Mumbai Court October 1995 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.
Collr. of C. Ex. and Customs Vs. Plastic Chemix Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1995
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT147Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is from the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No.M-215/BRD-134/86 dated 2-4-1986 allowing the appeal of the respondent only on the ground that the demand is time barred, without going into the merits.2. Shri Gurdeep Singh, the Id. JDR mainly pleads that though the show cause notice dated 30-3-1984 covers the period 1-4-1977 to 31-8-1982, the Asst. Collector confirmed the demand only for the period from 1-4-1979 to 31-8-1982 limited to 5 years, which is available under the law under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Though he agrees that in reply to the departmental query, the declaration was filed by the respondent on 16-2-1981 giving all the particulars including the process of manufacture and the sample was also tested by the Chemical Examiner and his report was available in June 1982, the demand came to be issued only in March 1984. This is mainly on account of the fact that the appellants did not co-operate with the dept. in furnishing the figures o...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Deepak S/O Bharatsingh Dixit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR284; 1996(1)MhLj468
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the rejection of its application under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act for staying the Civil Suit filed against it by the plaintiff/respondent, the present appellant/defendant has come up before this court. 2. The Civil Suit came to be filed against the present appellant State of Maharashtra for a declaration that the defendant was not entitled to receive any amount above 32.52 lacs on account of the toll from the Wardha river bridge near Ghuggus-Wani in the year 1992. The suit was also for a declaration that the recovery proceedings started against the plaintiff by the defendant State of Maharashtra were null and void and on that account, a permanent injunction was sought restraining the defendant from recovering the amount of Rs. 19,04,400/- or any per thereof from the plaintiff. In this suit, a temporary injunction was also claimed. In short, the case of the plaintiff was that though he had agreed under the agreement along with the d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›