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.
Al-hafiz Traders Vs. Commissioner of Customs (J)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC644Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants are a manufacturer of Indian perfumes, mainly Attar.They imported a consignment of glass bottles for packing Attar. The consignment comprised 4,500 dozs. glass bottles valued at Rs. 1.2 lakh.These goods were confiscated by the Customs Authorities holding that the glass bottles were consumer goods and was not allowed for import.The appellants claimed that glass bottles were accessories and were permitted for import without any licence.2. It is being submitted that the appellants are a known and registered (SSI) manufacturer of Indian Perfumes and their production was over Rs. 1.68 crore in 1993-94. They had also exported over Rs. 12 lakhs worth of perfumes. This was in addition to quantity sold to various foreign visitors, particularly from middle-east. The Representative of the appellant emphasised during the hearing of the appeal that perfumes are required to be packed and put up in an attractive manner. This is a universal practice. However, since the appellants ar...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Beat All Sports
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT671Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When the appeal came up for hearing letter dated 6-12-2002 from the respondent was noted. Under this letter they have sought adjournment for one month. This appeal of the Revenue is of 1997. Accordingly, it is being taken up for consideration for hearing without grant of adjournment.2. The dispute is with regard to a consignment of "Prime Ash Planking Unedged" valued around Rs. 90,000/- imported by the respondent in January, 1995. The respondent is a manufacturer of Sport goods. It was their submission that the goods in question was raw material required by them for manufacture of Hocky Sticks. As against this the Customs authorities held that the goods are only Sawn Timber and could be imported only under a Special Import Licence (SIL) which the appellant did not possess. Accordingly, the goods were confiscated for violation of Import Policy. However, when the matter went in appeal, the Commissioner took of the view that the goods are raw material for manufacture of Hocky Sticks a...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Joseph Engineering Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT89Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein who are manufacturers of packing/sealing machines, weighing scales, etc., falling under Chapter 84 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985, filed classification lists effective from 1-3-1994 and 1-4-1994 claiming exemption under Notification 1/93, dated 28-2-1993. Show cause notice dated 11-1-1995 was issued proposing denial of the exemption on the ground that the goods were being cleared under the brand name 'Philips' belonging to another person. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the charges raised in the show cause notice and confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 1,88,381.40 covering the period August to November, 1994. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- upon the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner's order holding that, for denying the benefit of the exemption it has to be established that the word 'Philips' used by the respondents in respect of the products man...
P. Dhanpal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: (2004)(2)SLJ289CAT
1. Applicant aggrieved by A1 order dated 15.11.99 by which his plea to protect the post of Assistant Newsreel Officer in Group-B as a separate cadre was rejected and A-4 order dated 12.8.99 by which the post of Assistant Newsreel Officer Group-B was downgraded to a Group-C cadre of Assistant Cameraman without considering the representation made by the applicant and A-5 order dated 7.1.99 by which the Government approved the merger of the posts of Newsreel Officer with the post of Chief Cameraman and redesignated the same as Chief Cameraman, filed this O.A.seeking the following reliefs: (i) To quash Annexures A1, A4, A5 and to declare that merging the cadre of Assistant Newsreel Officer (Group-B) with a lower Group(C) post is illegal. (ii) To direct that the applicant is entitled to continue in a Group-B post or in a similar cadre and not liable to be downgraded to a Group-C post. (iii) To direct the respondents to remove the anomaly if necessary by prescribing quota in promotion for e...
Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. Through Its Manager and Mine Manager, Manga ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1180; 2004CriLJ474
S.T. Kharche, J.1. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) in which the following reliefs have been sought :(i) These applicants therefore pray that this Honble Court be pleased to exercise its powers under S. 482 of Criminal Procedure Code and set aside the order dated 30.8.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Savner below Exhibit 'B' in Criminal Case No.67/99 by holding that the complaint being time barred is untenable;(ii) during the pendency of the proceeding before this Honble Court interim stay of further proceedings in Criminal Case No.67/1999 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Savner, be granted;(iii) any other reliefs that is deem fit under circumstances of the case may kindly be granted.'2.The applicant no.1 is a Government Company which carries on the business of mining of Manganese in the States of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, whereas applicant no.2 is the Mine Manager. The respond...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.G. Shirke and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: [2003]264ITR83(Bom); 2003(1)MhLj1008
J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. The question of law relating to Assessment Year 1978-79 referred to this Court at the instance of the revenue, under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is as follows :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunalwas justified in law in holding that the contribution of Rs. 17,08,000/- tothe three welfare trusts created by the assessee, is an allowable deductionunder Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in computing the totalincome of the assessee for the assessment year 1978-79?'2. The relevant facts are that the assessee is a registered firm having sevenpartners. The assessed/firm is carrying on business of construction and structuralengineers. For the assessment year 1978-79 the assessee filed return of incomedeclaring total income of Rs. 37,59,610/-. During the accounting year relevant tothe assessment year 1978-79, the assessee had created three welfare trusts for thewelfare of its employees of various grades and had contrib...
Afzal Ibrahim Jariwala Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)38; 2003BomCR(Cri)899
V.K. Tahilramani, J.Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned Additional Advocate General with learned A.P.P for the State. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 1. The applicant has preferred this application for bail in C. R. No. 15/2001 registered at DCB CID Unit VII, Mumbai. The said case was initially registered under Section 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code. Later on the provisions of the MCOC Act were applied. The present application is not on merits but it is only pressed under Section 167(2) of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. A few dates would be relevant-1) Date of arrest and first remand of applicant - 19-3-2001. 2) Provisions of MCOC Act applied - 27-4-2001. 3) Period of 90 days from arrest and first remand expired - 16-6-2001. 4) Chargesheet filed - 23-7-2001. 5) Application for bail under Section 167(2) - 13-8-2001 3. The applicant in the present case came to be arrested on 19-3-2001 for the offences unde...
Shrikrishna A. Prabhu Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom261; 2003(3)ALLMR619; 2003(4)BomCR757; 2003(2)MhLj843
C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. A news item appeared in Daily Sakal (Marathi) dated June 21, 2001, It was a letter addressed by one S. A. Prabhu, petitioner in the present petition. In the said letter, it was stated that his son, Rajesh, aged about 23 years, was the best Air Wing Cadet in the NCC, and was Gold Medalist. He had joined the Air Force Academy, Hyderabad. On August 17, 1995, he was on a solo ride. Due to irresponsible and careless behaviour of higher officers, there was an accident in which he lost his life.2. The father, thereafter, mentioned in the letter that no proper care has been taken by the Government towards Air. Force Pilot Trainees, The Government did not treat them as Government Servants, and they were treated as Government servants only after they become commissioned officers. He was also angry towards the treatment shown to Air Force Pilot Trainees and their family members. The father had stated that after the death of his son, financial assistance of only Rs. 45,000.00...
Manoj Bhaskarao Karnik Vs. City of Nagpur Corporation and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)MhLj17
A.P. Shah, J.1. Rule is issued on all the petitions. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.2. This group of writ petitions under Article 226 involve common questions of law and facts and can be disposed of by this common judgment. Briefly the facts giving rise to these petitions are that the 1st respondent - City of Nagpur Corporation advertised in 'Daily Navbharat' vacancies in various posts under the Corporation on 1-9-1993. In pursuance of the said advertisement published by the Corporation several candidates applied for different posts and they were called for interview along with original testimonials. The advertisement was issued for 161 posts but it contemplated that there would be likely change in the number of posts. While selection process was in progress one Bhalchandra Joshi filed Writ Petition No. 3498 of 1993 before this Court challenging the process. By order dated 17-12-1993 this court restrained the Corporation from making any appoint...
Smoke Affected Residents' Forum Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)BomCR323
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Both these notices of motion have been taken out by the State of Maharashtra and Maharashtra Vahtuk Sena (Mahasangha) respectively, praying therein that time stipulated for phasing out/conversion of all transport vehicles by an order dated 17th October, 2001 Smoke Affected Residents' Forum v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, reported in : 2002(2)BomCR343 , be extended for a period of five years. In the second notice of motion, a prayer is also made to join the applicant as party respondent or to allow it to intervene in the main matter.2. It may be stated that a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 17th October, 2001, issued certain directions. Paragraph 13 of the said order is relevant and reads as under (2002(2) Bom.C.R.348:'The last category is the category of transport vehicles. The committee has recommended that with effect from 1st January, 2001 all transport vehicles (except three-wheelers and BEST buses) over the age of 15 years shall be s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »