Mumbai Court January 2002 Judgments
Cc Vs. Vardhman Acrylic Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)(102)LC485Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondents herein were originally known as M/s. Vardhman Fibres Ltd. which was re-organised in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Joint Venture Agreement dated 22.12.1995 entered into by and among M/s. Ma-havir Spinning Mills Ltd., Ludhiana, M/s. Japan Exlam Co.Ltd. Japan and M/s. Marubeni Corpn., Japan as Joint Venture Company with the purpose of conducting the business of manufacture, marketing and distribution of acrylic fibres and tow. They imported various equipments for setting up 16500 T/Y acrylic fibre plant for manufacture of acrylic fibre from M/s. Marubeni Corporation, Japan in accordance with the terms and condition of an equipment supply contract entered into with them. The foreign supplier was found to be related to the importer in terms of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and hence the matter was taken up by the Gatt Valuation Cell for investigation of Valuation aspect. A questionnaire was supplied to the respondents and in the reply therein, they stat...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Traders Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT95Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Shyam Traders imported two consignments of paper described as 'Printing Paper (Coated)' and 'Printing Paper' under bills of entry No. 8000, dated 16-9-1994 and 8123, dated 22-11-1994 respectively and claimed clearance under advance licence Nos. 1524017, dated 1-11-1993 and 2322325, dated 10-1-1994 respectively. The description of the goods allowed under the first licence was 'chrome paper (soft cup, wrapper/labels)' and the description of the goods allowed under the second licence was 'uncoated board of 200 gsm or paper up to 100 gsm". The first consignment was tested and found to be uncoated paper sheet made of chemical pulp and was allowed clearance. Thereafter it appeared to the department that the imported goods did not conform to the description given in the licences and the goods imported under bill of entry No. 8000, dated 16-9-1994 were again tested on 15-5-1995 and found to be coated paper with 49.0 gsm. The Dy. Chief Chemist opine...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus., Vs. Mahalaxmi Seamless Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT384Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We take up the appeal itself for hearing after allowing stay application filed by the Revenue.2. The issue in dispute is as to whether proportionate credit can be directed to be reversed which was taken on inputs used for job work as well as for manufacture of the final product. We find that Commissioner (Appeals) has not applied his mind independently to the nature of the goods. For example he has held that the inputs in question are Pipes and Tubes while they are Anti-rust, Anti-erosion preparations, hydrochloric acid etc. and the final products are Pipes and Tubes and further in his findings he also talks about input going into furnace, while the assessee did not use, the inputs in the induction furnace.Therefore we are satisfied that the order has been passed on total non-application of mind and it appears that the similar order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 3-1-2001 referred to in the present impugned order has been blindly followed by him to hold that in the facts of th...
Tag this Judgment!Pradip Bhikaji Satam Vs. S.M. Shangari and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)602; 2002CriLJ1715; 2002(2)MhLj162
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu Pradip Bhikaji Satam has impugned the order dated 10-10-2001 passed by the first respondent Mr. S.M. Shangari, Commissioner of Police, Thane 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), hereinafter referred to as the M.P.D.A. Act.The detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 10-10-2001 was served on the petitioner-detenu on 11-10-2001 and their true copies have been annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this petition.3. A perusal of the grounds of detention (Annexure B) would show that the detaining authority has averred in para 1 that the grounds have been stated by him in para 4 and a perusal of the latter para would show that the impu...
Tag this Judgment!D.H. Bhatter Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR280; 2002BomCR(Cri)604; 2002CriLJ4851
A.B. Palkar, J.1. By these petitions the petitioner who is arraigned as accused in Criminal Case No. 239/S of 1999 to 248/S of 1999 pending in the Court of the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai, seeks to quash and set aside the said complaint and the prosecution in pursuance thereof. There is an alternative prayer for stay of these proceedings pending hearing and final disposal of the case filed by respondent No. 3/Central Bureau of Investigation bearing No. RC 10A of 1992 in the Court of the Special Judge for Greater Bombay. The case of the petitioner in brief is as under :2. All these complaints are filed against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaints are filed by the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. It is contended that the subject matter of the criminal complaint filed by respondent No. 1 (complaint) against the petitioner and others is same as that of criminal case initiated by the C.B...
Tag this Judgment!Godrej Agrovet Ltd. Vs. Rohit Agrovet Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(25)PTC573(Bom)
D.Y. Chandrachud, J. P.C.: 1. Admit. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the learned Counsel taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The dispute in the present case arises out of the use of the mark 'Godrej Milk More' by the Appellants on their cattle feed products. The First Respondent, it is common ground, is also carrying on a similar line of business. The Appellants havecommenced the use of the mark since 1997 and the details of their sales between 1997 and 2001 which were furnished before the Trial Court are as follows : GODREJ AGROVET LIMITED, MIRAJDetails of Sales of Milk More PelletSr.No.YearSalein MTRs. in lacs1.1997-9827519.522.1998-99126789.953.1999-001786126.804.2000-012271161.38The Appellants admittedly have the prior user of the mark. On 10th September 1998, the Appellants have filed an application before the Registrar of Trade Marks for the registration of the trade mark 'Milk More'. The Respondents commenced the use of the same mark 'Milk More' on their p...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal S/O Khanayalal Bharadiya Vs. Kedarmal Jainarayan Bharadiya and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)3BOMLR347; 2003(2)MhLj751
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Judgment debtor (original defendant), by this revision petition, challenges order dated 5-12-2001 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, at Exhibit 543 of Special Civil Suit No. 51/1964 on his file. By this application - Exhibit 543 filed on 3-12-2001, a document dated 22-2-1993 was produced before the Court and it was pleaded that although titled as 'General Mukhtyar Patra', it was in fact an arbitration agreement. It was, therefore, prayed that property dispute pending between the parties before the Court may be referred to the two surviving arbitrators viz. Gokuldas Bhutada and Nandkishor Bharadia for the settlement of the matter and final decree should be drawn only after a report from those arbitrators. Admittedly, third person named in the same document, namely Ishwardas Baldawa, is dead. This application was rejected by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, mainly on three grounds : (1) That the document is not an arbitration agreement, but it is G...
Tag this Judgment!Banhem Securities (P.) Ltd. Vs. National Stock Exchange
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: (2005)5CompLJ224(Bom); [2003]48SCL739(Bom)
ORDER1. The challenge in this petition is to the circular issued by the SEBI Board dated 9-7-1999, the relevant portion of which reads thus :The Stock Exchange should on receipt of the arbitration award, debit the amount of the arbitration award from the security deposit or any other monies of the member (against whom an award has been passed) and keep the amount in a separate account. Thereafter, a confirmation may be obtained from the concerned member that he has not filed any appeal within the stipulated lime under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and Conciliation Act, and only then the payment may be made to the awardee. If an appeal is filed and the same is pending in a Court of law, the amount so kept in the separate account be paid to the awardee in accordance with the court orders.At the lime of debiting the amount, the Stock Exchange may if so desire inform him that the Exchange will not be liable for loss of interest, business etc. in case the award is modified by the Court....
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Jyoti Rajeev Agarwal Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Through the Se ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR158
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who describes herself as the wife of the detenu Rajeev Agarwal s/o. Sanwarmal Agarwal has challenged the order dated 16.8.2001 passed by the 2nd Respondent Mr. Som Nath Pal, Jt. Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, 'B' Wing, 6th floor, Janpath Bhavan, Janpath, New Delhi 110001, detaining the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended), hereinafter referred to as C.O.F.E.P.O.S.A. Act'.The detention order alongwith the grounds of detention, which are also dated 16.8.2001, was served on the detenu on 10.9.2001 and their true, copies are annexed as Annexures 'A' and 'B' respectively to this petition.2. The prejudicial activities of the detenu prompting the 2nd respondent to pass the impugned order are contained in the grounds of detention (Annexu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex., Vs. Nath Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT689Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondents herein are manufacturing Paper and Paper Board. They were clearing their excisable goods on payment of duty after allowing special discount and weight difference discount to their customers. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise by order dated 3-1-96 confirmed the demand of Rs. 60,369/-holding that discount was allowable during normal course of wholesale trade if its nature and its allowance was known prior to the removal of goods, while special discount by the respondents was allowed to certain customers and therefore could not be deducted from the assessable value and that the weight difference was also not a permissible deduction as it was not allowed during the normal wholesale trade and its nature, method and procedure followed did not have any legal backing. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondent and set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner holding that no evidence was produced by the department to show that the special...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »