Mumbai Court November 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Merind Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-2002
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT819Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This stay application relates to Order-in-original dated 27-12-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II classifying Trineursol-H under sub-heading 2936.00 and confirming a differential duty demand of Rs. 21,32,940.00 and imposing penalty of Rs. 12,35,606/- under Section 11 AC and another amount of Rs. 5 lakhs under Rule 173Q.It is the contention of Shri C.S. Lodha, learned Advocate for the appellants that the product in question has therapeutic value as well as therapeutic use as it is a Fixed Dose Combination of Vitamin B-1, B-6 and B-12 and is therefore classifiable under sub-heading No.3003.00. He also states that the details of the products were known to the department all along and the impugned order has been issued merely because action has been taken by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare under Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 to prohibit the manufacture of such product in public interest. He also submits that the said action by the ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kalyani Sharp (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT338Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application for condonation of delay has been filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I stating that the departmental appeal was sent to the Assistant Registrar, CEGAT, Mumbai on 19-4-2000 by registered speed post. However, the address mentioned was, Assistant Registrar, Laxmi Building, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai. The COD application has been filed in May, 2002 and has been received in the CEGAT office on 22-5-2002. Shri M.K. Gupta, learned Joint CDR who appeared on behalf of the department stated that the impugned Order-in-Original is dated 31-12-98 which was reviewed by the Board in its order dated 10-12-99 but the same was received by the Commissioner on 13-2-2000. He contended that the departmental appeal was to be filed by 13-5-2000 and was duly handed over to the post office on 19-4-2000.The department came to know on 16-5-2002 after about 2 years that the appeal has not been received in the CEGAT. Hence, a fresh appeal with application for COD has been filed o...
Shalu Dyeing and Printing Mills Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT352Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the decision of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Surat, made in Order-in-Original No. 5/MP/93, dated 9-3-1993 whereunder he confirmed a duty of Rs. 1,34,8917- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. He imposed a fine of Rs. 4 lakhs. He also confiscated land, building etc.and imposed a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. A show cause notice dated 25-10-1990 was issued to the appellant as well as other noticees charging the appellant that it has clandestinely removed the goods manufactured by it and without payment of duty valuing about Rs. 8.39 lakhs and the notice also proposed to impose penalties etc. The notice also proposed to impose penalties on other noticees under Rule 209A. I am not concerned about the notices relating to the other persons. The main charge against the assessee was that the assessee has maintained the accounts of the number of the goods manufactured on the basis of private records. The synchronisation of the priva...
Commr. of Customs Vs. Twenty First Century Printers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT244Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the Order-in-Appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held as follows : - I hold that interest is liable to be paid to the appellant. I do not however agree that interest is required to be paid from the date of CEGAT order as claimed by the appellant. Section 27A of the Customs Act came into force only from 1-4-95 and within reasonable time from 1-4-95 would be in my opinion 3 months from 1-4-95. Therefore interest would be payable from after 3 months from 1-4-95. The rate at which interest would be @ 15% per annum as laid out by Notification No. 22/95, dated 29-5-95. With this order appeal is accordingly disposed off. Impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed. Lower authority may calculate the interest payable." 2. The department has filed this appeal granting interest from 1-4-1995. The argument of the department is that the party himself has delayed submission of triplicate bill of entry. When the party submitted original bill of entry on 13-5-1996, claim was paid on 2-7-1...
Kanti S. Mehta Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT711Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the order impugned in the appeal the Commissioner (Appeal) has dismissed the appeal filed before as barred by limitation. The appellant received the order of the Joint Commissioner on 24-10-2001 and filed its appeal against this order to the Commissioner (Appeals) on 6-1-2002. There was a delay of 14 days on the ground of illness, supported by a certificate issued by a medical practitioner which showed that the appellant advised bed rest between 16-12-2001 and 4-1-2002. The Commissioner (Appeals) does not dispute the genuineness of the certificate, but says that there is explanation as to why the appeal could not have been filed prior to 16-12-2001.2. The simple answer furnished by the counsel for the appellant, that there is no requirement for explaining failure to file the appeal within statutory period of this period has to be accepted. He cites in support the decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v.Administrator Howrah Municipality 3. The appeal is accordingl...
Express Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT567Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The appellant imported in August, 1990 a consignment of goods described as gold plated plastic moulded round bowls, and filed a bill of entry for warehousing them. The goods were classified in hearing 85.09 of the Customs tariff. This heading covers electro-mechanical domestic appliances, with self-contained electric motor, and parts thereof. The appellant, after filing ex-bond bill of entry, cleared the goods fro the bonded warehouse on 19.11.1992 after paying customs duty and additional duty at the rate applicable to heading 8509.90. Notice was consequently issued to the appellant alleging that the goods were correctly classifiable in heading 9405.92 as lighting fittings, and demanding differential additional duty of customs of Rs. 1,00,983/-.The basic duty of customs leviable on goods of heading 85.09 and 94.05 is the same. The Assistant Commissioner has confirmed the demand. After a round of proceedings the mater was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner, he again confirmed th...
Kashibai D/O Bhagwan Giri Vs. the State of Maharashtra,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)MhLj658
V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitionerand the learned Counsel for the respective respondents.2. The present writ petition is directedagainst the order dated 01.05.2001 terminating theservices of the petitioner with effect from 01.06.2001.The said order was issued by the present respondent no. 3i.e. Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal(for short the Mandal). The present writ petitionalso challenges the advertisement dated 10.06.2001inviting applications for the post of HostelSuperintendent.3. The Government of Maharashtra took a policydecision to establish Girls Hostels in every taluka inthe State in the memory of the Ex-Prime Minister ofIndia Smt. Indira Gandhi. The said Priyadarshini GirlsHostels were to run on the lines of the Hostels fordepressed classes run by the Social Welfare Department.The Government of Maharashtra framed the rules formanagement of such Priyadarshini Girls Hostels, whichwere applicable to the voluntary organisations run...
Abdul Rashid S/O Abdul Sattar and Kishor S/O Babulal Tulsibagwale Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)MhLj902
S.B. Mhase, J.1. Heard Mr. K.C. Sant, and Mr.Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, learned Counsel for petitioners inrespective petitions, Mr. Goolam Wahanvati, learnedAdvocate General with Mr. E.P. Savant, Government Pleaderand Mr. S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P., Mr. Mandlik, Mr. Soman, Mr. S.R.Barlinge, and Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar, learned Counsel forrespective respondents.2. Both these Writ Petitions are pertaining tothe provisions of Section 19(1)(AA) of the BombayProvincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, andtherefore, are being disposed of by common judgment.Writ Petition No. 2581 of 2002 is filed by the petitionerswho are Corporators of Aurangabad Municipal Corporationelected in the elections which were held in the year1999, belonging to Congress (I) Party. It appears thatas per the practice then prevailing, the then Mayor, Mr.Karad, designated the petitioner No. 2 as a Leader ofOpposition in the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad andby the letter dated 17.5.2001 the Mayor informed thatexcept party in po...
Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction Vs. Swadeshi Mills C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: [2002]112CompCas698(Bom)
R.J. Kochar, J.1. Perused the report dated October 23, 2002, submitted by the official liquidator. He wants ratification of his action in appointing 98 guards for 24 hours to safeguard the assets of the company (in liquidation) of M/s. C. D. Security Services Network Ltd. He has sought direction that the secured creditors, i.e., Bank of Baroda and IDBI should deposit the security charges with him.2. Ms. Buch, learned counsel appearing for the RMMS, the representative union in the textile industry, has handed over the minutes of a meeting held on October 29, 2002, of the High Power Committee. It appears that the committee has decided that 45 security guards would be sufficient to protect the property. The Committee has assessed that 98 security guards were not required. Leaned counsel for the Bank of Baroda submits that his clients will not bear any security expenses. It is reflected that in the meeting held before the official liquidator at the time of taking possession of the property...
Salim Akbarali Nanji and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. and De ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR278; 2003(2)BomCR557; [2003]113CompCas141(Bom); [2003]48SCL1(Bom)
D.B. Bhosale, J. 1. In this group of writ petitions, the principal question that arises for our consideration is as to whether the Development Co-operative Bank Ltd. (respondent No. 10) initially registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Societies Act'), and which is deemed to be registered under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (for short 'the Multi-State Act'), could be converted into a joint stock (banking) company under the provisions of Part IX of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Companies Act').2. The petitioner, in all the four writ petitions, is common. The facts giving rise to these writ petitions are similar and the issues involved are also common, hence all the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The principal question that we require to decide in these writ petitions is mainly raised in Writ Petition No. 1443 of 1995 and our decision in this writ petition will decide the fate of oth...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »