order finds that the appellant had taken modvat credit in the manufacture of goods which it exported consequent upon which it obtains the advance licence permitting duty free import.Counsel for the applicant points out that the show cause notice does not indicate any basis for its allegation that modvat credit has been taken. The show cause notice alleges that credit was taken, but it does not indicate material on the basis of which this allegation is based.Further, there is no basis disclosed in the notice for invoking the extended period of limitation contained in the proviso under sub-section (1) of section 28 of the Act. The contention in the notice that the importer made wrongful declaration of the export document that modvat credit has been taken is...

Noble Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicant weeks early hearing of the above appeal on the ground that suspension of the CHA licence has rendered several employees jobless causing hardship to several persons. The activity of the CHA has also come to a stand still and therefore livelihood of many persons has been affected.2. On hearing learned counsel and learned DR we fix the appeal for hearing on 13^th November, 2001....

M/S Saheli Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants herein are engaged in the business of processing of textiles on job work basis. They had filed writ petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein they had contended inter alia that their duty liable was restricted to the amount payable on value added by them and that they were not liable to pay ant duty on the wholesale value of manmade fabrics. On 20^th February, 1984, 1984 the apex Court passed an interim order directing them to furnish a bank guarantee for the duty on the difference between the ultimate price charged from appellant's customers and the value of processing work done by the appellants.2. As per the directions of the Apex Court the appellant executed bank guarantees to the extent of Rs.1,70,000/-, Rs.23,35,000/- and Rs.2,27,83,815.14. Writ petitions were subsequently disposed off by the Supreme Court by its order dated 04/11/1998 reported in Ujjagar Prints Vs. CCE 1988 (38) ELT 535 (SC) which was followed by a clarificatory order dated 27/11/1989...

Vaishnav Fibre Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Sheva

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicant seeks early hearing of the above appeal on the ground that the goods in question which were imported by them have been lying with the department since September, 1999. The have earlier filed an appeal before the Tribunal which set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter. Once again the Commissioner has passed a fresh order without carrying out the directions contained in the Tribunal's remand order.2. Learned counsel submits that the issue involved is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shanti Alloys Ltd. & Anr.Vs.CC, Bangalore 2001 (43) RLT 332. Learned DR has not objection to grant of early hearing.3. In view of the submissions made and the decisions cited before us we fix the appeal for hearing on 18^th October, 2001....