Mumbai Court December 1996 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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bharatia and Dalai Associates
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1996
Reported in: (1997)(69)LC84Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondents are absent despite notice sent on 17.10.1996. They have, however, sent a letter dated. 1.11.1996 stating that they had not received a copy of the appeal filed by the department and have requested for a copy of the same.2. We have perused the record. We find that the respondents were informed of the filing of the appeal by the Collector vide letter dated 19.10.1988 sent by the Registry of the Tribunal along with which a copy of the appeal had also been sent. There is also no mention in their telegram and letter dated 4.10.1996 and 2.10.1996 respectively requesting for adjournment of the hearing fixed on 4.10.1996 about the non-receipt of the copy of appeal by them. In view of the decision we are taking in the appeal, we do not consider it necessary to provide them a copy of the appeal and post the appeal for hearing on a latter date. We proceed to hear Shri T.R. Malik, learned SDR and dispose of the appeal on merits.3. In this appeal, the Collector of Central Excise,...
Central Bank of India Vs. Tarseema Compress Wood Manufacturing Company ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom225; 1997(2)BomCR267
1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff-bank. Defendants have contensted the suit by filing written statement. Issues have been framed. Plaintiff examined one witness and closed it's case. One witness has been examined on behalf of defendants. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for both the sides.2. The plaintiff is Central bank of India and it has filed this suit on the following allegations:The first defendant is a partnership firm of which the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are partners. It is stated that the first defendant-firm obtained two loans form the plaintiff-bank in 1970 which are cash credit (open loan) facility up to a limit of Rs. 15,000/- and cash credit (key loan) facility up to a limit of Rs. 15,000/- and executed a promissory note and other documents. Again in 1977 the first defendant availed the loan facility upto a limit of Rs. 60,000/- and executed a promissory note and other documents. Then it is stated that on 15th June 1978 the defendants availed cash credit facil...
Shri Vasant Uddhav Tatpunje @ Chota Vasha Vs. Shri R.D. Tyagi, Commiss ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1996
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)895
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there is an inordinate delay by respondent No. 3 in considering the petitioner/detenu's representation dated 30.5.1996. In his contention this inordinate delay has vitiated the continued detention of the petitioner/detenu.On behalf of respondent No. 3 a return has been filed by Mr. Ishwar Singh, Desk Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi wherein the said submission of petitioner's Counsel incorporated in ground 6C has been replied to. The reply is to be found in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the return. From a perusal of paragraph 7 it appears that after the representation of the petitioner/detenu had been processed at various stages it was put up before the Honourable Prime Minister of India who was looking after the work of Home Minister, on 19-6-1996. The Prime Minister's Office returned the file on 1-7-96 with the remark that it may be pla...
People for Animals Through Mrs. Norma Alvares and anr. Vs. the State o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1996
Reported in: 1997(4)ALLMR397; 1997(4)BomCR271
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The petitioners who claim to be animal lovers and engaged in welfare of animals, in educating the general public concerning the necessity of treating all animals with compassion and to be the activist interested in ensuring that all laws concerning prevention of cruelty to the animals are enforced, have approached this Court with the complaint that the statutory authorities are either hesitant or negligent in taking appropriate steps to prevent the cruelty to the animals that is being inflicted in the course of the game of bull fights taking place in the State of Goa. According to the petitioners, bull fights are in contravention of section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1968, hereinafter called as 'the said Act'. It is the contention of the petitioners that inspite of their efforts to bring this fact to the notice of the authorities concerned, such illegalities are being committed in the State of Goa and further that inspite of requests to...
Sarvodaya Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)LC709Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant imported a consignnwnt of lysine mono hydrochloride and claimed clearance in terms of entry 182 of App 6 Part II of the Import Policy 1988-91. This entry reads : to be imported by actual user. The Deputy Collector (whose order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) refused to clear the goods in terms of this entry. Hence this appeal.2. Advocate for the appellant contends that the only reason advanced by the Collector (Appeals) in his order for rejecting the claim of the appellant before it for considering the goods as drug/drug intermediate was that the Merck Index did not certify that the goods were therapeutic. He relies upon Martindale The Extra Pharmacopoeia and The United States Pharmacopoeia to say that lysine hydrochloride is recognized therapeutic value for issue of certain ailments. He contends that, in the absence of a definition of the term "drug/drug intermediates", the definition in the Special Act relating to these goods, The Drugs and Cometics Ac...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bharatia and Dalal Associates
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)(69)LC86Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondents are manufacturers of paints and varnishes falling under erstwhile Tariff Item 14. They had claimed certain deductions on account of post-manufacturing expenses in their price list. The Assistant Collector had allowed the deductions claimed. That decision of the Assistant Collector was reviewed by the Collector who directed the filing of an application before the Collector (Appeals) to have the order set aside. In the meantime, the respondents who had cleared certain consignments of their goods on payment of duty on a higher value filed refund claims to derive the benefit arising from approval of the price list by the Assistant Collector wherein the deductions claimed by them had been allowed, as aforesaid. The Assistant Collector partially granted the refund claim. The respondents, aggrieved with the partial rejection of the refund claim, approached the Collector (Appeals) who held that as the Assistant Collector had already approved the price list granting the dedu...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Standard Alkalies Consolidated
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)(70)LC104Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both the appeals are against the orders of the Collector (Appeals) holding that the assessees were not entitled to refund.2. The Departmental Representative contends that the orders of the Collector (Appeals) do not take into account the judgements of the Bombay High Court in Roplas India v. Union of India and New India Industries v. Union of India 1990 (30) ECR 145 (Bom.) : 1990 (46) ELT 23 (Bom.), in which the Bombay High Court has held that refund should not be sanctioned if the incidence of duty has been passed on. He therefore requests that the orders impugned be set aside.3. The judgements of the High Court cited by the Departmental Representative did not have the effect of amending Section 11B to exclude grant of refund, if the incidence of duty has not been passed on. In fact, in a later judgement the Bombay High Court in Corn Products Co. (I) Ltd. v. Union of India 1991 (34) ECR 209 (Bom.) : has ordered grant of pending refund holding that judgement in Roplas India v. Unio...
Sanjeev M. Gorwadkar and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom303; 1997(3)ALLMR30; 1997(4)BomCR622; (1997)2BOMLR360; 1997(2)MhLj152
ORDERA. V. Savant, J.1. Heard all the learned Counsel.2. This is a petition seeking very innocuous relief that respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 5 namely the State Government, Director of Printing and Publication Department and Union of India should be directed to make available by publishing and printing adequate number of authenticated copies of the bare Acts, legislation, rules and other statutory instruments having force of law at a reasonable price to the public at large through out the State. Prayer (b) is as follows: '(b) Respondents Nos. 1, 2, 5 be directed to make available adequate number of authenticated copies of the bare Acts, Legislations, Rules, Regulation and other statutory instruments having force of law in the State of Maharashtra to all the three benches of the High Court of Judicature of the State as well as to all the moffussil Courts in the State of Maharashtra immediately.'3. The petitioners are citizens of India and both the lawyers practising in this Court. The petiti...
Bharat Containers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Engineering Workers Union and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ932Bom
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is filed against the order dated 2nd July 1996 in Reference No. (IT) 64 of 1989 passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay. 3. By the impugned order, the company is directed to pay the balance amount of bonus of 9.67 per cent. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Tribunal materially erred in adding Rs. 2,70,460.00 which have been shown by the petitioners on notional basis while computing bonus for the year ended 31st March, 1988. The Tribunal has pointed out that no reason has been given as to why the said amount of Rs. 2,70,460.00 has been mentioned as direct taxes. Admittedly, the said tax is not required to be paid. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said item is shown on notional basis in view of Section 7 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1975 and the petitioners did not have any available surplus. With regard to the direct tax payable by the petitioners for the ...
Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Limited and anr. Vs. the State of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)BomCR4
N.D. Vyas, J.1. By the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the Notification dated 30th December 1995 issued by the State of Maharashtra purportedly under section 2(u) of the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development Act, 1981 (NABARD Act for short) declaring Respondent Nos. 5 i.e. Apex Co-operative Bank of Urban Banks of Maharashtra and Goa Ltd. also as the State Co-operative Bank within the meaning of the said provision viz., Section 2(u) of the NABARD Act; two directions/orders dated 25th January 1996 and 14th May 1996 issued by the 2nd Respondent i.e. Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State, advising/directing deploying of funds by all Urban Co-operative Banks under section 70 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, (State Co-operative Act for short) and the licence given by the Reserve Bank of India (R.B.I. for short) ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »