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.
Shri Ranjit Singh S/O Pretima Singh Gill Vs. the State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2002
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)487; (2002)104BOMLR1
S.S. Parkar, J.1. Rule.By consent Rule is made returnable forthwith, Shri Jadhav, learned A.P.P. waives service on behalf of the Respondents.Heard both sides at length.2. This is an instance of citizen suffering longer period of imprisonment due to the wrong interpretation of the provisions of law or ignoring or being in ignorance of the law laid down by the Supreme Court which is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the Constitution and is enforceable through out the territory of India under Article 142 of the Constiution.3. The Petitioner has filed this petition for his release from imprisonment, which he is undergoing for his conviction under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, as he had long back undergone that sentence in accordance with law. The petitioner was acquitted by the Sessions Court in a murder trial in November, 1977. The order of acquittal was challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 490 of 1978 by the State. The High Court allowed the said appeal against the order of acq...
Consumer Packaging Services Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC114
2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the decision of the Assistant Commissioner holding that the appellant was not entitled to discount on damaged goods and bank charges. The appellant manufactured, as a job worker, detergent powder in a pack suitable for sale to consumers and cleared it to Hindustan Lever Ltd. It adopted as the assessable value the price at which Hindustan Lever Ltd. sold the goods to its dealers. It is the deductions from these prices that are under consideration in the appeal before us.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CC, New Delhi v. Vikram Detergent Ltd. - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 641 for his conclusion that the discount on damaged goods should not be given. There is no challenge to the finding with regard to this discount in the appeal. However, the Counsel for the appellant says that in the same judgment the Supreme Court has held that the discount should be available with regard ...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Telco Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC54
1. The Appeal No. E/3573-R-99-Mum. has been filed by the Revenue, where M/s. TELCO are the respondents; Appeal No. E/423-R/2000-Mum. has been filed by the appellants, M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra where Revenue is Respondent. Since the issue involved in these two appeals are common, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. (a) In Appeal No. E/3573, the Commissioner by the impugned order, dropped all further proceedings in pursuance of show cause notice dated 3-3-98 and further ordered that 'Tata Mobile 207 Model Crew Cab' vehicles shall continue to be classified under Heading 8704.20 at 15% as hitherto before for domestic market and allowed the same to be cleared accordingly.(b) The appellants had classified 'Tata Mobile 207 Model Crew Cab' with load body, as 'goods transport vehicle' under Heading 8704. They were issued a notice for classifying the same under Heading 8703 as the vehicle was considered to be "principally designed and meant for transpor...
Bhairav Printers Vs. Commissioner of Customs (i)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT560Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing both sides, I feel the appeals themselves could be disposed of without much ado.2. Here the impugned order has been passed on the appellants (?). I have put a question mark because admittedly the appellant is a sole proprietor of the firm called Bhairav Printers, appellant in Appeal C/944/2001. Bhairav Printers does not have independent existence than that of Ranjit Sanghvi, appellant in Appeal C/945/2001. Both are one and the same. The impugned order imposes penalty of Rs. 50,000/- each on the appellants. This order is wrong inasmuch as it treats the appellant as two separate individual legal entities. Therefore, the appeal of Bhairav Printers is allowed. As far as the appeal of Ranjit Sanghvi is concerned, there has been a violation of the provisions.Learned Counsel tries to argue before me about the legality of the imposition of the penalty as the goods are not factually available for confiscation which has been admitted in the show cause notice. He also vehemently...
Bullworker Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai-iv
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC41
1. In these three appeals, the question involved is about the availability of the benefit of Notification 8/99, small scale industry notification.2. The appellants manufactured goods known as Bullworker falling under Chapter Heading 9506 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. They claimed exemption under Notification 8/99. The same was denied by the authorities below. The contentions raised by the appellant before the authorities were that the said brand name was previously owned by Bullworker Pvt. Ltd. and by deed of assignment dated 24-6-99 said brand name was assigned and transferred to the appellants. The department contended that the appellants had manufactured the goods in the brand name of another, and that appellants being a partnership concern, they were not entitled to claim the benefit of the said notification, as the usage of the brand name "Bullworker" the trade mark of which is owned by another person infringed the Paragraph No. 4 of the said notification. The departmental au...
Saudagar Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC807Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After having heard the stay applications at length, we have taken up the appeals for disposal, after waiving deposit.2. In the order impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner has confiscated a consignment of poppy seeds imported by Saudagar Exports on the ground that it contravened the provisions of Clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act, for the reason that it was imported from Afghanistan contrary to the conditions of the import licence and, on the further ground that it was adulterated within the meaning of Section 2 (ia) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. He has imposed penalties on Saudagar Exports, and Nagendra Singh, its sole proprietor. He has also imposed penalty on Adani Exports Ltd. and on Rajesh Adani, its director for abetting the import contrary to law on his view that Adani Exports Ltd. knowing that the actual user condition subject to which the licence was issued could not be fulfilled financed the export of the goods.3. The licence itself does not contai...
Ganesh Computer Forms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT633Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The notice dated 3-5-1995 which was issued to the appellant demanded duty on continuous computer stationery that it cleared between July, 1990 and December, 1990 which had not been paid. The basis for the demand was that the stationery was classifiable under Heading 4823.90 of the tariff and the assessee had not filed a classification list or complied with other excise formalities with regard to the goods. The notice alleged wilful suppression of production and clearance by the assessee in order to evade duty. Penalty was also proposed. It is the order of the Commissioner confirming the demand for duty and imposing a penalty on the appellant, which is in appeal before us.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have read the memorandum of appeal and also heard the Departmental Representative.3. It is the appellant's contention that it did not file any classification list or complied with excise formalities with regard to these goods as it was under the bona f...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vikram A. Doshi and Ms. Leena V. Doshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: [2002]256ITR129(Bom)
1. Heard rival parties. 2. Parties to both appeals are different but issues involved are identical. So, one single order will dispose of both appeals. 3. These are appeals filed by the Revenue. In the appeals more than five questions are raised for consideration of this court. 4. The first question sought to be raised in both these appeals is common which reads as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to add to the assessee's income, interest on the peak credit of the unproved loans instead of the entire amount of interest thereon ?' 5. The above question is also interconnected with other appeals preferred by the present respondent/assessee bearing Appeals Nos. 1326 of 2000 and 1273 of 2000 which have been remanded back for hearing afresh for the reasons recorded therein. Thus, considering the interconnectivity of the above question involved in these appeals, we are of the ...
Anusayaben A. Doshi, Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: [2002]256ITR685(Bom)
1. Heard rival contentions. Perused record and proceedings.2. The parties are different but are from the same group. The issue is identical. So a single order will dispose of all the four appeals.3. Having heard the parties at length, it is clear that learned counsel for the appellant in all the cases had advanced substantive as well as alternate contentions before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short). It appears that the alternate submission found favour with the Tribunal. The Tribunal, therefore, chose to accept the peak credit and added it to the total income of the appellant. This has been done by the Tribunal in all these appeals as such all these appeals more or less involve common questions based on an identical order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the facts, for deciding all these appeals are drawn from Income-tax Appeal No. 1326 of 2000.4. Turning to the facts of Income-tax Appeal No. 1326 of 2000, in para. 19 of the impugned order of the Tribunal, the sub...
Suresh Srikrishna Naik Vs. Department of Social Welfare, State of Maha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR385; 2002(3)MhLj889
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard Mr. Jamdar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sawant, Special Counsel and Mr. Sonawane, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Perused the records.2. The petitioner's complaint relate to non-compliance of an order dated 18th January, 2000, by the respondents herein. It is a case of the petitioner that the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging discriminatory treatment being meted out to the petitioner who was a teacher in the institution recognised by the Social Welfare department inasmuch as that the pensionary benefits were refused to the petitioner though the same were granted to other members of the teaching fraternity in various departments.3. Undisputed facts are that Writ Petition No. 5467 of 1999 filed by the petitioner was allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 18th January, 2000 and it was ordered thus :--'The decision of the State Government to deny benefits of pension-cum-grat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »