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.
Hagel Capsule Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC173Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification and the consequential rate of duty applicable to three products manufactured by the appellant. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the classification of these products determined by the Assistant Commissioner as products for skin care under Heading 33.04 of the tariff, declined to accept the claim of the assessee that the goods were medicament classifiable under Heading 30.03.2. The three products under consideration are Microshield*T, Microshield*2 and Microshield*PVP. Each of these products is a mixture of disinfectant or antiseptic product with surface active agent, and containing emollient moisturiser. The active ingredient in Microshield-2 is chlorhexidine solution 10% v/v equivalent to 2% w/v of chlorhexidine gluconate, and in Microshield*PVP, providone-iodine LP 7.5% w/v equivalent to 0.75% w/v. MicroshieldT contains triclosan 1.0% w/v. Each of these products, which ...
Gupta Cranes and Storages (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT268Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This batch of applications covers 3 different adjudication orders captioned above in respect of 3 different assessees. The facts of the case and the allegations made in the show cause notices as well as the findings are common in the above orders in respect of the assessees. On hearing both the sides, we find that the appeals themselves could be taken up for disposal together in this single order. Both the sides agreeing, this was done after granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty indicated against each applicant:2. Name of the party Duty (in Rs.) Penalty Gupta Cranes & Storage 3,00,000 C.T. Jain 15,00,000 Emtee Poly Yarn 1,27,53,988 1,27,53,988 Lata Polyster Ltd. 51,57,899 51,57,899 R.H. Agarwal 5,00,000 A.No.E/1813/01 3,70,000 A. No. E/1923/01 1,00,000 3. Although, the facts are common we will take one order as illustrative of the facts i.e. Order-in-Original No. 10 of 2001 dated 26-2-01 issued on 5-3-2001.4. M/s. Emtee Poly Yarn Ltd. (M/s. EPY) were engaged in the...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Emil Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT387Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The delay is condoned and the appeal taken up for disposal with consent of the Departmental Representative.2. By the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the value declared by Emil Corporation, the respondent to this appeal, for the numbering machines that it imported was required to be accepted as the transaction value in terms of Rule 4 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, in the absence of any circumstances which would justify the applicability of the contentions contained in that rule justifying its rejection.3. The appeal against this order does not address this issue at all, but relies upon the fact that the other imports of similar goods from other persons from the same country, China, were valued differently.The ratio of the Supreme Court's judgment in Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CC - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321, which the Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon is clear, that in the absence of the special circumstances referred to in Sub-rule (4) of the Val...
India Dyestuff Industries Ltd. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(83)ECC306; 2003(161)ELT12(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Petitioners namely Indian Dyestuff IndustriesLtd. have filed these three Writ Petitionschallenging various show cause notices issued by theRespondents under Section 11-A of the Central Excise& Salt Act, 1944 (Act for short) either seeking toreject the refund claim of the Petitioners or seekingto recover excise duty erroneously refunded to thePetitioners.2. Before the commencement of arguments, Mr.Nankani, learned Counsel appearing for thePetitioners fairly conceded that the show causenotice dated 5th December, 1988 (Exhibit-N in WritPetition No.2857/1989) seeking to reject the refundclaim of the Petitioners is required to beadjudicated upon by the authorities in the light ofthe decision of the Apex Court in the case ofMafatlal Industries Ltd. V/s. Union of Indiareported in : 1997(89)ELT247(SC) . Accordingly, thelearned Counsel did not press the challenge to thesaid show cause notice dated 5.12.1988 (Exhibit-N inWrit Petition No.2857/89) which pertain to rejectingthe...
Kishanchand Lilaram Bajaj Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)MhLj76
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Manohar, learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri Loney, learned A.P.P. for the non-applicant. 2. The Criminal Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated 10th August 1998 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, whereby Criminal Revision Application No. 2187 of 1993 preferred by the non-applicant/State was allowed and the order of discharge dated 19-8-1993 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was set aside. 3. Shri Manohar, learned counsel for the applicant contended that Smt. Awadhibai Bajaj was granted licence under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act on 27-2-1983 for a period of five years. At the time of grant of licence, the name of the applicant was shown as qualified person. A complaint was filed against the applicant on 9-4-1991 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur for alleged contravention of Rule 65(4)(2) and Rule 65(3) read wi...
Sharad Balkrushna Deotale and anr. Vs. Krishna Zitruji @ Bankimchandra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR298; 2002(5)BomCR200; (2002)4BOMLR214; 2002(3)MhLj333
V.G. Palshikar, J. 1. This petition, though of the year 2000, was given utmost precedence as it was allegedly filed in public interest, by the public interest conscious citizens of India. The petitioners were honourably allowed to jump a long queue of litigating public waiting for their cases to be heard by this Court on the averment of the petitioners that the petition involves public interest and should, therefore, be heard with priority.2. The facts giving rise to this petition stated briefly are that survey number 289 was given to one Vithoba Pandurang Parchake, resident of Warud, District Wardha by the Bhudan Board functioning under the Bhudan Yagna Act, 1953. Said Vithoba executed Exchange Deed of this land allotted to him by the Bhudan Mandal, exchanging that land with survey number 126, area 2.45 hectare. Thus, the donees i.e. legal representatives of Vithoba acquired by exchange 2.45 hectare of land and parted 1.88 hectare of land. The donees from Bhudan Mandal were thus obvio...
Hindsons Private Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(144)ELT274(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioners have inter alia sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of Collector of Customs dated 6-3-1987, vide Ex.Y to the petition, wherein the components of 'Combine Harvesters' imported by the petitioners in the year 1983 have been ordered to be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the said goods were released as per the orders of this Court in an earlier proceeding on the petitioners furnishing I.T.C. Bond/Bank guarantee for Rs. 37 lakhs by the aforesaid order dated 6-3-1987, the Collector of Customs has directed that the amount of Rs. 37 lakh be recovered from the petitioners as penalty in terms of the Bond/Bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the said order of the Collector of Customs in this petition.FACTS 2. The facts relevant for the present petition are as follows :On 5-10-1964 the petitioner No. 1 obtained a registration certificate asa ...
Thiagarajan G. Alias Rajan Gopal, S/O Gopalasamy Vanniar Vs. J.B. Engi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ793Bom
1. This Appeal is filed against an order dated April 24, 2001 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No. 1715 of 1999.2. The appellant was in the employment of respondent No. 1. It was his case that his services were wrongly terminated. He, therefore, invoked the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and a reference was made by appropriate Government to the Labour Court, being Reference (IDA) No. 584 of 1991. During the pendency of the reference, the appellant made an application under Section (2) of Section 33-C of the Act, being Application (IDA) No. 169 of 1992. The said application came up for hearing before the 6th Labour Court, Bombay. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the employer that the applicant was not a workman within the meaning of the Act, and, hence, the application filed by him, under Section 33-C(2) was not maintainable. On the basis of the objection raised by the employer, an issue wa...
Om Sai Pratibha Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR177
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society. It is aggrieved by the impugned order of the Minister for Co-operation, State of Maharashtra. By the impugned order dated 3rd January, 2002, the Minister was pleased to cancel the orders dated 17th October, 2001 and 3rd November 1999 passed respectively by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and the Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mumbai by which orders the petitioner society was allowed to be registered as Co-operative Housing Society under section 9 read with sections 4 and 6 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioner along with its 28 members had submitted a proposal for registration of the petitioner society. The application for the registration complied with all the prescribed requirements and, therefore, by his order dated 3rd November, 1999, the Deputy Registrar had issued registration certificate to the petitioner s...
Shri Pradhan K. Bhanushali Vs. Ceat Tyres of India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR428
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This is an unfortunate case where the Petitioner has been penalised due to his inability to perform his work on account of an injury suffered by him during the course of his employment with Respondent No. 1. The Petitioner has been dismissed from service on account of an alleged go-slow in work and this action of the Respondent No. 1 was upheld by the Labour Court. It is this Award of the Labour Court which has been challenged by the Petitioner.2. A few facts of the case giving rise to this petition are as follows:In the year 1969, the Petitioner joined the services as a casual workman in the category of 'Helper'. He was confirmed in his service thereafter on 2.2.1970. A strike was called in the same year in the establishment of Respondent No. 1 However, the Petitioner continued to report for duty on the assurance being given by Respondent No. 1 that all loyal workmen would be protected when they reported for work. However, this assurance was belied and the Petitio...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »