Mumbai Court January 2004 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.
Pralhad Ramji Surjuse and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2004
Reported in: II(2004)DMC763
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. M.R. Daga, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Mira, A.P.P. for the respondent-State. 2. All the three accused-appellants have been convicted by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Amravati for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default of payment of fine, they shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month more. Further by the said judgment, all the accused were acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Mr. Daga, the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants made only one submission that originally the charges under Sections 304-B and 498A r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the accused-appellants and the trial proceeded in its entirety against both the charges. However, on the date of arguments...
Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT377Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellants are manufacturer of Rin Concentrate Powder (herein after referred to a RCP) an Organic Surface Active Agent and held a registration and kept accounts. During the manufacture of RCP a large quantity of RCP Oversize (hereinafter referred to RECP-OS) emerged which was not marketed due to quality problems. While RCP accounts of production clearance were kept no such accounting of (RCP-OS) was kept till September 1991. It was accounted only after 01/10/91 in RG-1.2. RCP-OS was sent to job worker for grinding under challans of their own and not following strictly the provisions of Rule 5F (2)/F(3) and after grinding RCP-OS was disposed off by mixing it with RCP and cleared the same on payment of duty or by clearing RCP-OS to sister unit in Mumbai and Calcutta on payment of duty. Since quantity of RCP-OS was also received from Mumbai unit and modvat credit was obtained on it.3. a) Based on reconciliation charts prepared by the assesses office and the RG-1 entries a show cause n...
Vittal Utekar Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT131Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These three appeals have been filed against the orders of penalty arrived at by the Lower Authority under the provisions of Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 on them by very same order.2. (a) Appellant in appeal No. C/122/97 is one Shri Bhavesh D.Sonchhatra on whom the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been imposed on him coming to the following findings - "As regard the role of Shri Bhavesh D. Sonchhatra, he admitted that he was export incharge of M/s. JAC Enterprises at the material time. Shri Sunil Mehta of M/s. S.R. Shipping in his statement stated that Shri Bhavesh D. Sonchhatra of M/s. JAC Enterprises volunteered that one of his staff would complete the Customs examination formalities. Shri Bhavesh also admitted in his statement that one of the employees of CHA M/s. JAC Enterprises Shri Vithal Uttekar changed the mode of clearance from 'SELF' to CHA (M/s. JAC Enterprises). As Shri Bhavesh was the Export Incharge of M/s. JAC Enterprises he had played a major role in the smug...
Shree Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT471Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Heard both sides. The appellants filed a shipping bill for export of cut and polished diamonds. On examination, the impugned goods were found to be overvalued. The ascertained value was US $ 20,811.55 as against the declared value of US $ 2,61,336.25 (equivalent to Rs. 1,07,50,000/-). Thus, the impugned goods were found to be over invoiced to the extent of US $ 2,40,524.70 (equivalent to Rs. 98,95,196/-). As recorded by the Adjudicating Commissioner, the appellants have not denied the mis-declaration but explained the same on the ground of mistake by the accounting staff. The impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner of Customs, confiscating the impugned goods under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, in view of the explanation of the appellants, he has imposed a very lenient redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of confiscation. He has also imposed a small penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellants taking a lenient view.2. Shri Arun Mehta, learned Advocate ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Atul Inds.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT353Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue relates to the application of limitation in respect of refund claim filed by the respondent. The refund claim was filed on 21.1.1999 for the amount of Rs. 4 lakhs paid vide TR6 challans dated 12.11.1997 and 19.11.1997. It is also found that the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs claimed as paid by the claimant is in fact paid by another unit viz. M/s. Dharam Inds. Since the refund claim was filed by the claimant on 21.1.1999 i.e. after the expiry of 6 months from the date of payment of duty, the same was alleged to be time barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. While the AC rejected the refund claim not considering the said payment to be a deposit for future payment, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the appellants had fixed the refund application within the period of 6 months from the date of issue of adjudication order dated 18.11.1998 in their favour on merits.2. The grounds in the revenue's appeal claim that since the amo...
Mangalam Lubricants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT250Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Heard both sides. The appellants imported a consignment of used lubricating oil valued at Rs. 3,81,600/- CIF by country craft from Doha and sought clearances under Open General Licence. However, the adjudicating authority held that import of the impugned goods cannot be allowed under OGL as import restrictions in respect of hazardous wastes under the Exim Policy 1992-97 required a licence for such import. The adjudicating authority confiscated the impugned goods but allowed redemption on a fine of Rs. 3,80,000/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 75/000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order-in-original but he has reduced the fine from Rs. 3,80,000/- to Rs. 3,00,000/- and penalty of Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-.2. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that used oil and waste oil are different and that the import restrictions should not be applied to used oil. During the hearing, the learned Advocate for the appellants has also submitted a copy of Notification dated ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Adarsh Inds. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT466Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) extending the capital goods credit on 3 items viz. Control Panel, Water Storage Tank and M.S. Fabricated Tower Structure to the Respondents herein who are manufacturers of glass tubes.2. I have heard both sides. Control Panel has already been held to be covered by definition of Capital Goods. Hence, it is eligible to capital goods credit. As regards water storage tank, this is also an item eligible to capital goods credit as it serves the purpose of continuous cooling of glass electrodes to maintain their quality by water circulation from this water tank. As regards M.S. Fabricated Tower Structure, it is brought out from the written submission filed before the Asstt. Commissioner that it is attached on top of the recuperator and the glass tube bundle recuperator is inserted into tower structure and insulated from inside. Tube bundle structures are heated for melting glass in the furnace. Therefore...
Nebula Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT202Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The issue relates to modvat credit of Rs. 3,50,583.16. The facts are that due to space constraints the appellants were storing the imported goods to be used as inputs in an outside godown called Anjali Godown and availed appropriate modvat credit on the strength of subsidiary certificate issued by the Range Superintendent, as and when the part quantity of such imported goods was brought into their registered factory premises for eventual utilisation for manufacture of final dutiable goods. This practice was in vogue till 31.3.1994. On withdrawal of the subsidiary certificate system vide notification No.16/94 C.E. (NT), the appellant started bringing the imported goods stored outside, on their own stock transfer challans i.e. depot challan cum-bills, mentioning therein the relevant details as required under notification 15/94 CE(NT) and availed the modvat credit to the extent of duty shown on such challans. ...
Devan Auto Engineers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC681
1. M/s Devan Auto Engineers (Appellants in Appeal No. E/649/02) were engaged mainly in job works on raw materials supplied by M/s Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. (TELCO, in short). The department found that, during the period April 1995 to September 1997, they had undervalued the goods (manufactured by undertaking job work on raw materials supplied by TELCO) cleared, on payment of duly, to M/s TELCO and consequently there was a short-payment of duty. The department accordingly issued Show Cause Notice dtd.25/09/1998 raising demand of duty of Rs. 6,58,013/- on the appellants. The notice invoked the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act on the basis of alleged suppression of facts by the party.The notice also proposed to confiscate land, building, machinery etc.under Rule 173Q and also to impose penalty on the appellants under Section 11AC of the Act. The proposals were contested. The original authority which adjudicated the Show Cause No...
Sushilabai W/O Harikisan Barodia and ors. Vs. Surajnarayan S/O Bholana ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR429; 2004(6)BomCR373; 2004(4)MhLj76
S.T. Kharche, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.R. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P.D. Kothari, the learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. None for respondent No. 1.2. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners-tenants challenges the order dated 26th September, 1988 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Nagpur in R.C. Appeal No. 22/A-71(2)/87-88, who confirmed the findings of the Rent controller granting permission to the respondent-landlord to serve quit notice for termination of tenancy under Sections 13(3) (ii) and (iii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 (In short, the Rent Control Order).3. Brief facts are as under :Originally, father of the respondent No. 1 Bholanath Pande (since deceased) inducted the husband of the petitioner No. 1 Fulchand Patel as a tenant on the monthly rent of Rs. 25/- per month. The shop of denatured spirit was being run i...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »