Mumbai Court November 1996 Judgments
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Usan Pharmaceuticals and Bini
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1996
Reported in: (1997)(69)LC97Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 2.5.1989 of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Usan Pharmaceuticals were engaged in the manufacture of P or P medicines on behalf of their loan licensee M/s. Bini Chem Lab. under the brand name of the said M/s.Binichem Lab. Ltd. They were availing exemption under Notification 175/86 dated 1.3.1986 as amended for the clearance of the medicaments manufactured bearing the brand name of Bini Chem Lab. The Range Superintendent issued a show cause notice demanding duty of Rs. 87, 853.11 on the clearances of the said goods from 1.10. 1987 to 25.11.1987 on the ground that medicaments bearing the brand name of M/s. Bini Chem Lab. Ltd. were liable to Central Excise duty @ 15% adv.as the respondents had opted for assessment under Notification 245/83 dated 13.9.1983 under which P or F medicines were exempted from duty in excess of the duty calculated on the ...
Tag this Judgment!GayadIn Algu Metal Refinary Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1996
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT481Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the Order-in-Original No. S/10(M-Cell) Collr. 65/1242 SG-23/86 A S/10-5/87 SIIB, dated 24-7-1987 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay whereby the adjudicating authority had confiscated 127 pieces of Graphite Crucible imported by the appellants for violation of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act with an option to pay a redemption fine of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand) and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs) on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The appellants have a factory at Saki Naka, Bombay, at which factory the appellants refine non-ferrous Metal Waste, Dross Ash and such residues. In their business the Appellants regularly import Graphite Crucibles for use of melting apparatus for melting/refining of non-ferrous metals and residue. They require these crucibles continuously as the life of a crucible varies approximately from 24 hours to 72 hours and they are 25 to 30 ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Kennedy Alemao Vs. Executive Engineer and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR422; 1998(2)BomCR320
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. Rule. The short question involved in this case is whether the refusal by the Government of Goa to extend the period of contract after the expiry of the term of contract is legal. The relevant clause in the Agreement is extracted below :-'1.(2) The licence hereby granted shall be held and exercised by the licencee for a period of three months from 17-05-96 at 12.00 noon to 17-08-96 at 12,00 noon. This could be extended from time to time for a total period of one year on payment of Prorata bid amount.'2. The short facts for the purpose of deciding the case are that by Tender Notice dated 1st February, 1996, the respondent No. 1 Executive Engineer W.D.XIV (NH), P.W.D., Government of Goa, invited sealed tenders for the right to collect toll fee of Zuari Bridge on N.H. 17 for a period of one year. The petitioner submitted his tender with an offer of Rs. 94,00,555/-. He also deposited earnest money of Rs. 1,00,000/-, as required by the tender conditions. H...
Tag this Judgment!Dhondiba N. Bargale Vs. Competent Authority and Dy. Collector, U.L.C. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR575
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard all the learned Counsel.2. The petitioner seeks to challenge the concurrent findings recorded by the two authorities in the proceedings under the Urban and (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 whereby the petitioner has been declared to be the surplus holder to the extent of 29150 sq.meters. Since the total vacant land held by him was found to be 31150 sq.meters, deducting the permissible area of 2000 sq.meters, the area of 29150 sq.meters has been declared to be surplus under the order dated 31st August, 1978 passed by the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector, U.L.C., Sangli.3. Against the said order dated 31st August 1978, the petitioner had preferred an appeal under Section 33 of the Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 before the Collector, Sangli. Two specific contentions were raised in the appeal as is evident from the order annexed as Ex. B dated 31st march, 1986. One was that the Authority had failed to consider the share of the petitioner's...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaykumar Maniklal Bang Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR534
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The petitioner herein challenges the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Pusad, whereby the Additional District Judge allowed an appeal filed by one Sandeep Laxmanrao Banginwar, respondent No. 18 herein, and directed that the nomination form of the petitioner should be rejected. Following facts will highlight the grievance of the petitioner.2. Elections of the wards of Digras Municipal Council were declared and in pursuance thereof the petitioner filled up a nomination form from Ward No. 16 for being elected as a Ward member. On the date of scrutiny i.e on 14.11.1996, respondent No. 18 - Sandeep Laxmanrao Banginwar filed an objection content ending that the petitioner was a defaulter and had not paid the octroi taxes on the cars bearing Registration Nos. MH 29B 1575 and MHX 4755. It was contended in the objection that the petitioner was, thus, a defaulter and had disqualified himself from contesting the election for the ward member. The Returning Officer...
Tag this Judgment!Primatex Machinery Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1996
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT599Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal has been filed against the captioned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III, confirming the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 1,48,521 /- levied under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act read with 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules.By the said order, the Commissioner has also directed the appellants to pay interest at 20% under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act. He also levied a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. The facts of the case are that the assessee is having various contracts for erection, supervising and commission of stenter and mangle machines. They enter into contracts with their various purchasers. It is submitted by the ld. Advocate Shri Motashaw on behalf of the appellants, that the erection is done by their respective clients, who have also erected the machines themselves but the appellants only sent an engineer or supervisor to see to it that erection is done in ...
Tag this Judgment!Sandoz (India) Ltd. and Another Vs. Sandoz (India) Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1996
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ1250Bom
1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has challenged an Award dated August 25, 1995 made by the Industrial Court, Thane, in Complaint (ULP) No. 829 of 1993 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The first Respondent joined the service of the First Petitioner (which shall hereafter be referred to as 'the Petitioner') as a Male Operator Grade IV on November 2, 1961. At the time of joining service, he had declared that he was born in the year 1934 and accordingly the year of his birth was entered in his service record as 1934. Since the exact date of birth was not available, consistent with its practice, the Petitioner took the date of birth as June 30, 1934. Consequently, the First Respondent's date of birth was entered in the record as June 30, 1934. The First Respondent was confirmed in service on May 2, 1992 at which...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Mrs. Gayatri Narayan Bhat Vs. Dr. Narayan Sriniwas Bhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC338
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. This First Appeal is preferred by the Appellant-wife against the judgment and decree dated 20th December, 1994 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bombay in Matrimonial Petition No. A-272 of 1993. By the aforesaid judgment and decree the Family Court dismissed the Petition filed by the Appellant-wife on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce. Few facts which are material to dispose of this appeal are as under :2. On 9th June 1990 the Appellant and Respondent got married by Hindu Marriage Rites in Bombay. On 11th June, 1990 i.e. two days after the marriage, Appellant and Respondent left for Goa on their honey-moon, but unfortunately returned back within four days. It is the case of the Appellant wife that, the marriage was not consummated more particularly because of the behaviour of the Respondent-husband insulting the Appellant wife. Thereafter, Petitioner left for Baroda for pursuing her further studies. In...
Tag this Judgment!Walter John Duming Alvaris Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR577
N.D. Vyas, J.1. By the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a declaration that the reservation in the Development Plan of the petitioner's plot for the school purpose has lapsed and has sought school purpose has lapsed and has sought necessary orders for release of the same from such reservation.2, The petitioner is the owner of the plot of land situate at village Kolbad, Pratap Cinema Road, Near Pratap Cinema, Thane, bearing C.S. No 117-B, T. No. 8, admeasuring 768 sq.mtrs. The Development Plan of the City of Thane was sanctioned by the State Government vide Government Notification dated 3rd October 1974. The same was made applicable to the City of Thane with effect from 4th November 1974. The petitioner's said land was shown in the said plan as reserved for school purpose. For a period of 14 years, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not acquire the said land reserved for the said public purpose. It is the petitioner's contention tha...
Tag this Judgment!Rahul Kartik and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1996
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT396Tri(Mum.)bai
2. Heard the Departmental Representative. He adopts the reasonings in the order impugned in the appeal.3. Appellant, acting as a letter of authority holder for 4 licences, placed an order for import of defective steel sheets and caused to be opened irrevocable Letter of Credit for payment. It appears that subsequent to the shipment, the licensees backed out and did not wish to import the goods. The appellant therefore was appointed as a letter of authority holder of another licence and in this capacity sought clearance of the goods. It appears that the goods were detained by the DRI on the ground of misdeclaration, which ultimately was not established. However, one of the reasons for proceedings against the appellant was that since there was a change in ownership of the goods between the shipment and their importation, provision of clauses 5(2) and 5(3) of the Import Trade (Control) Order were contravened and this is what the Collector has found in the order impugned in the appeal.4. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »