Mumbai Court July 2003 Judgments
Asian Paints (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT857Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The common question for consideration in these two appeals is the eligibility to discount from the assessable value of paints and varnishes that the appellant manufactured.2. We have heard Mr. A. Fernandes, manager of the appellant, and the departmental representative.3. Among the four discounts under consideration, the representative of the appellant conceded that it did not have any claim for core commission and special deals. We are therefore left with bonus scheme and other dealer discount schemes. Mr. Fernandes explains the bonus scheme to be as follows. The scheme is decided by each of the branch managers of the appellant of whom there were about 50 at the relevant time, and is applicable to dealers located within the jurisdiction of each branch manager. The total quantity of bonus that can be paid from a particular branch is decided by the head office. Subject to these limits of the budget not being exceeded, it is the sole description of the branch manager to decide upon th...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Mahavir Industries Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT1028Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of articles of brass and availed of the exemption contained in Notification 1/93 as also the Modvat facility. In the course of the manufacture of the articles of brass from rods of brass, scrap emerged which the appellant sent out in terms of Rule 57F(5) to its job worker for being converted into rods, which were returned to it, to be put into use in the manufacture at site. The notice issued to the appellant demanded duty on the ground that the value of the scrap so cleared by the appellant ought to be included in the aggregate value of clearances for the purpose of Notification 1/93, and in doing so, the aggregate limits contained in the limitation were crossed earlier on the date on which the appellant sent the scrap. The order of the Assistant Commissioner confirming the proposal in the notice having been confirmed on appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), the matter is before us.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented. Its Couns...
Tag this Judgment!Mahratta Chambar of Commerce Industries and Agriculture, a Company Inc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR32; 2004(1)BomCR137
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioners, Mahratta Chamber of commerce, Industries and Agriculture and others, for an appropriate writ, direction or order restraining respondent Nos. 1 and 2. State of Maharashtra as well as Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, seeking to levy and recover from the petitioners octroi at an increased rate as per Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (Octroi) Rules, 2001 for the period between 6th January, 2002 and 14th February, 2002 and between 17th February, 2002 and 7th May, 2002, as the same is illegal, unlawful and contrary to law.2. Now, in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), octroi can be levied by respondent No. 2-Corporation by framing Octroi Rules. Such rules were framed by respondent No. 2 Corporation. They were sanctioned by the Government on November 29, 2001. It is also an admitted fact that the Government granted the sanctio...
Tag this Judgment!Col. B.S. Khatri Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR424; 2004(1)MhLj747
Palshikar, J.1. By all these petitions the petitioners, who are accused persons in the original complaint filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay have challenged the order passed by that learned Magistrate directing the investigating under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. All these petitions arise out of one criminal complaint filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate as Esplanade in Bombay, which is registered as Case No. 12/I & R/2003. It is filed by one Stany Saldanha, authorised representative of M/s. Smay Investments limited, Bombay. All these petitioners in thee petitions are the accused named in this complaint. All of them seek quashing of the complaint as also quashing of the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Since all these facts giving rise to these petitions, flow from one complaint and the parties to these complaints are common, all these petitions are being so disposed of by ...
Tag this Judgment!Pratibha Syntext Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR25; 2004(1)BomCR92; 2003(157)ELT141(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the final order bearing No. 21/2000, dated 3/10-5-2002 (Ex. E) passed by the Settlement Commission, Customs & Central Excise, Additional Bench, Mumbai ('the Commission' for short) (Respondent No. 2 herein) to the extent it awards interest at the rate of 10% p.a. on the customs duty found payable, from the date of import till the date of deposit and adjustment thereof.The Facts :2. The facts leading to the petition are that during the years 1994-95 and 1995-96, the petitioners applied for and were granted 15 advance licences for export of dyed fabric/sarees made from 100% polyester Filament Yarn ('PFY' for short); whereby petitioners were permitted to import inter alia, 'PFY' and other inputs duty free under the said advance licences as per Notification No. 204/92-Cus., dated 19-5-1992.3. On 5-7-1997, a show cause notice came to be issued by the Customs authorities to the petitioners. It was alleged in the show cause notice that the inve...
Tag this Judgment!Raviprakash Babulalsing Parmar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR821; 2004(1)MhLj177
S.T. Kharche, J.1. Heard Mr. Madkholkar, learned counsel, for the petitioner, Mr. Sonare, learned A.G.P., for respondent No. 1 and Mrs. Deshpande, learned counsel, for respondent No. 3.2. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the relief for quashing the order dated 15-10-1985 passed by respondent No. 3/ Caste Scrutiny Committee and the order dated 5-10-1988 passed by respondent No.2/Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, dismissing the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner claims to be a 'Thakur' belonging to the Scheduled Tribe as specified by the President after consultation with the Governor of the State in accordance with the provisions of Article 342 of the Constitution of India. By virtue of the impugned orders, petitioners' caste claim has been invalidated and it has been held that he belongs to 'Kshatriya Thakur' caste which is outside the purview of entry No. 44 in part IX of Schedule II to the ...
Tag this Judgment!R.R. Oomerbhoy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Court Receiver, High Court and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR436; 2003(27)PTC580(Bom)
D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. In a suit founded on an action for passing off and infringement, Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde, by an interim order dated 28th April 2003, granted the reliefs prayed for in the Plaintiffs Notice of Motion. The First Defendant is in appeal. 2. Aimed Oomerbhoy was a partnership firm which carried on the business of manufacturing and selling edible oil. The firm owned and used trade marks in the course of its trade including the two which formed the subject matter of dispute before the learned Single Judge: 'MASTAAN' AND 'POSTMAN'. Since 1958, the firm manufactured and sold mustard oil under the brand name MASTAAN with and the label, device or logo of what is described as a 'turbaned rustic man with a moustache'. On 15th November 1966, the trade mark 'MASTAAN' together with the label and device was registered in Class 29 of the Rules under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The annual sale of mustard oil of this trade mark increased from Rs. 1.43 crores in 1990-91...
Tag this Judgment!Hi-tech Engineers Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(161)ELT96(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Mainly two issues are raised in this petition and they are, firstly, whether the Petitioners who fraudulently obtained duty free clearance of imported Dracone Barges under Section 90 of the Customs Act, 1962 can file an application, before the Settlement Commission and contend that even if the duty free clearance under Section 90 cannot be sustained, no duty is payable on the said barges in view of Exemption Notification No. 291/84-Cus., dated 28th December, 1984 and secondly, even if it is held that the customs duty is payable on the said Dracone Barges., in the absence of any statutory power, whether the Settlement Commission is justified in holding that the customs duty is recoverable with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of removal of the barges from the warehouse till payment.2. The petitioners are engaged in the business of supply of ship stores, spare parts etc. to various parties including Indian Navy and Indian Coast Guards. The petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Hi-tech Engineers Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR776
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Mainly two issues are raised in this petition and they are firstly, whether the petitioners who fraudulently obtained duty free clearance of imported Dracone Barges under section 90 of the Customs Act, 1962 can file an application before the Settlement Commission and contend that even if the duty free clearance under section 90 cannot be sustained, no duty is payable on the said barges in view of Exemption Notification No. 291/84-Cus dated 28th December, 1984 and secondly, even if it is held that the customs duty is payable on the said Dracone Barges, in the absence of any statutory power, whether the Settlement Commission is justified in holding that the customs duty is recoverable with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of removal of the barges from the warehouse till payment.2. The petitioners are engaged in the business of supply of ship stores, spare parts etc. to various parties including Indian Navy and Indian Coast Guards. The petitioners ha...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh R. Dung and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR796
V.C. Daga, J.1. By these two petitions, the petitioners are challenging the action on the part of the respondents whereby the bills of entry filed by the petitioners were sought to be assessed denying the benefit of Notification No. 191/90-Cus. dated 21st July, 1993 on the ground that the said notification was withdrawn by the 1st respondent and that it was substituted by another Notification bearing No. 152/93 issued on 21st July, 1993.2. According to the petitioners, the newly issued notification dated 21st July, 1993 can be given effect only after it was made available to the public at large and the importers like the petitioners. The petitioners contend that said newly published notification and information thereof was received by the respondents by telex dated 22nd July, 1993. The copy thereof was made available to the public as late as on 27th July, 1993, as such, the said Notification No. 152/93 Cus. dated 21st July, 1993 could not have been given effect with effect from the dat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »