Mumbai Court February 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.
Shreeji Colour Chem Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1995
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT88Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the Order-in-Original No.19/MP/87 [E No. V(68)15-4/OA/86], dated 14-8-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Baroda, confirming the demand for a sum of Rs. 4,49,136.70 towards duty and imposing a penalty of Rs. 10.00 lacs on the appellants under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The merits of the case are not discussed in this order because the Learned Advocate Shri J.M. Patel, only pleads for a remand of the case back to the adjudicating authority on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, by submitting that personal hearing has not been given to them before passing the impugned order. In this context, when the notice was issued to them, their Executive Director, under his letter dated 24-2-1987 addressed to the Deputy Collector, Central Excise (Preventive) H. Quarters, Baroda, has drawn his attention to the personal discussion which he had with the Deputy Collector, wherein he was give...
Roche Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1995
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT127Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. ADN-878/B-I/90 IV-2(30)624/B-I/89J, dated 17-10-1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, rejecting the appellants appeal.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants filed a classification list for Saridon as P or P medicine claiming nil rate of duty under Notification No. 29/88, dated 1-3-1988. During the period when the item was cleared at nil rate of duty, they did not avail Modvat benefit. The Assistant Collector however, denied the exemption by passing the Order-in-Original dated 6-10-1988. This order of the Assistant Collector on merits has been accepted by them and hence would be paying duty on the final product.3. Shri S.S. Gupta, the Ld. C.A. pleads that though they have challenged the Assistant Collector's order on denial of exemption and they have filed a refund claim, they would be withdrawing the appeal and also the refund claim filed claiming nil rate of duty. In other words, he pleads that...
Technova Graphic Systems Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)MhLj213
DR. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion at the instance of the assessee : 'Whether, the Tribunal was justified in holding that lacquering of polyester film amounts to manufacture within the meaning of section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and it results into a different commercial commodity ?' 2. The assessee, M/s. Technova Graphic Systems, carries on the business of buying polyester films and selling the same after subjecting it to the process of lacquering. On November 26, 1987, the assessee made an application under section 52(1)(b) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ('the Act') to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Admn.) seeking determination of the question whether subjecting the polyester film to the chemical process of lacquering amounts to manufacture within the meaning of section 2(17) of the Act. The conten...
N.R.S. Sahasrabudhye (Smt.) Vs. Additional Custodian of the National T ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1995
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ78Bom
Kapadia, J.1. By this Suo Motu Writ Petition, the Petitioner who is a widow of an employee who has served Kohinoor Mills for 38 years, seeks a direction against the Collector of Bombay to initiate recovery proceedings against Additional Custodian (N.T.C) pursuant to the Certificate issued under Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 read with Rule 19 of the Payment of Gratuity (Maharashtra) Rules 1972. The said Certificate is dated December 21, 1984 and it is issued by the Controlling Authority and First Labour Court Bombay in Application (PGA) No.279 of 1983. As per the said Certificate, the Controlling Authority has directed the Collector to recover Rs. 21,923/-due and payable as gratuity.2. The facts giving rise to this Petition, briefly, are as follows. Petitioner's husband was an employee of Kohinoor Mills for 38 years. He retired on July 1, 1981. On December 20, 1983, Petitioner's husband made an application for gratuity being (PGA) No.279 of 1983. The said application was...
Shantilal Sohanlal Shah Vs. the Secretary, Krishi Utpanna Bazar Samiti ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1995
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR463
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Since both the writ petitions involve common questions of law, the same have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The facts relating to Writ Petition No. 1656 of 1989 are that the petitioner (for short 'the landlord') let out the first floor of house No. 83 commonly known as Sheladwale House, situated at Balapur, Tahsil Balapur, District Akola, to the respondent (for short 'the tenant') some where in the year 1973-74 on monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. On 17-2-1987 the landlord moved an application under Clauses 4 and 5 of the C.P. and Bear Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short 'the Rent Control Order') before the Rent Controller, Balapur, against the tenant praying therein that the rent payable by the tenant at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month was low and fair rent at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month be fixed excluding the Municipal taxes. The said application was contested by the tenant and it was submitted that the rent paid a...
Eskayer Ltd., Bangalore Vs. Maharashtra Sales and Medical Representati ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR491; [1995(71)FLR362]; (1996)IIILLJ593Bom
1. Since the matter is squarely covered by the Judgment of the Apex Court in H. R. Adyanthaya etc. etc. v. Sandoz (India) Limited etc. etc. : (1995)ILLJ303SC . I did not think if fit to adjourn the case in the absence of the counsel for the Maharashtra Sales and Medical Representative Association (Vidarbha Unit) and Pandurang Chatterjerao Khunyakari (Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 857 of 89 and respondents in Writ Petition No. 1234 of 88). I have heard Mr. S. V. Golwalkar, the learned counsel for the Eskayer Limited (for short, the 'employer'). 2. The employer in Writ Petition No. 1234 of 88 has challenged the order of the Industrial Court passed on April 22, 1988 whereby, the Industrial Court maintained the order passed by the Labour Court, Amravati to the extent of reinstatement of complainant of his former post and award of 50% of back-wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. In the other Writ Petition No. 857 of 89, the Maharashtra Sales and Medical Repr...
Richardson Hindustan Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)MhLj433
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. These two references arise out of the common order of the Tribunal passed under section 55 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ('the Act'). The following two questions have been referred at the instance of the assessee : '1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of section 2(36) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, read with rule 4 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, the Tribunal was right in concluding that as in pursuance of clause 4 of Part C of the distributorship agreement executed by the applicants with Muller & Phillips (India) Pvt. Ltd. in which parties have consciously provided for repurchase of the goods and not return of goods, it was a case of a resale by the buyer to the seller, the sale price being the very same amount which the buyer had paid to the seller and, therefore, the claim of return of goods made by the applicants before the Sales Tax Officer was not sustainable 2. Whether, on the facts and circumst...
Smt. Jaya Arun Bhosale Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)BomCR46
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the wife of the detenu Arjun Pandharinath Bhosale, has challenged the detention of the detenu under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1980 vide Detention Order bearing No. SPL. 3(A) PSA O194/61 dated 15th June, 1994, issued by Mr. R.D. Tyagi, (Respondent No. 2) Principal Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mantralaya, Bombay. A copy of the detention order has been annexed as Annexture No. A to the petition.2. The prejudicial activities of the detenu necessitating the passing of the impugned order of detention are contained in the grounds of detention dated 15th June, 1994 and a copy of the aforesaid grounds is annexed as Annexure B to the petition. Both the order of detention as well as the grounds of detention, were served upon the detenu on 17th June, 1994.In the grounds of detention,...
Naraindas Dwarkadas (Deceased) Through L.Rs. Vs. State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: (1995)97BOMLR523
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J.1. Civil Application No. 5947 of 1994 filed in this Petition is hereby allowed and the Legal Representatives of the Petitioner shall be brought on record.2. This is a Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners challenging the allotment of disputed plot in favour of one Gokuldas and also to set aside certain orders passed by the Screening Committee and other officers of the Government. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties.Few facts which are not in dispute for disposal of this Writ Petition are as follows : The disputed land is Plot No. U-141, opposite Building No. 21 at Kopari Colony, Thane. Both the Petitioner and the deceased Gokuldas claim the disputed land on the basis of unauthorised possession since long time. It is common ground that as per the policy of the Government, unauthorised possession prior to 11-5-1965 should be regularised. Accordingly, the Petitioner made request to the Government to regularise his unauthorised possession o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›