Mumbai Court September 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.
Patel on Board Courier Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT399Tri(Mum.)bai
1. A number of courier agencies operate at International Airport. They carry samples, documents and other goods sent by person abroad to persons in India. Where any goods are dutiable, they get such goods appraised and pay the duty claiming it later from the consignees. The staff of such courier travelled on board International flights with such goods. On their arrival, the local staff takes possession of bags carrying such goods for processing and clearance through the customs.2. On 22-12-1993 some of the employees of Courier Agencies operating at Mumbai Airport were intercepted. Examination of the bags being taken through the airport hall, disclosed Automobile parts, Computer parts, Wrist Watches, Cordless Telephone and other durable goods. These goods were seized. Investigations were conducted. Statements of the staff of the Courier Agencies were recorded. Show Cause Notice was issued seeking confiscation of the goods seized and alleging liability to penalty of the persons involved...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Philips Carbon Blacks Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT167Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility of Philips Carbon Blacks Ltd., the respondent to this appeal, to take credit, in terms of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 57E, of the duty paid on the carbon black feed stock that it used as an input by its manufacturer, Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd., subsequent to its clearance.The Assistant Commissioner, in his order denied the credit on his view that the provisions of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 57E would be attracted because the duty by the manufacturer on account of short levy by reason of suppression of facts.2. In an identical issue relating to the same respondent, the Tribunal had, in its Order-in-Appeal E/1689/99, not found it possible to conclude that the provisions of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 57E would apply.It had noted that Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. had paid the duty without any notice issued to it and found that the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner had specifically said that the notice could not be ...
Kamara Kaid Mohammed Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT237Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals arise out of the single order of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai. The facts are common. These are therefore disposed of by this common order.2. Both appellants who are Yemen national were intercepted at the time of departure. Foreign exchange in the form of US $ 28,000/- was seized from their possession. In their identical statement both appellants deposed that they were frequent visitors in India. They were engaged in buying and selling goods in both Yemen and in India. The sale proceeds were got converted by them into foreign exchange in the market which foreign exchange they were taking with them. The statement were made on 14-4-1999. On 15-5-1995 (Sic) both appellants submitted certificate from Money Changers in Yemen to the effect that the total amount of US $ 28,000/- was released to the two appellants.3. After issue of show cause notice and after hearing the appellants, the Commissioner passed orders. He took notice of the certificate given...
Perfect Commodity Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT316Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an application for the stay of operation of the impugned order. The applicant imported heavy melting scrap and sold it on high seas sale basis to M/s. Joginder Casting Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Joginder Casting Pvt. Ltd. filed the bill of entry. On examination it was found that the cargo contained new crank shafts as also heavy re-rollable scrap. The Commissioner enhanced the valuation. He released the heavy melting scrap but confiscated the other goods, permitting redemption of fine. He also imposed penalty on importer M/s. Joginder Casting Pvt.Ltd. The present appeal has been filed by Shri M.S. Nihalani, the Proprietor of the unit who had made the high seas sale. The present application is also made by them.2. At the outset we asked Shri Anil Balani, Advocate to establish the locus of the appellants. He claimed that the appellant was the owner in terms of the definition under Section 2(26) of the Customs Act. We have seen the definition of 'importer'. The definition reads as below:-...
Videocon Narmada Electronics Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: (2006)STR124
1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax arising out of the order in revision passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise in terms of Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994, directing the applicant to work out Service Tax payable during the period from 16-11-1997 to 1-6-1998 and pay the same along with interest until the date of payment of tax at the prescribed rate and directing the applicants to file ST-3 returns for the said period in the prescribed form.2. On hearing both sides and perusing the Show Cause Notice, we see prima facie force in the plea of the applicants that the Show Cause Notice does not call upon them to show cause against recovery and collection of Service Tax although the notice states that the assessee (who avails Goods Transport Operators service) is required to pay Service Tax in accordance with Section 68 and that they have failed to deposit the Service Tax.3. The assessee has been called upon to show cause only as to why penalty shoul...
Choudhary Garments Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)86ITD779(Mum.)
1. This appeal of the assessee has been directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XXIX, Mumbai, dt. 4th April, 1995, for the asst. yr.1992-93. The assessee-firm runs 100 per cent export-oriented manufacturing unit of garments. During the year under consideration, the total turnover of the assessee was Rs. 9,92,29,794 which was only from exports. In order to meet exports commitment, assessee-firm purchased garments from local market and export on this account was Rs. 44,20,866 included in the total turnover.2. The first ground of appeal is regarding the disallowance of Rs. 2,02,098 under Section 37(2) considering the sales promotion expenses as entertainment expenses. The assessee has offered an amount of Rs. 97,214 as entertainment expenses out of the sales promotion. The AO, however, was of the view that all the expenses totalling to Rs. 2,02,098 are in the nature of entertainment. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the findings of the AO on the basis that the assessee did not furnish any d...
Dr. T.P. Kulkarni Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)86ITD696(Mum.)
1. These appeals of the assessee have been directed against the consolidated order of the CIT(A)-IV, Bombay, dt. 17th Aug., 1993, for the asst. yrs. 1982-83, 1985-86 & 1988-89. The only common ground of appeal taken up by the assessee in these appeals is regarding the levying of penalty under the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. One consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity as the issue involved in these appeals is identical.2. The assessee is a Cardio Vascular Surgeon, specializing in the treatment of patients suffering from diseases of "Heart and blood vessels" by operating on them. He has also specialized in Vascular Surgery. The assessee's residential premises were searched under Section 132 of the Act on 8th July, 1989. By that time, the assessment upto and including assessment for the asst. yr. 1988-89 had already been computed. The returns for the asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1990-91 were not due and as such were not filed. As a result ...
Zahida NizamuddIn Jalal and ors. Vs. Abidali Jafferali Syyed and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR206; 2003(2)BomCR374; 2002(4)MhLj913
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The petitioners challenge the order dated 7th August, 2002 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalyan District -Thane under Exh. 40 in Reg. Civ. Suit No. 471 of 1998. By the impugned order, the trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioners for their joinder as the parties to the suit. Considering the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended, and which are in force with effect from 1st July, 2002, and the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Rajabhau s/o Mahadeorao Rahate v. Dinkar s/o Shantaram Ingole, reported in 2002 (3) Mah, LJ 921 the impugned order would not be revisable and therefore, the petition would be liable to be rejected in limine. However, the learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the expression 'other proceedings' in the proviso to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure would include miscellaneous as well as supplementary proceedings in...
Anandrao S/O Marotrao Kharabe Vs. Madhuri Anandrao Kharabe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)540; II(2003)DMC54; 2003(1)MhLj388
R.S. Mohite, J.1. Rule. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith.2. By this revision the applicant-husband seeks to quash and set aside the order dated 26-11-2001 passed below Exh. 14 in Petition No. E-30/2001 pending on the file of the Family Court, Nagpur. By the impugned order, the Family Court has rejected a preliminary objection relating to his jurisdiction and held that he has jurisdiction to entertain petition under Section 127 of Criminal Procedure Code. The main argument which was made on behalf of the applicant was that an application under Section 127 can only be entertained by the same Magistrate who had passed the order in an application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. The contention is that, the use of words, 'the Magistrate' used in Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code must mean 'the Magistrate' who has passed the order granting maintenance under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. My attention is drawn to the fact that in Section 125, Criminal Pro...
Ollala Kamlakar Lachaiah and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)40; 2003BomCR(Cri)678; 2003(1)MhLj849
R.K. Batta, J.1. These petitions arise out of the same F.I.R. which is a subject matter of challenge in both the petitions and as such the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by common order. We shall first refer briefly to the facts in these petitions.2. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 247/02, the petitioners case is that the F.I.R. does not disclose any offence against them and that there is no material to show that they are involved in any sort of terrorist activities and as such they seek quashing of the prosecution of the petitioners under Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as POTA). According to the petitioners, petitioner No. 1 is an investing partner and petitioner No. 2 has working knowledge of business of Tendu leaves. Both the petitioners are Tendu Leave Contractors. Petitioner No. 1 is also a Registered P.W.D. Contractor. Petitioner No. 1 had applied to the Government for permission to collect Tendu Leaves and after complying with the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »