Mumbai Court August 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.
Dishti Inds. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)(117)LC352Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri S.M. Parikh, Ld. Advocate along with Shri S.P. Bharti, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri Sanjay Singhal, LD. JDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue.2. The issue relates to classification of Bolting Cloth under Chapter Heading 5911.20 as claimed by the department. The appellant, however, claim classification under Heading 5406 claiming if to be nylon fabrics. The Ld. Counsel mainly contended that the appellants were denied the cross examination of Shri Amrit Utsavlal Chhajed, and representatives of Bombay Textile Research Association and Central Excise Laboratory who have given expert opinion and test report. Mainly on this ground the Ld. Counsel has sought for setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication.3. The Ld. JDR contended that the issue of classification has attained the finality because the appellant have not challenged the order-in-original No. 25/CEX/1993 dated 31.3.1993, passed by...
Navinon Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT400Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Heard both sides. The assessee is in appeal. The issue pertains to recovery of Service Tax. The appellant has made certain payments to M/s. Ciba Geigy Limited, Switzerland, in the shape of royalty in pursuance of the Agreement dated 22.11.1996 for technical know-how, equipment, skill, expertise and services for production of VAT Dyes.Show cause notice was issued demanding Service Tax from the appellant under the category of "Consulting Engineer". It is contended on behalf of the appellant that M/s. CIBA Geigy Limited being a manufacturer is not an engineering firm and would not fall under the definition of 'Taxable Service and Consulting Engineer'. On due enquiry, the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane, confirmed the demand of Service Tax of Rs. 29,15,488/- under Section 73 of The Finance Act, 1994. Interest is also ordered to be recovered. A sum of Rs. 100/- per day is imposed towards penalty from the date the Service Tax was liable to be paid. The Commissioner (Appeal...
Rashtriya Metal Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC282
"MIXED BRASS SCRAP AS PER ISRI SPECS NOMAD" the goods were on IInd check, on examination, were reported to be in fine coloured metallic powder of Copper/Bronze, on visual inspection and since they gave a colour shade on physically touching with hand they were suspected to be "metallic pigments", the drums, in which they were imported, were having different markings. On test, the Custom Departmental Chemist repotted the samples to be 'yellow lustre powder composed of Brass with traces of fatty matter & it was not ink, but had characters of bronze powder metallic pigment.2. On contest by the importer, the goods were got inspected by a Professor of IIT Mumbai, who reported - The material is powder form was packed in drums of good quality (used drums), the powder having been put into the drums without any plastic containers. The drums were not sealed and did not have proper labels. The drums were not having any correlation between the material and the labels. The labels on the drums h...
Munjani Brothers and ors. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: (2005)(118)LC102Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Heard both sides and considered the stay applications and it is found that: (a) 5 Bills of Entry filed by M/s Vijaybhav, M/s Deepali Exports and M/s Pushpak Impex for import of diamonds worth Rs. 5,68,09,916/-. Same were ordered to be confiscated, penalties were imposed on the proprietors and the proprietary concerns under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the grounds that the licenses produced for the clearance of the subject goods were forged and the clearances were not required to be permitted and this attempt to clear such diamonds on these forged licenses would call for confiscation of the said goods as clearance of diamonds were permissible only on valid transferred REP licences required to be produced. Since no such valid licences were produced, the goods were ordered to be confiscated and consequential penalties were imposed. (b) Since the goods have been confiscated and no redemption fine has been ordered and the goods are in the custody of the department and prim...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Siemens Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT41Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Herein assessee, of Central Excise, classified programmable Logic Controllers (PLC) under chapter 84.71 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and paid 10% basic excise duty + 5% special excise duty. The Assistant Commissioner by his order classified the PLC under chapter No. 85.37 interalia demanding 15% basic duty + 5% special duty. The assessee preferred an Appeal before the commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) against the said order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Three different SCNs were issued to the assessee inter alia demanding a differential duty of Rs. 1,51,93,258/- on the basis of OIO dated June 5, 1996. By his OIO the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise was pleased to confirm the demand of Rs. 1,51,93,258/- made vide SCN. The appellants in terms of the above 01O dated December 20, 1996 debited the said amount of Rs. 1,51,93,258/- by PLA entry No. 2500, 2501 and 2502 under protest and intimated these facts vide letter dated 30.9.98 & thereafter preferred an...
Banco Aluminium Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: (2005)(181)ELT110Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is the second round of these appeals in the Tribunal. The matter was earlier remanded to the Commissioner of Central Excise vide order No. 2650-59/97/WRB, dated 17-6-1997 [1998 (99) E.L.T. 186 (T)] with the following directions - "On consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we are inclined to hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be more appropriate to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for denovo adjudication. This is because we find substance in the plea that in respect of the appellants M/s. Banco Aluminium Ltd. an effective hearing and the facility of cross-examination of witnesses which though was extended to them had not in fact taken place. Such cross-examination, we find, is essential for establishing cases against this appellants and their employees beyond doubt. It is true that more than one opportunity of hearing had been offered to the appellants but as it happened it would appear from the record that the ultima...
Arjandas Metals Industries Pvt., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT377Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These appeals against the same order are being disposed by this Commissioner order. After hearing both sides.2. Appellant in E/1470 is an assessee under the Central Excise Act, in appeal E/1471 its Managing Director & in E/1503/9 the Excise executive.3 Consequent to an interception of a tempo on 17.1.1998, and verification of the records of the assessee company's factory at Saki Naka Mumbai & dealer premises and sales Godown at Bhuleshwar, owned and managed by the assessee company after completing inquires a notice dated 15.7.96 was issued, alleging that the excisable goods found in the tempo intercepted 17.1.1998, and the Gate Pass (Invoices) covering the same, which were showing the Time of preparation of that document and time of removal of the goods from the factory as 14.10 hrs & 15.10 hrs was a duplicate consignment being removed in that tempo when it was intercepted. The first consignment having been removed at 10hrs and the figures 14 & 15 before 10 hrs were...
Maharashtra Certified Auditors Association (Regd.) Vs. State of Mahara ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Bom70; 2004(4)ALLMR490; 2005(1)BomCR128; 2004(4)MhLj819
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. These two writ petitions are raising substantially a similar of law in so far as the audit work undertaken by the Chartered Accountants of the Co-operative Societies is concerned, and since the question of law raised is similar in both the petitions, we propose to dispose off both the petitions by our common judgment.2. Whilst in Writ Petition No. 2632 of 1996, the circular dated 6.3.1996 is challenged, in other Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 8812 of 2003 challenge is to the circular dated 4.6.01992. Both these circulars are issued by the Commissioner for Co-operation, Pune. However, legal challenge to both these circulars are substantially identical. The material facts in the present petitions briefly stated are as under:-3. Writ Petition No. 2632 of 1996 has been filed by an association (Regd.) claiming to be the association of Chartered Accountants and Certified Auditors. The members of the petitioners association are engaged in carrying out auditing of coop...
Master Salim IkramuddIn Ansari and Maharukh Adenwalla Vs. Officer-in-c ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ799; 2004(4)MhLj725
Dalveer Bhandari, C.J.1. This is a classic case of violation of human rights, fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ('the Act', for short).2. The brief facts of this case are recapitulated as under:-Petitioner No. 1, Salim Ikramuddin Ansari, aged about 15 years at the time of his arrest, has moved this petition with a prayer to declare his incarceration in Mumbai Central Prison unlawful and in violation of the Act.3. The first petitioner has also prayed that the second respondent be directed to produce him before the Juvenile Justice Board. The further prayer is to shift him from Mumbai Central Prison to the Observation Home at Umerkhadi.4. It is submitted that petitioner No. 1 has remained in unlawful custody of the Mumbai Central Prison from 16th November, 2001 to 11th February, 2003 and for that, he be awarded compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-.5. Petitioner No. 1 has also prayed that he be awarded co...
Shri Cutchi Visa Oswal Derawasi JaIn Pathshala Through Its Chairman Vi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR484; 2005(1)BomCR105
Daga V.C., J.1. This appeal at the instance of Shri Cutchi Visa Oswal Derawasi Jain Pathshala ('Pathshala Trust' for short) is directed against the order dated 17th June, 2004 passed by the City Civil Court at Bombay while dismissing Notice of Motion No. 809 of 2004 moved in S,C. Suit No. 552 of 2004, whereby prayer for temporary injunction to restrain defendant No. I/respondent No. 1 herein : Shri Cutchi Visha Oswal Derawasi Jain Mahajan ('Mahajan Trust' for short) and their trustees from interfering with the management, administration and appointment of trustees came to be rejected.The Factual Matrix:2. The factual matrix disclosed by the appellant reveals that the appellant/ original plaintiff-Pathshala Trust is an Education Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 ('Trust Act' for short) at No. E-539 running two schools. Respondent No. 1/original defendant No. 1-Mahajan Trust is also a public Trust duly registered under the Trust Act engaged in religious activities....
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »