Mumbai Court December 1995 Judgments
Plastichemix Industries Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-28-1995
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT467Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the applicants' appeal on merits, they are required to deposit Rs. 3,74,032.00 towards duty and Rs. 5000/- towards penalty.Their plant and machinery have also been confiscated but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 2000/- vide Order-inOriginal No.48/Demand/95, dated 13-10-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara.2. Though this day only stay application was listed for hearing, since the arguments canvassed by both the sides fall within the short compass and on the basis of these arguments the appeal itself can be disposed of, with the consent of both the sides, we have taken up the appeal itself for disposal.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of two products namely master batches falling under Chapter 32 and polypropylene moulding powder falling under Chapter 39. They were receiving duty paid common inputs namely polypropylene, if used in either of the two final products, is eligible for Modvat credit. However, the...
Tag this Judgment!Jupiter Cement Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-27-1995
Reported in: (1997)LC763Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 532/94, dated 6-1-1995 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad, confirming the Order-in-Original No. 12/94, dated 4-4-1994 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Junagad.2. The appellants are manufacturers of Port land Cement. They filed Sp.C.A. No. 68337/88 in the High Court of Gujarat for granting relief in payment of Excise Duty and obtained an order that pending the decision they should pay 50% of the duty payable in cash and secure the balance 50% of duty by furnishing Bank Guarantee. The said Sp. C.A. however stood rejected by the High Court on 20-9-1989. Accordingly, the Bank Guarantees furnished were encashed on 5-3-1990. The assessment of RT 12 returns filed during the same period i.e. from October, 1988 to September, 1989 were provisionally assessed and order of final assessment was passed on 19-3-1990. It transpired that on finalisation of assessment, the duty worked out as payable was less th...
Tag this Judgment!investment and Portfolio Management Vs. the National Stock Exchange of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: [1997]89CompCas191(Bom)
D.R. Dhanuka J.1. Leave under rule 147/148 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (O.S.) Rules, 1980, granted to the plaintiff to take out notice of motion in terms of the draft notice of motion handed in. The notice of motion is made returnable on January 30, 1996. Learned counsel for various defendants at today's hearing waive service of motion on behalf of their respective clients. 2. Perused the plaint and the affidavit filed on all sides. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 3. For the reasons briefly indicated hereinafter, the application for ad interim relief as prayed for is refused. 4. By letter exhibit 'AA' to the plaint defendant No. 10 has refused to transfer the suit shares in favour of defendant No. 9 on the ground that the signatures made on the relevant transfer deeds for and on behalf of the transferors do not tally with the specimen signatures in the record of defendant No. 10. Defendant No. 1 is, therefore, treating the delivery of the suit shares as b...
Tag this Judgment!Dinkar Bali Palekar Vs. Bharat Forge Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: [1996(73)FLR1095]; (1997)IIILLJ482Bom
1. These two Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arise under identical circumstances and raise identical issues of facts and law. They can, therefore, be conveniently disposed of by common judgment. 2. The Writ Petitioners in the two Writ Petitions are ex-workmen of the First Respondent Company which has a factory at Mundhwa, where it manufactures steel forgings and machined components. 3. For the sake of convenience, the Writ Petitioners in both Writ Petitions shall he referred to as 'the workmen' and the First Respondent in both Writ Petitions shall be referred to as 'the employer Company'. 4. The workmen were employed in the factory of the employer-company from May 1, 1970 till their services were terminated on October 24, 1981 and each of them was last drawing wages of about Rs. 925/- per month. Some time in the year 1981, the workmen of the employer company raised on industrial dispute with regard to their conditions of service and resorted to industrial ...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Enzo Chem Laboratories P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1995
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT434Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal has been brought by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. A/233/95, dated 8-6-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune, allowing the appeal of the Respondents.2. The only issue involved in this case is whether time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 would be applicable in respect of refund of duty deposit made pursuant to the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) for entertaining the Respondents appeal on merits as per the statutory requirement laid down under Section 35F of the Act.3. Since the issue canvassed both in the stay application as well as in the appeal remains the same, we have taken up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both the sides.4. Shri K.M. Mondal, the ld. SDR pleads that even the deposit of duty demanded as per the requirement of Section 35F of the Act is covered by the provisions of Section 11B. The wording of the amended section does not distinguish between the d...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Oxford University Press
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1995
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(Bom)163; [1996]221ITR77(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 made at the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Bombay has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Oxford University Press, Bombay, which is part of Oxford University, is exempt under s. 10(22) of the IT Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assesses is Oxford University Press, Bombay ('Press'). This reference pertains to asst. yr. 1976-77. The assesses filed its return under the IT Act, 1961 ('Act') for the said assessment year showing an income of Rs. 19.94 lakhs. As in the past, the above return was signed by the General Manager of the Indian Branch of the assesses-Press. It was, however, later revised and a fresh return signed by the 'Delegate and Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Oxford University Press' was filed. In the past, at the assesses's own request, it had been as...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Lalita M. Bhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1995
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(Bom)251; [1996]221ITR257(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ('Act') made at the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal, Bombay, has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the share income from the AOP includible in the assessee's hands as a member thereof is to be determined only after deducting from the AOP's income-tax payable by it ?' 2. The material facts are few and uncontroverted. The assessee Smt. Lalita M. Bhat is an individual. She is also a member of an AOP carrying on business in the name and style of Nova Co. Her share in the profits of the said AOP was two-third. The AOP was assessed separately. In her assessment for the asst. yr. 1975-76, the assessee claimed that her share in the profits of the AOP was not includible in her individual assessment. In the alternative, it was claimed that if at all the assessee's share was ...
Tag this Judgment!Vilas Vasantrao Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through-bhandup Po ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1854
Majithia, J.1. Vilas Vasantrao Patil, Sharmaraj Pandian Nadar, Santosh Babu Shetty and Ashok Rajaram Wadekar, original accused Nos. 1 to 4, respectively, were charged under Section 395, in the alternative under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., for along with an absconding autorickshaw driver, in furtherance of their common intention, having robbed Sanju s/o Vel Yadan Ikha of one Citizen-make wrist watch and cash of Rs. 10/- by putting him in fear of instant death/hurt, on July 10, 1991, at about 12.45 a.m. on L.B.S. Marg, opposite Janata Market, Bhandup, Bombay. Original accused Nos. 1 and 2 were separately charged under Section 397 read with Section 395 of the I.P.C. for having used deadly arms like swords, while committing the said offence or robbery. Original accused Nos. 1 and 2 were also charged under Section 4 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. Additional charge was framed against original accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 under Section 414 read with Section 34 of the I.P...
Tag this Judgment!SirazuddIn Ahmed Saheb Bagwan Vs. Khatija SirajuddIn Bagwan and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1995
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR756; II(1996)DMC449
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J.1. This is a petition directed against the Order dated 13-2-1989 in Criminal Revision Application No. 1 of 1989 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Nasik. Heard both the sides.2. The few facts which are necessary for disposal of this petition are as follows :The first respondent is the divorced wife of the petitioner. When the marriage was in force, the wife filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance from her husband. The application came to be allowed by granting maintenance of Rs. 225/- per month to the wife. Subsequently, the wife filed an application before the learned Magistrate for executing the Order of maintenance in Miscellaneous Application No. 196 of 1988. At that time, the husband filed objection stating that he has divorced his wife on 11-8-1987 and in view of the new law, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the wife is not entitled...
Tag this Judgment!Dungarshi Champsi Shah and Others Vs. Harbans Sangh Ram Avtar Maurya a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1995
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR422; 1996CriLJ3142; 1997(1)MhLj349
ORDER1. This is petition to quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 841/P/86, on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 21st Court, Vikhroli, Bombay. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for third respondent. None appeared for respondents 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner have been prosecuted by the police on the complaint of the respondent No. 1 for offences under sections 452, 458, 457 and 380 IPC. Being aggrieved by the issue of process, the accused have approached this Court. 3. The prosecution case is as follows :- The accused are doing business in manufacture of wooden seats, back frames and handles of chairs. They were giving the labour contract to many persons including the complainant. The work of the complainant was to do polishing and to do the cane work on the furniture. Then the accused would pay him the labour charges for the same. It appears the accused had given certain furniture to the complainant for the said purpose and he had not returned t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »