Mumbai Court February 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.
Nirmal Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT201Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakhs. The applicant is absent and unrepresented. We have read the stay application, the appeal, and other relevant papers and also heard the Departmental Representative.2. The penalty has been imposed on the finding of the Commis sioner that the applicant "conspired" with Shirish Gandhi, proprietor of Shree Krishna Enterprises, to overvalue the garment that were exported by the latter in order to obtain drawback of duty in excess of that legally avail able. The contention of the applicant is that there is no evidence in support of this charge.3. While the Departmental Representative relies on the Commissioner's order, we have prima facie to accept the applicant's claim ab correct.The Commissioner accepts clearly that there is no direct evidence and goes on to describe what he calls "circumstantial" evidence. This evidence only indicates that the applicant conducted negotiation with the Russian buyer of the garments an...
Commr. of C. Ex., Mumbai-ii Vs. Omega Rolling Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT656Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondent had filed the price-list using the cost construction method. The approval of the price-list by the Assistant Collector was challenged by the department before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that profit margin had not been added. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) the assessee's claim was that the profit was an element of the job charges. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted that statement and dismissed the department's appeal. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.2. The claim made in the appeal memorandum is that the Commissioner (Appeals) had merely accepted the statement of such inclusion of profit without insisting on corroborating material. Shri Jain stresses this point.3. We find that in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) the order of the Board issued under Section 37(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been cited. The Board themselves in the said order have accepted that job charges would include profit margin. In view o...
Patheja Brothers Forging and Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT401Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Each of the notices issued to the appellants, pointing out their failure to affix court fee stamp of the prescribed denomination on the three appeals have been returned by the postal authorities with the remarks that they refused to accept the envelopes.2. The appeals are therefore dismissed in terms of Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982....
Manohar S/O Narayanrao Pranjale, Resident of Bhadrawati, Tahsil Bhadra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)688
D.D. Sinha, J. 1. Heard Shri Manohar, learned Counsel for theapplicant, and Shri Dhote, learned Additional PublicProsecutor for the respondent.2.The present application under Section 482 of Codeof Criminal Procedure is directed against the orderdated 5.3.1998 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge,Chandrapur below Exh. 8 in Special Case No. 27/1993whereby application moved by the applicant under Section227 of Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge from theoffences punishable under Sections 376 and 306 read withSection 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) and(xii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act came to be rejected.3.Shri Manohar, learned Counsel for the applicant,submits that applicant is Chief Editor of a weekly knownas Samachar Vrajarsheel and also a General Manager ofthe theatres at Bhadravati and Ghugus. The applicantowns agricultural lands at Manora where he resides. OneKu. Archana Atram, who was neighbour of the applicant,committed ...
Basf Styrenics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Offshore Industrial Construction Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom289; 2002(2)ALLMR910; 2002(4)BomCR661; 2002(2)MhLj873
C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. This Appeal is filed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge on December 18, 2001 in Arbitration Petition No. 613 of 2001.2. The appellant, which was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge, filed the above Petition, inter alia, contending that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The learned Single Judge, considering the rival contentions of the parties, and keeping in mind the relevant provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act', for short), held that the Petition was premature. It was open to the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings only after an Award would be made by the Arbitrator. The said decision is challenged by the appellant in the present Appeal.3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that when a plea was raised by the appellant-petitioner before the learned Single Judge that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction in the matter, the contention ought to have been dealt with ...
Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Primella Sanitary Products (P) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(145)ELT515(Bom)
ORDERP.V. Hardas, J. 1. This is an application filed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Goa, under Sub-section (1) of Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 praying that this Court should direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer to this Court the questions of law, which are reproduced below :- '1. Whether the agreement made between M/s. Christine Hoden (I) Pvt. Ltd. & M/s. Primella Sanitary Products Pvt. Ltd. for transfer of registered trade marks 'Comfit' along with logo is valid in the absence of registration with the proper authority in terms of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958? 2. Whether in the absence of registration of the agreement with the proper authority, M/s. Primella Sanitary Products Pvt. Ltd., Cortalim would not be eligible to avail the benefit of Notification 175/86-CE., dated 1-3-86 as amended and Notification 1/93, dated 28-2-93 in view of Para 7 of Notifica-tion 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-86 and Para 4 of Notification 1/93, dated 28-2-93?' 2. T...
Asha Gomes Vs. Arthur Gomes
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR687; 2002(3)BomCR485; I(2002)DMC794
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Mr. Rego for the appellant. None is present for the respondent, though he has been served. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order passed by the Family Court, Mumbai dated 23rd August, 2001 in Petition No. A-1135 of 2000. The appeal was admitted on 23rd October, 2001 and the hearing was expedited. The record of the proceedings from lower Court is received thereafter and the appellant has filed paper book.2. When the matter reached for final hearing before this Bench, Mr. Rego, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, pointed out that the respondent had remained absent though served in the Family Court also. The appellant herein had filed the above referred matrimonial petition, seeking divorce under the provisions of Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 on the ground of cruelty, as interpreted by the Full Bench of this Court in Pragati Varghese v. Cyril George Varghese, reported in II : AIR1997Bom349 It is the case of the appellant t...
Bhau Damu Vadje, Agriculturist Vs. Kashinath Nathu Ghode and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR174; (2003)105BOMLR149
J.G. Chitre, J.1. The Respondents are absent. None present for them though served. The matter pertains to the year 1987, It has been mentioned in the Board as the matter listed for final hearing. Therefore, this Court is hearing this Writ Petition and deciding it treating the Respondentsex-parte.2. The Petitioner is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik Road in Caste Appeal No. 1/9/1984 dated 31.3.1987 whereby the complaint made by the Petitioner challenging the Caste Certificate which was issued in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by Tahasildar, Baglan dated 18.12.1979 declaring that both the Respondents are belonging to Scheduled Tribe known as 'Mahadev Koli', was dismissed. For unfolding the controversy, some facts need to be stated.2. A complaint was submitted before the Revenue Commissioner, Nasik at Nasik Road by the present Petitioner which was treated by the Commissioner...
Shree Mahavir Health and Medical Vs. Cc (import), Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT629Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue involved in this application under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 is for waiver of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs.2. The appellant before us is a charitable hospital, who by the importation of a CT Scanner has claimed benefit of Notification 64/88.It is the contention of the assessee that for outpatients they do not charge any amount for the service rendered by the hospital. However, it is mentioned that they charge a paltry sum of Rs. 2 for registration of the patients. This amount has been treated as violation of the provisions of Notification 64/88 by the adjudicating authority. The appeal questions this and questions the imposition of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs.3. We have considered the argument of the Counsel for the appellant and the Id. DR. In our stay order rendered in the case of P.D. Hinduja National Hospital v. CCE - 2000 (122) E.L.T, 626, we have held that when a free treatment has been rendered to the outpatients, collection of small sum of money for registration ...
C.C.E. and Cus., Aurangabad Vs. Nasik Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC262Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Nasik Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., the respondent to this appeal, is a sugar mill. It cleared the molasses that arises as a by-product in the manufacture of sugar to various buyers at different value. It is stated that the goods were sold after inviting tenders from intending buyers. Notice issued to the manufacturer proposed to enhance the value of the molasses to Rs. 1000/- per ton on the ground that this should be the cost of manufacture of molasses, as certified by the Chief Sugar Technologist of the Vasant Dada Sugar Institute, Pune. Adjudicating upon this notice, the Assistant Commissioner accepted the proposal in the notice, enhanced the value ordering duty to be paid in accordance with the value. The assessee appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the sale price of the molasses is based upon the actual realisation of the buyer and there is no allegation that any amount in addition has been paid by the buyer to the manufacturer. This being the case, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »