Mumbai Court December 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.
Om Prakash S/O Vallabhdas Joshi Vs. Maharashtra State Co-operative Cot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: (2004)106BOMLR536
A.P. Shah, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent. Rule is taken up for hearing.2. The petitioner was appointed as Grader in the respondent. No. 1, Federation. He was promoted as Senior Grader in the year 1986. On 18.8.1994 a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner containing three charges. The first charge was that the petitioner was responsible for causing loss (in weight) of 4.09 per cent while he was working at Ramchandra Ginning Factory, Babhulgaon. The second charge was that the stones, earth, pieces of iron were found to be mixed in cotton seeds sold to M/s. Bajrang Oil Mills from the factory where the petitioner was working and the last charge was that there was a short fall of 22.5 quintals of cotton seeds in the commodity sold to M/s. Gopal Oil Industries. One Shri Bhendarkar was appointed as an Inquiry Officer who held an enquiry into the charges and submitted his report on 3.2.1996 whereby he exonerated the petitioner of all the charges. The disciplinary authori...
Dinesh Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT1023Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants imported plastic spirals claiming them to be falling under OGL and not under negative list. The Dy. Commissioner observed that the items fell under sub-heading 3926.90 of the ITC (HS) classification requiring production of a licence. He confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act allowed their redemption on payment of a fine, and also imposed a penalty upon the importers.The Commissioner, after discussing the appropriate sub-heading in the tariff, upheld the lower orders placing his observations on the same ITC (HS). Hence the appeal.2. Shri V.S. Nankani places before us the said classification where the preamble shows that the classification was made public only on 25-3-96 and therefore contents thereof could not apply to the imports covered under the bill of entry dated 12-6-1994. He also shows us the relevant policy at the material time and submits that the goods could not be termed to be restricted items on account of being consumer goods.3. On ...
Sulzer Pumps India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT300Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pumps in technical collaboration with M/s. Sulzer Pumps Limited, Switzerland. Three agreements were entered into between the parties. The agreements provided for payment of transfer fees for technical know-how of SF.31,81,000/-. Payment of royalty expressed as a percentage of the price of the goods manufactured by the importers was also provided for. The appellants imported some components for manufacturer of the pumps. The other components were procured in India.2. The Customs took up investigation in the relationship between the importers and the supplier. Queries were raised and replied. Deputy Commissioner after hearing the importers passed orders, directed the amounts referred to above to be apportioned over CIF value of the imported goods. In addition to this he directed across the board increase of 20%.3. The importers filed an appeal. While the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the orders of 20% loading as without reasons, the...
Phoenix Metals and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC210
1. The modvat credit of Rs. 1,94,836 availing on Unwrought Zinc has been disallowed by the authorities below (or the sole reason that it was availed on the subsidiary gate passes issued in the month of April 1994 i.e. after 1.4.1994.2. On hearing both sides I note that the issue stand settled in favour of the appellants by the Tribunal's decision in the case of Chaphekar Engg. Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, 1996 (64) ECR 58 wherein the Tribunal has held that if the duty paying document is issued prior to 1.4.1994 and inputs have been transferred on the basis of subsidiary gate passes issued thereafter but prior to 4.7.1994, no objection to credit can be raised.Following the order cited above I hold that the appellants are entitled to the credit, set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal....
Premier Textile Processors Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT154Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals have the same issue. These are therefore disposed of vide this single order.2. Both appellants are engaged in processing of fabrics. Rule 223A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 provides for stocktaking of excisable goods to be conducted periodically. In the case of both appellants/ such stocktaking was conducted. The stocktaking covered not only the finished goods but also goods under process. In the case of both appellants/ while there was no discrepancy in the stock of finished product/ there were shortages in the stock of under process fabrics.Show cause notices were issued seeking recovery of duty on fabrics so found short. It was also alleged that penalties were leviable under Rule 173Q and 223A of the Central Excise Rules. The Jurisdictional Commissioner adjudicated the notices after hearing the assessees. He confirmed demand of duty to the extent of Rs. 7,52/606.44 against M/s.Premier Textile Processors and imposed a consolidated penalty of Rs. 1 lakh upon ...
Dhan Laxmi Fabrics Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(86)ECC161
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Here is a case wherein an application seeking condonation of delay by the Petitioners came to be rejected by the impugned order. The petition is to take exception to the said order.2. It is necessary to refer to certain facts, which are as under: The Petitioner are engaged in the processing of Textile Fabrics, falling under 52, 54 & 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 24.12.1998 provisional order came to be passed by the 4th Respondent determining the installed capacity of the Petitioner's Plant at 14 Chambers. On 24.6.1999 final order came to be passed by the 4th Respondent whereby the number of Chambers of the factory of the Petitioners was determined at 14.98 chambers. This order came to be passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and making of oral submissions.3. The aforesaid order passed by the 4th Respondent dated 24.6.1999 was placed for legal opinion of the Consultant, who by his letter dated 3.8.1999 opined...
Dhanlaxmi Fabrics Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(153)ELT42(Bom)
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Here is a case wherein an application seeking condonation of delay by the Petitioners came to be rejected by the impugned order. The petition is to take exception to the said order. 2. It is necessary to refer to certain facts, which are as under :- The Petitioners are engaged in the processing of Textile Fabrics, falling under Chapter 52, 54 & 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 24-12-1998 provisional order came to be passed by the 4th Respondent determining the installed capacity of the Petitioner's Plant at 14 Chambers. On 24-6-1999 final order came to be passed by the 4th Respondent whereby the number of Chambers of the factory of the Petitioners was determined at 14.98 chambers. This order came to be passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and making of oral submissions. 3. The aforesaid order passed by the 4th Respondent dated 24-6-1999 was placed for legal opinion of the Consultant, who by his letter da...
Sarjerao Shamrao Dhas and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)39; 2003BomCR(Cri)1521; 2003(2)MhLj235
V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. The appellants who are the original accused Nos. 1 to 5, 7 to 17, 20, 21 and 23 have been mainly convicted under Sections 307 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 39/86. In the said case, all the appellants have been convicted under Sections 147 and 148 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 1 year and 2 years respectively on those counts. They have also been convicted under Section 307 read with 149 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- i.d. R. I. for 3 months. They have also been convicted under Section 332 read with 149 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act.2. On the last occasion i.e. 2-12-2002 when this matter came up for hearing, all the injured witnesses in the said case i.e. PW 2 Balu Shivdas Dhas, PW 5 Vithal Balbhim Dhas, PW 6 Chandrakant Kerba Dhas, PW 8 Kashinat...
Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)BomCR851; 2003(156)ELT964(Bom); 2003(2)MhLj457
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the show cause notice dated 9th September, 1985 issued by the Customs authorities seeking to levy penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962, Ordinarily we would not have taken on ourself the onerous responsibility of adjudicating the show cause notice. However, since the issue sought to be raised in the above show cause notice is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court, we have decided to dispose of the matter on merits.2. The petitioners were agents of a foreign flag vessel m.v. 'Texas' which had called at the port of Bombay on 21st October, 1981. As the agents of the vessel, the petitioners had filed Import General Manifest (IGM) on 23rd October,1981. The vessel berthed on 26th October, 1981 and completed discharge of cargo on 28th October, 1981 and then sailed out from the port of Bombay thereafter. The vessel had discharged 146 containers. One of the containers being Container No. HLCU-233544-2 wh...
Anisha Sanjay Hinduja Vs. Sanjay Shrichand Hinduja
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR244; II(2003)DMC163; 2003(3)MhLj139
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.2. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the papers.3. The petitioner seeks transfer of Matrimonial Petition being P.A. No. 885 of 2001 pending before the Family Court No. 5 at Pune to the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, and to be heard along with the petition filed by the petitioner being M. J. Petition No. C-91 of 2002 pending before Court Room No. 7 in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai.4. Undisputed facts in the matter are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized as per the Hindu Vedic rites at Knar, Mumbai, on 11th May, 2001. The petitioner joined the respondent at her matrimonial house at Pune. Subsequent to the said marriage, some differences arose between the parties in June, 2001 and, thereafter, the petitioner started residing with her parents at Khar, Mumbai. The respondent filed Matrimonial Petition being PA No. 885 of 2001 in the Family Court at Pu...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »