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.
Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(90)ECC875
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-233354...
Nath International Corporation Vs. Commr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT430Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs who has confirmed a differential duty demand of Rs. 339,65,555/- by loading the assessable value of Air and Exhaust valves of USA origin imported by them (the charge of the department is gross undervaluation of the imported goods), in terms of the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, confiscated 8908 pieces of the two types of valves under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs.10 lakhs and imposed penalty under Section 112 of the Act, on the following persons as under:- (i) Nath International Corporation Rs. 10.00 lakhs(ii) Shri J. Nath Rs. 2.00 lakhs(iii) Shri V. Nath Rs. 2.00 lakhs 2. We have heard both sides. The preliminary point urged before us is that the show cause notice in the present case issued by the Assistant Director DRI is without jurisdiction as he is not the proper officer in terms of Section 2(34) of the Customs Act...
Sky Oxygen Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT1087Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The only issue arising in this appeal is whether the activity of filling duty paid oxygen into cylinders received by the appellant through pipeline from the supplier-manufacturers amounted to "manufacture" so as to attract central excise duty for the period prior to 1-3-97. Demand in this case relates to the period from 1-4-93 to 1-3-97.2. The appellant filed classification list No. 2/94-95 effective from 1-4-94 under erstwhile Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, with protest letter, maintaining that the activity of filling cylinders with oxygen gases did not attract Central Excise duty but they will pay duty under protest under Rule 233B. Prior to 23-7-96 oxygen was classified under three subheadings in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as follows:2804.12 Oxygen supplied through pipeline2804.13 Oxygen in liquid formFrom 23-7-96 the tariff entry was changed as follows: Oxygen (including liquefied or The above would show that prior to 23-7-96 there will be...
Narsi Devji Patel Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT645Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The officers of the Commissionerate of Customs, Preventive, searched the shops Sure and Sure Boutique, located on the ground and first floor of Radha Niwas at Khar, Mumbai. They seized ready-made garments, leather belts, pouches and bags, etc., of foreign origin on the view that the goods were smuggled. The goods are stated to have market value around Rs 64.15 lakhs. Parbat B. Patel, proprietor of Sure and Narsi Devji Patel, proprietor of Sure Boutique, who was the cousin of Parbat B. Patel were interrogated in the course of investigation and their statements were recorded. Parbat Patel said in his statement that he was engaged in selling garments and other articles accepted the fact of seizure shown willingness to pay Rs 2.00 lakhs towards duty. Narsi Devji Patel, his cousin was confronted with the bills of Sapna Enterprises, Vareeja Over-seas, Patel Apparel and Pravin Plastics, which were produced to show that the goods were supplied by these firms. He agreed that none of the bil...
Narendra Mafatlal Mehta, Vs. Union of India (Uoi),
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)BomCR302
C. Daga, J.1. In this group of petitions, the issue raisedis common and hence all these petitions are disposedof by a common judgment. Since the facts in allthese petitions are more or less similar, for thesake of convenience in this judgment, we have dealtwith the facts pertaining to Writ Petition No. 2760 of1989 and the decision in that petition will apply toall other petitions.2. The Petitioners in writ Petition No. 2760 of1989 had purchased various REP licences issued underthe Import and Export Policy April 1985-March 1988(AM 88 policy for short) for valuableconsideration. There is no dispute that the transferof these REP licences in favour of the Petitionersare valid and that the said licences were valid for apart of the period falling under Import and ExportPolicy April 1988 - March 1991 (AM 91 policy forshort). After the AM 91 policy came into force witheffect from 1.4.1988, the Petitioners by their letterdated 22.06.1989 requested the Respondent/licensingauthorities to endorse ...
Dnyanganga Krida Arogya Va Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs. State of Mahar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR922; 2003(2)MhLj130
V.C. Daga, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, petition is heard finally.2. This petition is directed against the order dated 9th April, 2001 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, rejecting permission, to open a new secondary school at Supatgaon, Tahsil-Umerga, Dist. Usmanabad which was sought by the petitioner and in turn granting permission to the respondent No. 5 to open the secondary school.THE FACTS-IN-BRIEF 3. The petitioner is a society registered under Societies Registration Act and also a Public Trust registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act. The petitioner in the year 1998 applied for permission to start a new secondary school at village Supatgaon, being a rehabilitated village which was constituted to settle the persons affected due to earthquake in the Latur area;which was demarcated in the Master Plan for opening a new secondary school. The petitioner, thereafter, sent s...
Ramchandra Shankar Jathar and ors. Vs. Madhukar Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR694; 2003(2)BomCR25; [2003(97)FLR260]; 2003(2)MhLj199
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. The petitioners who are employees in the Zilla Parishad, Solapur have filed this petition challenging the action of the Zilla Parishad in reverting them in 1989 for the reason that they did not pass departmental examination in stipulated time as it was pre-condition of their promotion.2. The petitioners had also agitated against their reversion before the Commissioner, Pune under which Solapur Zilla Parishad functions along with similarly situated employees of various Zilla Parishads and in June, 1989 the Commissioner, Pune issued a circular stating that because of non recognition of equivalent examinations necessary for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts) persons promoted to that post should not be reverted only on the ground that they have not passed necessary departmental examination. However, this circular was not immediately available to the petitioners and this petition was filed.3. In view of the order passed by the Commissioner, Pune in Jun...
Jashu M. Patel Vs. Shivdatta R. Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR1080; 2003(2)ARBLR479(Bom); 2003(3)BomCR307; 2003(3)MhLj487
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The matter pertains to a dispute arising out of dissolution of partnership agreement between the petitioners and respondents. Respondent is the original plaintiff in Suit No. 2041 of 1982. The petitioner herein has yet to file his written statement. In the suit, however, interim proceedings had been taken out for appointment of Court Receiver being Notice of Motion No. 17 of 1983. The petitioner herein had filed his reply to the said motion. As may be noted the suit was filed when the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 were in force. During the pendency of the suit, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has came into force which repealed the Arbitration Act, 1940.The petitioner has now invoked the provisions of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the party to the suit before filing his first statement on the substance of the dispute can invoke provisions of Section 8 by calling on the judi...
Narendra Mafatlal Mehta Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: 2004(169)ELT9(Bom)
Vijay C. Daga, J. 1. In this group of petitions, the issue raised is common and hence all these petitions are disposed of by a common judgment. Since the facts in all these petitions are more or less similar, for the sake of convenience in this judgment, we have dealt with the facts pertaining to Writ Petition No. 2760 of 1989 and the decision in that petition will apply to all other petitions.2. The Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2760 of 1989 had purchased various REP licences issued under the Import and Export Policy April 1985-March 1988 ('AM 88 policy' for short) for valuable consideration. There is no dispute that the transfer of these REP licences in favour of the Petitioners are valid and that the said licences were valid for a part of the period falling under Import and Export Policy April 1988-March 1991 ('AM 91 policy' for short). After the AM 91 policy came into force with effect from 1-4-1988, the Petitioners by their letter dated 22-6-1989 requested the Respondent/licens...
Girdhari Lal B. Rohra Vs. Cit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: (2004)86TTJ(Mumbai)177
ORDERB.L. Chhibber, AM1.This appeal by the assessor Mumbai under section 263 6-9-1999 ap,' with the direcV, 2. The asp engaur, Dip'Revenue at the business and residential premises of the entire group called 'Bhajansons' group on 17-10-1997, during the course of which a number of books and other documents relating to the dairy farming business activities of the group were found and seized.3. Pursuant to the above mentioned search and seizure proceedings, the assessing officer initiated block assessment proceedings in the case of different members of the Bhajanson's group, including the assessee. A notice under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, calling for the block return was issued on 16-4-1998, in response to which the return was filed by the assessee, showing undisclosed income of Rs. 18,33,436. The block assessment order was passed on 6-9-1999 by estimating the undisclosed income of the group as a whole on the basis of various books and documents seized. The undisclosed income of...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »