Mumbai Court February 2003 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.
Anil Mahajan and Naresh Mittal Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-2003
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC342
1. The question for consideration in these appeals, is whether the quantities of fabrics which were seized from the premises of New India Agencies, New Delhi by officers of the Delhi Customs, are liable to confiscation under Clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act as having been smuggled, and whether Anil Mahajan, the proprietor of New India Agencies, New Delhi and Naresh Mittal, its employee are liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Act.2. The undisputed facts are these. The officers searched the premises of New India Agencies on 30.7.1999 in the presence of Naresh Mittal.They found 447 rolls of synthetic fabrics of assorted colour measuring totally 1,26,756 metres with a value of Rs. 1.287 crores approx. Naresh Mittal could not produce any evidence as to the importation or acquisition of these fabrics. The officers therefore seized them on the reasonable belief that they were acquired in contravention of prohibition and restriction of import and are liable to confiscation.Naresh M...
Chawla Highway Carriers, Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-2003
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC350
1. This set of time Appeals arise out of the same Order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay-III. All these appeals are decided in this common order.2. Show Cause Notice dated 4.6.1990 was issued to M/s. Twincity Organics Pvt. Ltd. (TOPL), M/s. Dyes Distributors (India) Ltd. (DDIL), their Directors and employees, to their consignment agents and to a number of transport operators, their partners, proprietors and employees. TOPL and DDIL manufactured Camphor and other excisable goods. Certain private accounts were seized from their premises showing unrecorded production and clearance of camphor and other chemicals. The authenticity of the figures on the private records was admitted by the Directors and officers of the two companies as also their employees.The figures of clearances shown in such private records were cross checked with the goods transported by various transporters as further corroboration of such clearance. On comparison of the figures of production with s...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Vicco Laboratories
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-2003
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT572Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Respondents/assessees are engaged in the manufacture of Vicco Vajradanti (Powder), Vicco Vajradanti (Paste), Vicco Turmeric Skin Cream & Vicco Vajradanti Sugar Free. Under the Central Excise Tariff which existed prior to 28.2.86, the department had classified the products as under: (1) Vicco Vajradanti (powder & paste) under Tariff Item 14F.F. as Tooth Paste (2) Vicco Turmeric Skin Cream under T.I. 14F as Cosmetic and Toilet preparations.2. As against this, the assessees claimed that they were covered by exclusion clause in T.I. 14E i.e. P & P medicines excluding those medicines which were exclusively Ayurvedic, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathic. Since the claim of the assessees was not accepted by the Central Excise Department, the assessees filed a Civil Suit before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane. On 6.5.82, the Ld. Civil Judge rejected the suit holding that the products are Ayurvedic medicinal preparations. The Union of India challenged the judgment...
Sunitidevi Singhania Hospital and Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-2003
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT820Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 95.65 lakhs and penalty under Section 112 of the Act of Rs. 25,000/-.2. The basis for the demand of duty and imposition of penalty is that the applicant did not comply with the conditions relating to free treatment of minimum number of outdoor and indoor patients and therefore the goods were not entitled to the benefit of the exemption contained in notification 64/88.3. The counsel for the applicant says that the goods have not so far been redeemed. The Commissioner has ordered confiscation of the goods under Clause (o) of Section 111 of the Act, with an option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 1 lakh and the applicant has not exercised this option. Therefore, he say that the application for waiver of deposit of duty is unnecessary and prays for withdrawal of that part of the application. He contends that the applicant acted bona fide and had in act treated number of patients free but could not produce evidence to this ...
Smt. Harjit Kaur Kuljitsingh Kohli Vs. Mrs. Padmavati J. Sethia,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR461; 2003(4)BomCR567; 2003(2)MhLj894
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned advocates for the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 15th October 2001 passed by the lower appellate Court to the extent it rejects the application (Exhibit 26) filed by the petitioner on 23rd July 1999 during pendency of the appeal for deletion of her name from the appeal memo on the ground that the suit filed against original defendant Khuljitsingh had abated as the respondent/plaintiff had not filed an application to bring the legal representatives of deceased Khuljitsingh on record not filed an application to bring the legal representatives of deceased Khuljitsingh on record within prescribed period. Though the impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and other appellants, along with the said application (Exhibit-26), on merits, the challenge is restricted to the order in relation to the said application (Exhibit-26), as this Court had already dismissed another Writ Petition filed...
Ramnath Vishnu Waringe Prop. of Hotel Gurudev and Ajit Chandrakant Sat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR15; 2003(4)BomCR575; 2003(2)MhLj270
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Admitted, Mr. Y.D. Mulani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appears and waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondents.2. In the facts and circumstances, the appeals are taken up for hearing today.3. In these two appeals, the orders passed by the learned Single Judge on September 18, 2002 in writ petitions have been challenged. In the petitions, the orders passed by the District Collector, Pune, on July 6, 2002 and confirmed by the State Government on September 11, 2002 had been challenged.4. It appears that mainly three grounds weighed with the District Collector in cancelling Dance Floor Licence. Firstly, it was stated that the dance floor was functioning up to 2 a.m., and thus, timing restriction, which ought to have been observed by the appellant-petitioner, had not been observed. Secondly, fire-fighting equipments were insufficient in the building. Thirdly, when the Entertainment Tax Officer went to serve an order of suspension of licence ...
S.B.P. and Co. Vs. Patel Engineering Limited and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR384(Bom); 2003(2)MhLj394
ORDERH.L. Gokhale, J.1. This Writ Petition seeks to challenge the order dated 18th November 2001 appointing the third Arbitrator passed by the learned designated Judge on the Arbitration Application moved by respondent No. 1 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the said Act').2. Dr. Tulzapurkar has appeared for the petitioner and Mr. Chinoy for the respondents.3. The facts leading to this petition are as follows:--(a) Respondent No. 1 was awarded a contract by State of Maharashtra through its Irrigation Department for the construction of civil works pertaining to Stage IV of the Koyna Hydroelectric Project. Respondent No. 1 in turn entered into a sub-contract with the petitioner with respect to a piece work for that purpose. Clause 19 of the Agreement contained an arbitration clause which reads as follows :-- 'The continuance of this piece work agreement/contract or at any time after the termination thereof, any difference or dispute shall arise b...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›