Mumbai Court April 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.
Silverchem Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT204Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri D.B. Shroff, learned Advocate for the appellants states that the impugned order has been passed holding the "First Cut" and "Second Cut" manufactured from naphtha to be classifiable as special boiling point spirit under sub-heading 2710.13 of the Central Excise Tariff. A duty demand of Rs. 2,47,85,427/- has also been confirmed and an equal amount of penalty has been imposed of Rs. 1,52,370/-worth of goods have also been confiscated and allowed redemption on payment of Rs. 50,000/- in addition to imposition of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on Shri Joginder Singh, Director of the appellant-company.2. Shri Shroff argues at length to state that a product to be classifiable under sub-heading 2710.13 has not only to satisfy the criteria of flash point below 25C but should also be suitable for use as fuel in spark ignition engines. In this connection he cites the decision in the case of Indu Nissan Oxo Chemical Industries Ltd. v.C.C.E. & C., Vadodara - 1998 (101) E.L.T. 201 (Tribunal)....
Mehta Pharmaceuticals Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT105Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The show cause notice which commenced the proceedings reads as under : - "Assessee have taken Modvat credit on said input which is also their final product on their own gate pass 1 No. 260, dated 5-8-92, which was already issued by them to M/s. M.B. International. Same is wrong and resulted in excess Modvat credit taken of Rs. 50,000/- BED and Rs. 7,500/- SED the details of which have been worked out in Annexure 'A' and copy of the gate pass in Annexure 'B'." 2. Before the Additional Collector, the assessee claimed that a declaration was filed showing their final product as one of the inputs.The Additional Collector raised several issues. He wondered whether the goods had ever left the factory but gave the benefit of the doubt and held that they had reached the buyer. He held that their own gate pass could not become a Modvatable document. On denying the availment of the Modvat credit, the assessee filed an appeal.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Modvatable document must...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Gammon India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT883Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Gammon India Ltd., Mumbai, the respondent to this appeal, and Atlanta Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai, entered into a joint venture agreement on 18th September, 2000. The agreement was entered into for the purpose of tendering a bid to the National Highway Authority of India in order to secure the contract for construction of the stretch from 31.40 kilometres on National Highway 5. The venture provided for financial responsibilities of each party in the form of guarantees, securities etc., to the extent of 50% of project value, for setting up a management board to manage the venture, composed of a Chairman and Director to be appointed by Gammon India Ltd. and a Joint Chairman and another Director to be appointed by Atlanta Infrastructure Ltd. It provided that the parties shall be jointly and severally liable to the National Highway Authority of India for execution of contract. It designated Gammon India Ltd. to be the lead partner to the venture.2. The bid tendered by the joint venture...
Shri Vilas Siddhu Jadhav Vs. Shri M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)929; 2003CriLJ3501
D.G. DESHPANDE, J.1. Heard Mr. Tripathi for the petitioner -detenu and Mr. B.R. Patil, Acting P.P. forthe State.2. The detenue is detained under Section 3(1)of the Maharashtra Prevention of DangerousActivities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, DrugOffenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981. Thedetention order is dated 17.8.2002. Grounds ofdetention are of the same date. The detention isbased on one C.R. and two in-camera statements.In the petition number of grounds have beenraised but Mr. Tripathi concentrated on ground(J) and since we are allowing the petition onthat ground alone, we did not hear him on othergrounds.3. As per ground (J) the detention order wasdated 17.8.2002. Initially the detenue refusedto accept the grounds of detention and otherdocuments. Thereafter his Advocate applied tothe State Government for supplying the grounds ofdetention and other documents. Such anapplication came to be sent by the Advocate ofthe detenue on 23.9.2002 but the grounds ofdetention were served upon t...
Transport Manager, Pune Municipal Transport and anr. Vs. Shri Nathuram ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR844; 2003(4)BomCR37
R.J. Kochar, J. 1. The petitioner being the Transport Manager of Pune Municipal Undertaking is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of the Industrial Court, Pune passed on 30th November 1995 allowing the complaints filed by the complainants (respondents in each of the petition herein) holding that the orders dated 28th March 1990 issued by the petitioner punishing by said complainants by withholding two additional increments amounted to unfair labour practice within the meaning of items 5 and 9 of the M.R.T.U. and PULP Act. The leaned Member of the Industrial Court also held that the complainants were entitled to the said increments with necessary differences.2. Facts in nutshell are that the complainants along with other 16 employees were charge sheeted on 30th June 1989 alleging that they had committed misconducts of the nature of participation in an illegal strike and to instigate other employees to take part in such illegal strike and that to obstruct deliberately in the wo...
AmIn Khan Amanullah Khan and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)123; 2003BomCR(Cri)1080; 2003(4)MhLj221
ORDER1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the Government Advocate. Perused the records.2. This is an application for bail by the applicant Amin Khan, being the accused No. 1, and who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, along with one more accused being the accused No. 11, hereinafter called as 'the appellant No. 2', in the Sessions Case No. 41/97 and 71/99 wherein nine other persons were also prosecuted.3. The case of the applicant is that the applicant along with others was booked for the offences allegedly committed by him and others punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code in respect of Crime No. 102/97 registered with the Police Station at Nandura. According to the applicant the above said registration of the crime was on account of two incidents dated 1-6-1997 and 31-5-1997 and they were pertaining to the dispute about the management of Mohalla Mosque. It is further the case...
Shri Kamal Kishor Gupta, Vs. Shri D.S. Dhawde and the State of Maharas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: I(2005)BC466; 2004(2)MhLj465
J.G. Chitre, J.1. The petitions are assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Palghar in the matter of Criminal Case No. 211/1990, by which he dismissed the application moved by the petitioner for exonerating them by discharging them from the said criminal prosecution.2. Some facts need to be quoted for the purpose of understanding the controversy between the litigating parties i.e. petitioners and Union Bank of India, Boisar Branch. The petitioners 1 and 2 are Directors of M/s Lyka Silk Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Company for convenience). That company does the business in textile. In the year 1980 the petitioners who happen to be customers of Union Bank of India - respondent No. 1 made a request to the said bank for various credit facilities including cash credit with hypothecation facility. The said cash credit with hypothecation was granted in favour of the petitioners as the facts narrated indicate. The records s...
Dhanji R. Zalte Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Bom)772; [2004]265ITR204(Bom)
B.H. Marlapalle J. 1. These six appeals arise out of a common decision dated September 13, 2002, in Income-tax Appeals Nos. 366, 419 to 423 of 1998, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at Pune. As per the office circular dated December 9, 2002, issued by the honourable the Chief Justice, these appeals are being decided at the admission stage itself, after they were certified by the Registry as being ready.2. The appellant, an advocate enrolled and commenced his practice in 1968 at Chalisgaon in Jalgaon district, claims to have specialised in land acquisition cases under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Acquisition Act,' for short), from 1984 onwards. He claims that his exclusive practice network is spread over in different districts like Jalgaon, Buldhana, Nasik, Dhule, Aurangabad and Thane, etc., with his associates/colleagues being present at each district headquarters. He was an income-tax payer of fifteen years standing. One Shri Vishnu Laxman Patil, who was purportedly one of...
Vishwanath Son of Bhika Kolase and Raghunath Son of Bhika Kolase Vs. K ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR1093; 2004(2)BomCR399
V.M.Kanade, J.1.The appellants are the original plaintiffs and the respondents are the original defendants.FACTS2.The appellants-original plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed and for restoration of possession of the suit field bearing survey no.92/1, Gat No.217, admeasuring 4 hectares and 82 acres of mouja Antri, Taluka - Malkapur. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the said property was ancestral property of deceased Bhika Motiram, who died on 15th February, 1977 leaving behind his heirs plaintiff nos.1 and 2, appellant nos.1 and 2 herein, (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiffs' and 'defendants' for the sake of convenience), his wife defendant no.4 and mother of Bhika Bajabai. After the death of Bhika, the plaintiff nos.1 and 2 widow of Bhika i.e. defendant no.4 and Bajabai became the owner of the suit property and they each have 1/4th share in it. Bajabai died in the year 1980. Prior to her death on 30th November, 1977, the defendant no.1 got the sale deed ex...
Commissioner of Cus. Vs. Viking Integration Projects (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2003
Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT179Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is a departmental appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding video monitors for sinoscopes to be classifiable under Heading 90.18 of the Customs Tariff.2. Shri Virag Gupta, learned JDR appearing for Revenue states that video monitors are to be classified under Heading 85.28 as the same is specifically covered therein. He also states that according to General Interpretative Rules (GIR) 3(a), the heading which provides the most specific description has to be preferred to other headings providing more general description. According to him, the Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct in applying GIR 3(c) which is lower down in the hierarchy. Moreover, the classification of goods, he says, has to be according to characteristics of the goods and not according to their use. Shri Virag Gupta, learned JDR also states that according to the alphabetical index prepared by the World Customs Organization at Brussels, video monitors are clearly indicated to be classifiable ...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »