Mumbai Court June 2005 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.
Goa Handicrafts, Rural and Small Scale Industries Development Corporat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2005
Reported in: II(2006)BC278; 2005CriLJ4072
V.M. Kanade, J.1. The Appellant herein is the Original complainant. He is challenging the judgment and Order passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge. Panaji, who by his Order dated 5-9-2003 acquitted the Respondent /Accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act, for short) and who by his Judgment and Order was pleased to set aside the Order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji, who had convicted the Accused under Section 138 of the Act.2. The brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this Criminal Appeal are as under: -The Complainant is a Company registered under the Companies Act and its registered ' Office is at Panaji, Goa. The Accused No. 1 is also a Private Limited Company having its Office at Margao, Goa and the Accused No.2 is the Managing Director of Accused No. 1 which admittedly is under the control of Respondent No.2 and its day to day management. The Accused had issued a post dated ch...
Charanjitsingh @ Sonu Nanaksingh Digwa Vs. State of Maharashtra and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)MhLj996
P.S. Brahme, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. Through this Writ Petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu has impugned the detention order dt. 10-9-2004 passed by respondent No. 2 the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City, detaining him under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981.3. The detention order, along with the grounds of detention, dt. 10-9-2004 was served on the detenu on 3-11-2004. The detention order and the grounds of detention have been annexed as Annexures 'A' and 'B' respectively to the petition.4. Though the learned counsel challenges the detention order on various grounds, he pressed into service his contention that the copies of in-camera statements of the witnesses i.e. Annexures 'A' and 'B' have not been furnished to the petitioner/detenu and thereby right of the detenu under Art...
Chandrabhan Lakhaji Dehankar (Since Dead Per Legal Representatives) an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR903; 2006(1)MhLj624
S.T. Kharche, J.1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13th July, 1989 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 108/1985, whereby the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs for specific performance of the contract was decreed by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31st December, 1984 passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 51/1975 by which the suit for specific performance of the contract is dismissed.2. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 along with defendant No. 3 jointly owned and possessed an agricultural filed bearing survey No. 228 ad measuring 15.21 acres situated at village Shirala Tq. Morshi. Defendant No. 1 had agreed to sell the suit field for consideration of Rs. 18,500 on receiving earnest amount of Rs. 3,000. The agreement of sale was executed on 8th March, 1972 and it was agreed that the plaintiff shall pay the b...
Serene Labs Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT290Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue for determination in these appeals is correct classification of medicaments such as Ampicilin Injection BP and Gentamicin Injection BP - whether under CET subheading 3003.20 as generic medicaments as contended by the Revenue and held by the lower appellate authority, or under CET sub-heading 3003.10 as P or P medicaments which is the claim of the assessees.3. We find that it is not necessary to give a finding on this issue for the purpose of disposal of these appeals. This is for the reason that undisputedly the assessees paid duty on the goods in question and then cleared them either for export or otherwise. Therefore, they had rightly availed Modvat credit of the duty paid by them on the inputs and also taken rebate when the goods were exported. The entire exercise was Revenue neutral. Therefore, without going into the correct classification of the products in dispute, we hold that the appeals are required to succeed....
Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT100Tri(Mum.)bai
1. As per the facts on record, the appellants imported raw materials against the advance licences, free of duty in terms of the Notification No. 128/94-Cus., dated 10-6-94. At the time of import, the appellants executed a bond with bank guarantee of Rs. 1,87,74,125/- in terms of condition 4 of the Notification. Inasmuch as, the appellants could not fulfil the export obligation and could not furnish export discharge obligation certificate within thirty days from the expiry of the EO period, their bank guarantee was encashed by the Revenue, though, it was informed by the appellants that their application for extension of export period is lying pending with DGFT authorities. Even DGFT vide their letter dated 16-3-2000 addressed to Collector of Customs (Exports) requested them to keep the encashment of bank guarantee in abeyance till 30-4-2000, by which time final decision could be taken by them. In spite of the above correspondence by the appellants and by the DGFT authorities, the depar...
Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT32Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for waiver of pre-deposit order and to stay its recovery.2. Appellants are a Public Sector Undertaking engaged in the manufacture of organic and inorganic chemicals falling under Chapter Heading 25, 28, 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.3. The issue involved in the present case is of classification of "Molten Sulphur" manufactured by the appellants from import of crude sulphur. The appellants classified the said product under Chapter Heading 2505, whereas the Department has proposed the classification under CH 2804.90.4. The Tribunal in the appellants own case while relying on the Supreme Court's decision remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication stressing upon the binding effect of Trade Notices, supply of copy of chemical experts opinion, etc.5. The copy of chapter note of classification list vide Trade Notice No. 92/86 dated 9-12-1986 shows that Molten Sulphur would be appropriately classifiab...
Hanuman Vitamins Foods Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT509Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing both sides and considering the submissions and on finding that the issue involved in this case is eligibility to exemption on Hexane obtained under Chapter X by the appellants and claimed to be eligible under Sr. 8 of Table to Notification 75/84 which reads as :Sr. No. Description of goods Rate of duty Intended use/condition8 Special boiling Nil Intended for use point spir-its in the manufacture of consisting of hydro- solvent extracted fixed carbons derived vegetable oil or for from petroleum(other extracting fat from than Benzene, Benzol, silk worm pupae. Toluene and Toluol) 2.1. That the said Hexane is used in the Solvent Extraction Plant is accepted. However the notices issued alleges : "... has used the same partly for manufacture of solvent extracted VNE at (in solvent extracted plant) and partly for further processing i.e. refinery or purification of oils into Miscella Refinery Plant. However purification of oil is only a process of refining the oil already man...
Kirti Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT97Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant imported a consignment of 10,076 pieces of veneer strips, squares, wood veneer stickers, curved veneer strips etc. valued at Rs. 93,803/-. The dispute arose as to the classification of the imported goods. The appellant claims it as veneer sheets classifiable under Chapter Heading 44.08 which reads as veneer sheets and sheets for plywood etc. whereas the department's case is that the imported goods are classifiable under Chapter Heading 44.20 of the Customs Tariff. The result of such a classification would be that the goods would become prohibited as per the ITC Policy then prevailing.2. The learned Advocate argues that the goods under import are not in finished form to be called articles of wood but are strips of a particular thickness classifiable under Heading 44.08. The original authority while adjudicating the case described the form in which the goods were imported and held that the goods are classifiable under ICT 4420.90 as they are in a fully finished form and...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Krishna Filaments
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT175Tri(Mum.)bai
2. Respondents are an EOU, who cleared goods to the DTA unit. Notices date 5.5.95, 25.6.95 & 13.11.95 were issued. A.C. ordered withdrawal of demands. Revenue filed an appeal to CCE(A). CCE(A) found that no evidence or details of the market enquiry was indelicate in the show cause notice and in absence of such details there was no scope to apply Rule 6(b)(I) of valuation rules and rejected the appeal. Revenue is again come up in appeal to the Tribunal.3. Perusal of the grounds do not indicate any material which could be relied upon to upset the CCE(A) order. Mere assertion that the assessee has not refuted the market price quoted in the notice will not induce us to upset the order. Moreover, for valuation of removals from a DTA the market price in India is not relevant to arrive at a valuation required as prescribed under second proviso to Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, we find no reason to uphold the valuation as proposed in the notice and differential dema...
Chief Manager, Bank of India Vs. Gunvantiben Bhawarlal Mehta
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: II(2006)BC16
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/applicant Bank of India being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14th December, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of D.R.T. II, Mumbai in appeal No, 101 of 2004, By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the appeal filed by the appellants Mrs. Gunvantiben Mehta and Mr, Bhawarlal Mehta under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred to as the SRFAESI Act) and ordered the respondent Bank to immediately re-deliver possession of the flat to the appellants. The learned Presiding Officer also ordered the Bank to pay compensation to the appellants at the rate of Rs. 5007- per day from the date of order till delivery of the flat.Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the Bank under Section 18 of the SRFAESI Act. Case of the appellants in their appeal before the D.R.T....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »