Mumbai Court July 1989 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.
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1989
Reported in: (1989)(25)LC424Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is direct against the order-in-appeal bearing No.M-1610-1611/81, 552, 553/84, dated 18-7-1984, confirming the order-in-original No. V-34 (15) 3/81/403 & V-34 (15) 4-81/4035 both dated 26-8-1983 and demanding Rs. 46,232.58 towards the excise duty payable on export of eight agricultural tractors to Nepal.2. The Government of India, vide Finance Department Circular No.297/2/77 CX-9, dated 23-9-1977, decided to allow "in bond" export of excisable goods to Nepal without charging excise duty where the payment was to be received in free foreign exchange. The Government also, vide Notification No. 304/77, dated 24-10-1977 made amendment in Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, by incorporating Sub-rule (2), enabling the Government to permit such export without charging duty and Trade Notice No. 248 (MP)/Gen/36/77 dated 14-12-1977 was issued laying down the procedure to be followed for availing of such benefit.3. The appellants, who are the manufacturers of Agricultural Tract...
Union of India Vs. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1989
Reported in: 1989(24)LC240(Bombay); 1989(43)ELT225(Bom)
Bharucha J.1. This is an appeal by the Union of India against the interim order passed on 19th July 1988 in the respondents' writ petition. The learned single judge, upon a prima facie interpretation of Section 11A(3)(ii)(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, entertained doubts as to whether the Collector could have issued the show cause notice that is impugned in the petition. Accordingly, he restrained further proceedings therefrom.2. Mr. Sethna, learned counsel for the appellants, drew our attention to the Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, 1989 (39) E.L.T. 511 (Delhi). The judgment interpreted the relevant provision in a manner that consists Mr. Sethna. The Division Bench proceeded upon the basis that the provision laid down a rule of limitation. A rule of limitation, it said assumed the existence of a cause of action and did not define or create it.3. With great respect to the Delhi High Court, we are of ...
Mukund Iron and Steel Works Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1989
Reported in: (1990)(25)ECC125
1. This is an appeal directed against the order of the Collector (Appeals) bearing No. V-2(72) 2521/87 3454, dated 1-3-1988.2. Facts of the case for the purpose of disposal of this appeal can be stated as below: 3. The appellants are manufacturers of iron and steel products. They had opted for availing of MODVAT benefit in respect of inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of finished product and accordingly they filed a declaration as required under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. The department objected to the extension of credit in respect of refractory products, namely Bricks, Blocks and other ceramic materials like ramming mass, refractory mortar. Before denial of the MODVAT credit, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant and after observing principles of natural justice, the Assistant Collector passed an order holding that the aforesaid goods, which are claimed as inputs are not covered by the explanation to the term 'in put' given in Rule 57A of the Centr...
Khosla Cast Steel and Alloys Pvt. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1989
Reported in: (1989)(25)LC305Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order-in-appeal bearing No.V-2(Ch-72) 2019/88 (R-130/NG-18/89), dated 27-2-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as below: 3. The appellants who are the manufacturers of Steel and Iron Casting filed a declaration for availment of MOD VAT in respect of various inputs. The declaration was filed on 15-3-1986. Subsequently in their letter dated 22-5-1986 they also intimated about the bringing in steel scrap purchased from the market on which they would be availing of deemed credit as per the Ministry's order, allowing deemed credit on market scrap. However, during the months of September and October, 1987, they received steel scrap directly from the manufacturers under gate passes evidencing payment of duty at Rs. 365/- per M.T. and on the strength of these gate passes MOD VAT credit was availed of in respect of actual duty paid on steel scrap. The Su...
Tumkur Town Veerashiva Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. H.C.Shyamala and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1989
Reported in: [1991]70CompCas850(Bom)
M.P. Chandrakanthara J. Urs J.1. The petitioner is the Tumkur Town Veerashiva Co-operative Bank Limited. As the name itself indicates, it is a co-operative institution duly registered in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. It is aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated May 23, 1984, made in appeal No. 317 of 1983. It has challenged the legality and correctness of that order in this writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 2. The facts leading to the writ petition may be stated briefly and they are as follows : One H. C. Shyamala, respondent No. 1 in this proceeding, borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,45,000 from the petitioner/co-operative bank to enable her to purchase a motor vehicle as evidence by ennexure 'A', 'B' and 'C' under an agreement of hypothecation between the said first respondent, Shyamala, and the petitioner bank. The stage-carriage vehicle bearing No. MYT 5292 (annexure B) was hypothecated to the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›