Mumbai Court September 1991 Judgments
Voltas Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1991
Reported in: (1994)(70)ELT385Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. AMP.974/B.III/493/87 dated 1-3-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, confirming the order-in-original No.V(68)18.30/86(106) dated 23-2-1987 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Thane Div. II, rejecting the claim for refund of Rs. 12,458.00 filed by the appellants.2. The appellants, vide their refund claim dated 21-8-1986, claimed refund of Rs. 12,454/- in respect of the duty paid on Voldram Model 257D, and cleared vide GP 1 No. 512/25-3-1986, pleading that initially the same machine was cleared on payment of requisite duty vide GP 1 No.255/9-11-1984, for the purpose of display at the exhibition and was brought back on 6-12-1984, under appropriate D-3 intimation to the department, and was kept in the factory premises, from where the same was sold to a party and hence the same was removed from the factory vide GP 1 No. 512/25-3-1986 on payment of duty of Rs. 12,454.00, and pleaded that it was...
Tag this Judgment!Shivkumar Exports Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1991
Reported in: (1993)(63)ELT292Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No.S/6-B-3131/91 Exp, dated 15-4-1991 of the Additional Collector of Customs, Exports Deptt, Bombay, rejecting the claim of the drawback claimed in relation the Export Item 100%, Rayon Powerlooms Readymade Garments, and holding the Exporter to have contravened the provisions of Section 50(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, and further ordering confiscation of the same vide Section 113(1) of the Act, but granting option to pay fine of Rs. 40,000/- and further imposing personal penalty of Rs. 2,0007-vide Section 114 of the said Act.2. Though the issue raised is in relation to grant of drawback, as the adjudication is by the Additional Collector, the jurisdiction is invested in the Tribunal, and as both the sides have pleaded that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal from any angle is not ousted, the appeal is heard and is being disposed of by this order.3. The appellants, on 2-4-1991, filed Shipping Bill No. 162970, declaring the export ite...
Tag this Judgment!Paper and Pulp Conversions Ltd. Vs. Collector of C.Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1991
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT390Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All the three appeals are directed against the same order bearing No. AMP-555 to 557/B III-304 to 306/88, dated 10-10-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, rejecting the appellants' appeal.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants preferred three refund claims (i) covering the period from 8-1-1986 to 31-1-1986, (ii) 1-2-1986 to 28-2-1986 and (iii) from 1-3-1986 to 31-3-1986. The undisputed factual position is that in all the three cases the refund claims have been filed after six months from the date of payment of duty. All the same, it was contended by the appellants that the duty payments have been made under protest vide their letter dated 3-12-1985, addressed to the Supdt. and acknowledged by the Range Office. However, the authority below held that this letter of protest addressed to the Supdt. and filed in the Range Office is not a valid letter of protest filed before the proper officer as laid down under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Bottling Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1991
Reported in: (1992)40ITD231(Mum.)
1. The first ground which is against the rate of depreciation applied by the ITO on trucks was not pressed at the time of appeal hearing as the issue at this stage is only of an academic interest.2. The next ground of appeal is that the CIT (Appeals) erred in disallowing the claim of investment allowance of Rs. 1,49,252 on additions to fork lift trucks. The ITO disallowed the claim, as according to him, fork lift trucks would not be treated as plant and machinery as they were essentially in the nature of road transport vehicles. When the matter was carried in appeal, the CIT (Appeals) agreed with the contention of the assessee that the fork lift trucks could not be regarded as road transport vehicles. He, however, upheld the disallowance on the ground that the assessee was engaged in the manufacture or production of articles or things mentioned in item No. 5 of Schedule 11th of the Act. Assessee is aggrieved.3. It is contended on behalf of the assessee that the assessee is in the busi...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Gopal Gurve Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1991
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR168; 1992CriLJ3064
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14-8-1987 passed by the Special Judge, Wardha, in a Special Case No. 3/77, convicting the appellant/accused along with accused No. 1 Bhaiyaji Bhagwat, for the offence punishable under section 5(1)(c) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing them to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo further R.I. for one year; also convicted along with accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under sections 465 and 471 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to suffer R.I. for one year. 2. The appellant/accused was charge-sheeted and tried along with two others, viz. Bhaiyaji son of Laxman Bhagwat, Divisional Forest Officer, Arvi and Rajeshwar son of Murlidhar Kajale, Range Clerk, Arvi, for the offence punishable under section 5(1)(c) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 468, 465...
Tag this Judgment!Kashinath Atmaram Kothavade Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Special L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1991
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR376; (1992)94BOMLR375
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. This is an appeal by the claimant against the award of additional compensation by the Joint Judge, Nashik, in Land Reference No. 17 of 1982, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which according to the claimant is inadequate.2. Briefly the facts are that the State Government published on 15-3-1979 a notification under section 4(i) of the Land Acquisition Act, to acquire in Kalwan town an area admeasuring 39.44 Areas equivalent to 3944 Sq. M. from Gat No. 533 belonging to the appellant for the public purpose of having at Kalwan a K.V. Sub Station, Central Room, Staff quarters etc. of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (for short, the M.S.E.B). According to the learned Counsel for the appellant the above agricultural land was converted to non-agricultural use in 1970. However it appears from the award that the land was converted to non-agricultural use on 9-1-1973. It is pertinent to see that according to the claimant the possession of the suit land was taken by the ...
Tag this Judgment!National Food Products Vs. Madras Food Products and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1991
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR105
B.V. Chavan, J.1. By this application filed under sections 107, 108 read with section 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioner seeks relief against the respondents for cancellation of his trade mark and consequential rectification of the trade mark register maintained by the respondents No. 2-the Registrar of trade marks.2. The petitioner amongst other things, produces a bakery product viz., bread. The package of the bread manufactured by the petitioner which bears the trade mark 'Picnic bread' in a certain colour scheme is registered as a registered trade mark on 19-1-1983 under Trade Mark No. 394668. On 7-10-1984 petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 2 of 1984 under section 205 of the Act against the respondent inter alia asking for an injunction restraining the respondent No. 1 from selling their bakery product in a package which was deceptively similar to that of the petitioner. On 18-10-1984, the respondent No. 1 filed his re...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnakant Durlabhbhai Vora and anr. Vs. Mathuradas R. Gandhi and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR610
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. These two writ petitions arise out of the order passed by the Co-operative Tribunal on August 16, 1991 confirming the decision of the Co-operative Court dated July 19, 1991. The only limited question before me in these writ petition, at the admission stage, is whether respondent No. 1, one of the share holders who has filed the election petition, has got right to inspect the counter-foils of the ballot papers.2. Respondent No. 1 filed a dispute challenging the election of present petitioner who was an elected chairman of respondent No. 13, the Bank also the elections of nine Directors, being respondent Nos. 2 to 10 in the present petition. The elections of the Chairman and the Directors of respondent No. 13, the Bank, were held on April 29, 1991 and the results were declared on April 30, 1991. As per the said results, the petitioner was declared as a Chairman of the Bank and respondent Nos. 2 to 10 were declared as the Directors along with the three other Directors. A...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1991
Reported in: (1993)LC391Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All the three appeals involve in consideration of the same issue and hence they were heard together and proposed to dispose of by this common order. All the 3 appeals are directed against the order in appeal bearing No. S/49, 276, 277 & 278/82 A'bad dated 24-2-1983 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The facts required for the disposal of the appeals can be stated briefly as below : The appellants imported 3 consignments of paraxylene and they warehoused the goods at Kandla. At the time of warehousing, pending chemical test to determine the classification for purpose of CVD, assessments on the into bond Bs/E were done provisionally under Sec. 18 of the Customs Act. After the chemical test, the assessments are said to have been finalised by the Kandla Customs, somewhere in the month of May, 1980, consequent on which, the assessments of the goods under T.I. 11A had to be revised to T.I. 8 of the Central Excise Tariff, for purpose of CVD. It is also to be state...
Tag this Judgment!Dnyaneshwar Baburao Gorel Vs. Sau. Kamal Dnyaneshwar Gorel and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ835; 1992(1)MhLj198
A.D. Mane, J.1. This criminal revision application has been placed before us on a reference made in that behalf by the learned single Judge of this Court for decision on the question as to the procedure and interpretation of sub-section (3) of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The material facts which gave rise to the filing of the revision application by the petitioner husband are as follows : The wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') claiming maintenance allowance for self and for and on behalf of her minor daughter against the petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kirkee, Pune, by order dated July 6, 1987, granted maintenance only to the minor daughter at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month and rejected the wife's application for maintenance allowance on the ground that she was not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner for she married him when his first marriage was subsisting. The wif...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »