Mumbai Court August 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.
Chawla Brothers Limited Vs. Kamani Vegetable Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)BomCR434
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The plaintiffs and defendants are relatives. The family of Chawla was carrying on various businesses. On disputes having arisen, they agreed to refer the matter to arbitration. Before the arbitrator were the following persons :i) Shri Gurdasmal Bodaram Chawlaii) Shri Tarachand Bodaram Chawlaiii) Shri Nandlal Hassanand Chawla In the Award passed Shri Gurdasmal Chawla was treated as one group. The defendant No. 2 is the son of Shri Gurdasmal Chawla. Shri Tarachand Chawla and Shri Nandlal Chawla were treated as the other group. In the arbitral proceedings, assets of Block A including the present plaintiffs were awarded to the group of Shri Tarachand Chawla and Nandlal Chawla. Assets of Block B were awarded in favour of Shri Gurdasmal Chawla.2. The case of the plaintiff is that they alone are entitled to the Mark 'Kamani' and if that be so, the defendants or persons claiming that, including family members of the defendants cannot use the word 'Kamani' even for the purpos...
Fujitsu Icim Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT419Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The notice issued to the appellant demanded duty of Rs. 3.72 crores approx. alleged to have been short levied on computers that it manufactured and cleared. It invoked the extended period of limitation.The Collector confirmed the demand for duty but felt that the facts did not justify imposition of penalty. The assessee appealed this order to the special bench of the Tribunal. That bench found that the extended period of limitation would not be available and the demand for that period was barred by limitation and remanded the matter for determination of short levy in the normal period of limitation.2. An appeal, in the meantime, had been filed by the department against the same order questioning the correctness of the Collector's action in not imposing penalty. Disposing of this appeal, the Tribunal at Bombay noted that since the matter has already been remanded to the Collector for determining the duty within the normal period of limitation, he should also decide on penalty. It is...
Liberty Exports Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(105)LC43Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeal taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. The order of the Commissioner holds that the appellant is liable to pay duty on the goods imported by International Dyestuff Industries on an import licence which was issued to the appellant and transferred by it directly to International Dyestuff Industries. The Commissioner has held that the benefit of the exemption claimed and granted is not available for the reason that modvat credit has been availed of in the manufacture of goods which were exported as a result of the import licence was issued.3. The Commissioner proceeds on the footing that "the licence has been issued to the present notice and the imports have been effected by him." This is in fact seen to be incorrect. The two bills of entry referred to in the show cause notice are seen to have been filed by International Dyestuff Industries and not the appellant. This fact though made known to the Commissioner in its reply to the notice h...
Murablack (India) Limited Vs. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR1043; 2003(2)BomCR422; (2003)2BOMLR527; 2003(1)MhLj694
FACTS :--1. Murablack (India) Limited, filed in this Court, Misc. Petition No. 9 of 1992 for recovery of an amount of Rs 2 crores with interest at 24% p.a. from 16-4-1992 and 19-5-1992 till payment from Fairgrowth Financial Services Limited (FFSL).2. FFSL was notified around 2-7-1992. On 26-7-1993, Miscellaneous Petition No. 9 of 1992 came before Variava, J. (as he then was) when the Petition was adjourned sine-die. The Office was directed to place the matter before the Special Court at the time of final distribution under Section 11 of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. The learned Judge further directed that the exact amount to be paid was to be decided after taking into consideration the available assets and liabilities of FFSL. Ultimately, this Court, on 2-5-1992, heard and disposed of Miscellaneous Application No. 222 of 1996 made by the Custodian for distribution of the assets of FFSL under Section 11(2). Consequently, on 2-5-1...
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: (2004)(161)ELT251Tri(Mum.)bai
2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has demanded duty of Rs. 1,66,29,950/-, and imposed a penalty of equivalent amount on the appellant. He finds that the appellant did not pay duty on the processes of warping and winding, which have been deemed to be manufacture by Note 1 to Chapter 52 of the yarn that it manufactured and utilised captively in the weaving of fabric.3. No arguments were advanced by the advocate for the appellant before us on the merits of the issue. His contentions are two. The first is that the demand for duty would be considerably reduced; during the period between 11-8-1994 and 15-3-1995 the processes were exempted from duty by notification 121/94. (The duty has been demanded for clearances made between 1-3-1994 and 15-3-1995). The duty paid on the yarn would be available as proforma credit during the part of the period or Modvat credit during the rest of the period, towards payment of duty on the goods deemed to have been manufactured. The de...
Cosmos Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT470Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) declined to interfere with the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, imposing a penalty of Rs 6.00 lakhs on the appellant, a textile processor, under Clause (2) of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 96ZQ. The appellant was working under the compounded levy scheme, and duty payable by it was based of the capacity of the chambers of the stenter installed in its factory. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZQ required such duty to be paid every month, proportionately half of this duty was to be paid by the end of the first part and the remainder by the end of the month. The appellant paid the duty payable for the first fortnight of October 2000 and the amount payable for the second fortnight of that month only on 1-11-2000. This resulted in issue of notice proposing penalty provided under that rule for late payment of duty, which was adjudicate...
Rank Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT548Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The facts leading to these appeals are, briefly as follows. Geeta carpets imported five consignments comprising dodecyl benzene, polyvinyl alcohol and other goods and cleared them without payment of duty in terms of the exemption contained in Notification 17/98. This notification exempts from payment of duty goods imported under an advance licence issued in terms of the Import and Export Passbook Scheme. Investigation by the department led it to conclude that the goods had not been used in the manufacture of carpets, as required in terms of the import licence and the exemption notification, but sold.This led to the issue of notice to Geeta carpets and others, alleging that the imported goods had been sold after their clearance in Mumbai and proposing recovery of duty on the goods from the importer, and penalty on the importer. Penalties were also proposed on Rank Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd., T. Chopra, Shashi-kant Shah and others for their alleged role in the illegal sale of the good...
NitIn Steels Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT422Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeals taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. Nitin Steels of which the proprietor is Rekha Singhal and Tigh-well Fasteners the proprietor is J.N. Singhal, both manufacturer bolts and studs. The notice issued to these concerns and to their proprietors alleged that Nitin Steels did not have an independent existence and proposed to add the value of clearances made by it to the value of clearances made by Tight-well fasteners, and alleged consequent short levy of duty by denying to Tightwell Fasteners the exemption contained in Notification 1/96, and proposed penalties on each of these appellants before us. Adjudicating on these notices, the Additional Commissioner in each of his two orders, confirmed the demand for duty, and imposed penalties. The aggrieved parties appealed these orders to the Commissioner (Appeals). The first set of the appeals is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the order of the Additional Commissio...
Mds Switchgear Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC608Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the liability to duty to the amount paid by the appellant to ABB Electrocondutture, Italy for the technical know-how that it proposed to acquire from it.The appellant entered into an agreement with the Italian company for manufacture of earth leakage circuit breakers. The agreement provided that the appellant would manufacture DS-910 and DS-710 "ELECTROSTOP" earth leakage miniature circuit breakers as furnished by the Italian company. Clause 7 of the agreement provided that in consideration for know-how and technical, devices and data that the foreign company was to supply, the appellant was to pay to it a lump sum amount of DM 1 lakh and royalty at the rate of 3% of the invoiced selling price of the goods that it was to manufacture. It is this amount that has been ordered to be included in the parts of the circuit that the appellant imported.2. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that unless the royalty and licence fe...
Bharatkumar S/O Shrimannarayan Agrawal, Vs. Anita Trust, Through Ku. P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR230; 2002(4)MhLj597
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By the Amending Act of 1999, the Parliament ofIndia introduced extensive amendments to the CivilProcedure Code promulgated in 1908 and certain decisiveand power curtailing amendments were made to Section 115of the Civil Procedure Code which was earlier extensivelyamended in 1976. This amendment brought about by theAmending Act of 1999 was brought into force with effectfrom 1-7-2002.2. After the application of the amending provisionsfrom 1-7-2002 questions were raised in several RevisionApplications either pending in this Court for admissionor pending in this Court for final hearing as to whetherthe provisions of Section 115 as amended with effect from1-7-2002 are applicable to proceedings pending as of thatdate or whether those proceedings are liable to beconsidered as if the amendment has not taken place inrelation to the pending matters.3. In view of the importance of the questioninvolved and the repeated nature of it being raisedbefore this Court, the matter was...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »