Mumbai Court January 1995 Judgments
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay Vs. Rajshree Electronics
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)MhLj534
B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under Section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 made at the instance of the revenue, the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal has referred following question of law to this Court for opinion :- 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the activity of recording songs and programmes on blank cassette tape does not bring into existence a commercially different commodity and the activity did not amount to 'manufacture' within the meaning of sub-section (17) of Section 2 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ?' 2. The assessee deals in cassette-tapes. On 25th August, 1978, he purchased 1050 pieces of C-60 (red) cassette-tapes at the rate of Rs. 10/- per piece from one M/s. Teisco Electronics on payment of sales tax at the rate of 15 paise in a rupee. These cassettes were then given by the assessee to one M/s. Oriental Melodies for recording songs and programmes for which a sum of Rs. 5/- per cassett...
Tag this Judgment!Kadam P.H. and Others Vs. Deshpande M.A. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)BomCR456; (1995)97BOMLR301; (1997)IIILLJ94Bom
1. This writ petition illustrates how a simple case can be confused and chaos generated by vague pleadings on both sides. 2. The petitioners are workmen employed in the India Government Mint at Bombay. Ale First Respondent is Labour Court No.2, constituted under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Second Respondent is the General Manager of the India Government Mint at Bombay. 3. It is not in dispute that the mint, in which the petitioners are working, is a 'factory' within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948. As a result of the recommendations made by the Third and Fourth Pay Commissions, which were accepted and implemented by the Central Government, certain amounts became payable as interim relief to all Central Government employees, including the writ petitioners. 4. By an Office Memorandum dated September 30, 1970, (Exhibit 'N to the Affidavit of S. K. Barman dated September 8, 1994), with effect fro...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Rajshree Electronics
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1995
Reported in: 1997(96)ELT517(Bom)
B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under Section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 made at the instance of the revenue, the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal has referred following question of law to this Court for opinion :-'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the activity of recording songs and programmes on blank cassette tape does not bring into existence a commercially different commodity and the activity did not amount to 'manufacture' within the meaning of Sub-section (17) of Section 2 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959?' 2. The assessee deals in cassette-tapes. On 25th August, 1978, he purchased 1050 pieces of C-60 (red) cassette-tapes at the rate of Rs. 10/- per piece from one M/s. Teisco Electronics on payment of sales tax at the rate of 15 paise in a rupee. These cassettes were then given by the assessee to one M/s. Oriental Melodies for recording songs and programmes for which a sum of Rs. 5/- per cassette ...
Tag this Judgment!Fine Composite Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1995
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT73Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Though notice of hearing has been duly acknowledged by the appellants as well as by the advocate on record, none turned up for hearing.2. The appeal is against the order in appeal No. V-2(17) 338/85, dated 30-9-1986. The issue relates to rejection of their refund claim as time barred. The duty payment has been made during the period from 11-3-1982 to 7-2-1983 and the refund claim said to have been filed on 21-2-1985 and hence the Asstt. Collector, has rejected the refund claim as time barred. The appellants, however, contended that they have filed a protest letter dated 23-3-1982 which was received by the Asstt.Collector on 24-3-1982. On a perusal of the said letter dated 23-3-1982, we find that the appellants have indicated that their goods are classifiable under T.I. 17(4) and are exempted in terms of Notification No. 66/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982, and since no clarification is available, they are paying excise duty under protest w.e.f. 1-3-1982. However, the Asstt. Collector has r...
Tag this Judgment!Mohandas Jethanand Mamtora Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1995
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR234]
Tipnis, J.1. By this petition the petitioner seeks a writ or direction to the respondents compelling them to treat the petitioner as having retired from the services of the then Bombay Housing and Area Development Board/Authority in pursuance to the notice of voluntary retirement issued by the petitioner on 28-2-1979. It is also prayed that consequently the subsequent order of dismissal passed on 30-11-1984 may also be quashed. 2. The petitioner was working as a Senior Assistant with the Bombay Housing and area Development Board at the relevant time. It is alleged that he issued the notice dated 28-2-1979 seeking permission to retire voluntarily under the voluntary retirement scheme introduced by the Government of Maharashtra under Finance Department Government Resolution dated 4-3-1978. Admittedly there was no reply to this communication. It is further an admitted position that the petitioner was suspended by an order dated 16-5-1979 and a departmental inquiry was held against him, in...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Prashant Khosla Pneumatic Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1995
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT70Tri(Mum.)bai
1. There is a delay of more than four months in filing the appeal by the Revenue. Though I could have dismissed the appeal as time barred, since [no] valid reasons have been cited in the condonation application, I am taking up the appeal itself for disposal, after condoning the delay, since it is pleaded by Shri Nair, that a question of law is involved.2. The undisputed facts are that the Respondents sent a compressor to a foreign exhibition. When it was returned, they paid the countervailing duty, since the item was exported under bond. The said compressor was received in their factory. It was subjected to reconditioning, after which it was cleared on payment of central excise duty. The Respondents claimed refund of the duty, which was rejected by the Assistant Collector, but in appeal the same was allowed by the Collector (Appeals). Hence, the Revenue have come in appeal. It was pleaded by the Ld. SDR that under Rule 173L, duty paid originally only could be refunded, which is the co...
Tag this Judgment!Prahladbhai Damodarbhai Modi Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1995
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT71Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the applicant's appeal on merits, he is required to deposit Rs. 6.00 lacs towards penalty, vide Order-in-Original No.S/10-59/94-SIB/Adj/3224, dated 23-8-1994 (KDL/Collr 728/94) passed by the Collector of Customs, New Kandla.2. The penalty has been imposed on the ground that second-hand diesel engines have been imported under OGL instead of new engines. The claim of the applicant as pleaded by Shri H.G. Mehta, the Ld. Advocate is that he was not aware of the fact that second-hand engines were sought to be shipped by Arvind Patel, who arranged for the import with the Japanese suppliers. He placed an order only for new engines and the moment he came to know from the documents received that the original invoice is not there and the certificate of origin is not produced, he wrote to the bank to stop payment against the Letter of Credit and also intimated to the Customs authorities about the fact that he is not interested in claiming the goods. He refers to these corresponden...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Plywood Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1995
Reported in: (1995)LC311Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. SKM-156/90 B I [V-s (44 CH)6/BI/89], dated 6-2-1990 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, rejecting the appellants' appeal.2. The following facts are not disputed. The additional duty was paid in respect of the inputs received under Notification No. 225/86-C.E., dated 3-4-1986 which is a set-off notification exempting the final product from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as is equivalent to the duty paid on the inputs used. However, the appellants chose to avail of this benefit in the form of taking credit in the set-off register which they were availing previously, which, however, is not the legal requirement as per the said Notification. However, when the inputs were subject to demand for additional payment of duty, the payment was done by the manufacturer of the inputs and a certificate of duty payment was given to the appellants, on the basis of which ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrakumar Madhukar Deshmukh and Etc. Vs. the Board of Trustees of P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1995
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ206Bom
ORDER1. These four writ petitions are filed by the petitioners respectively under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated June 19, 1989 passed by the respondent - Bombay Port Trust terminating the services of the petitioners and the order dated January 30, 1990 passed by the respondent-Government rejecting the appeals preferred by the petitioners and the order dated April 16, 1991 passed by the reviewing authority in the revision applications dismissing the said applications. 2. It is submitted that all the petitioners were the employees of the respondent-Bombay Port Trust attached to the Bombay Port Trust Container Yard, Chembur, Bombay, working in different capacities such as security officer, shed superintendent, watchmen, gatemen, drivers, etc. It is submitted that in all twenty employees were charge-sheeted for the commission of misconduct and were issued show-cause notices dated December 16, 1987 and were suspended by the order dated March 5, 1988 fro...
Tag this Judgment!Sangam Education Society, Nagpur and anr. Vs. Bharti Hansraj Borkar an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1995
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR621
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners challenging the order passed by the First labour Court, Nagpur, dated 6-6-1989 is that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to award unpaid salary to the respondent No. 1 for the period from 16-12-1982 to 30-4-1983 because the said dispute could be only agitated before the School Tribunal constituted under the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the order passed by the First Labour Court, Nagpur impugned in the present writ petition is liable to be quashed and set aside. 2. In opposition to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is contended by the contesting respondent No. 1 that the claim of the unpaid salary for the period from 16-12-1982 and 30-4-1993 could not have been made by the respondent No. 1 before the School Tribunal and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court was not barred. 3. To appreciate the r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »