Mumbai Court April 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.
Joseph Anthony Gonsalves Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-1996
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR405
G.D. Kamat, J. 1. First Appeal and writ petition are being disposed of under this common judgment and order as both concern the same subject--matter viz. a piece and parcel of land being plot No. 9 situate at Silvassa. The petitioner claims this plot of land by reason of fact that under Alwara No. 575 dated 30th May 1942, plot No. 9 admeasuring 816 Sq. metres was awarded to him in perpetuity (Aferomento) by the erstwhile Portuguese Government for the purposes of constructing a house thereon.2. We will refer to the appellant in the appeal and the petitioner in the writ petition as 'petitioner' hereinafter. The grant of agricultural and non-agricultural land on Aferomento basis was governed under Organzacao Agraria which literally translated would mean Agrarian Organisation which was enforced pursuant to Provincial Decree No. 985 of 22nd September, 1919. It is common ground that Dadra and Nagar Haveli was under Portuguese rule along with Goa, Daman and Diu. By an action emanated from fre...
Sushripada Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1996
Reported in: (1996)LC64Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In both the cases, after hearing both the sides, we find that the issue falls within a short compass and hence with the consent of both the sides, we took up the appeals themselves for disposal waivering pre-deposit.2. The aforesaid appeals involve in consideration of common issue, though covered by 2 different orders cited above. In the said orders, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat has ordered reversal of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 16,54,968/- in one case and Rs. 1,00,722/- in another case. The main ground for denial of the Modvat credit is that M/s. Sushripada Chemicals filed the declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules and were receiving inputs, which were utilised in the declared final product. However, in April, 1990, consequent on amalgamation of M/s. Sushripada Chemicals with HAP Chemicals Enterprises, it became a division of HAP Chemical Enterprises. Thereafter, L-4 licences were obtained duly amended in April, 1990. However, they have not filed a...
Jagadishbhai Babulal Patel Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT533Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All the three Appeals are directed against the Order-in-Original No.82/Addl. Collr./1984, dated 18-1-1985 of the Additional Collector of Customs (P) Ahmedabad so far as it relates to imposition of penalty vide Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, of Rs. 25,000/- on Mr.Ladharam Lilaram Jagwani. (Appeal No. C/259/85) and of Rs. 10,000/- each on Mr. Jagadishbhai Babulal Patel (Appeal No. C/222/85) and Mr.Pravinsinh Ratansinh Jadeja (Appeal No. C/314/85).2. The impugned order also is for confiscation of certain contraband art silk fabrics and metallic yarn, vide Sections lll(d) and (p) of the Act, and penalties vide Section 112 of the Act, have been imposed on several others. The Appeals filed, if any, by the others, have not been the subject matter here, and order passed in these appeals would have no bearing on those aspects. For the purpose of the present appeals, the order of confiscation is not under challenge, and what is challenged is the penal liabilities of the present app...
Jitendra R. Shroff Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1996
Reported in: (1996)59ITD494(Mum.)
1. Both these appeals have been filed against a common order of the CIT, Bombay, under s. 263 for the asst. yrs. 1985-86 and 1986-87, dt.30th March, 1990, and hence, both the appeals are being decided by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. Very briefly speaking the assessee had filed returns of income for these two assessment years on 31st March, 1987, claiming them to be returns filed under the Amnesty Scheme, 1985. The return for the asst.yr. 1985-86 was for Rs. 2,84,573 and for the asst. yr. 1986-87 it was for an income at Rs. 22,73,044. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment for both the years on 20th July, 1987, under s. 143(1).Thereafter the CIT issued a common notice under s. 263 to the assessee dt. 20th March, 1990, for both these assessment years. The date of hearing was fixed for 26th March, 1990, and the order under s. 263, as mentioned above, was passed on 30th March, 1990, whereby the CIT held that the orders of the AO under s. 143(1), dt. 20th July...
M/S. Mediscarch Laboratories and Others Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1269
ORDER1. Assistant Drugs Controller, State of Goa, Panaji inspected the premises of M/s. Goa Pharma, Panaji on 3-8-1987 and took sample of 4 X 3 X 5 ml. OTOCHLOR Chloramphenicol ear drops, Batch No. G/170, bearing date of manufacture as 6/87 and expiry date 11/88, which was manufactured by M/s. Medisearch Laboratories, Thane Maharashtra, petitioner No. 1 in this revision. Samples of other drugs were also taken. These drugs were stocked/exhibited for sale in the said premises of M/s. Goa Pharma, Panaji. The said sample of ear drops was sent for analysis to Government Analyst, Drug Testing Laboratories, Bombay, who declared that the same was not of standard quality. Report No. GO-100/87 dated 30-10-1987 of the Government Analyst found that the said sample contained antibiotic activity equivalent to 3.5 percent of chloramphenicol which is 72% of the labelled amount of chloramphenicol. Show cause notice dated 17-11-1987 along with the copy of the test report of the Govt. Analyst was sent to...
Ramkrishna Shankar Avhad Vs. Rajendra Jagannath Parikh and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR616; 1997BomCR(Cri)46; 1997CriLJ183
ORDER1. The petitioner is a police officer who was implicated by the first respondent by filing a criminal complaint dated 12th November, 1987 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Niphad. The Magistrate on perusal of the complaint and on examination of the complainant issued summons against the petitioner under Sections 325, 323, 504, 506, 341, 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint discloses that the petitioner was a police officer, and he was performing his duty of checking the vehicles on the road and stopped the vehicle of the first respondent. The petitioner asked the first respondent the licence for verification and on scrutiny of the licence the petitioner demanded money from the first respondent. When the first respondent refused to give money, the petitioner has manhandled the first respondent and as a result the first respondent sustained a fracture injury on his left hand. 2. Aggrieved against the issuance of summons, the petitioner filed a ...
Wasim Ahmed Mohammed ShabbIn Ansari Vs. Shri Faruquee, Inspector of Po ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR634; 1997BomCR(Cri)49
V.H. Bhairavia, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel Mr. Shah for the petitioner. Though the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are served, they have not chosen to appear in this Court. They are Police Officers and it seems that they have no respect for Court. Hence this order in their absence.2. This application is preferred against the order of discharge passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhiwandi, dated 21-11-1989. The complaint was lodged against the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, the Police Officers disclosing offence punishable under sections 342, 324, 504, 506(2) r/w. 34 I.P.C. in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwandi. The accused persons took an objection against the cognizance taken by the Court on the ground that as they being Government servants, they are protected under section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code and before taking cognizance of the offence, sanction is required under section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code from the Government.3. Having gone t...
Jitendra R. Shroff Vs. Income Tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1996
Reported in: (1997)57TTJ(Mumbai)185
ORDERJ. K. VERMA, A.M. :Both these appeals have been filed against a common order of the CIT, Bombay, under s. 263 for the asst. yrs. 1985-86 and 1986-87, dt. 30th March, 1990, and hence, both the appeals are being decided by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. Very briefly speaking the assessee had filed returns of income for these two assessment years on 31st March, 1987, claiming them to be returns filed under the Amnesty Scheme, 1985. The return for the asst. yr. 1985-86 was for Rs. 2,84,573 and for the asst. yr. 1986-87 it was for an income at Rs. 22,73,044. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment for both the years on 20th July, 1987, under s. 143(1). Thereafter the CIT issued a common notice under s. 263 to the assessee dt. 20th March, 1990, for both these assessment years. The date of hearing was fixed for 26th March, 1990, and the order under s. 263, as mentioned above, was passed on 30th March, 1990, whereby the CIT held that the orders of the AO under s...
Esprit Switchgear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT660Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is against the above order of the Collector (Appeals).The issue relates to refund of central excise duty paid on the goods manufactured and cleared by the appellants. Two objections have been raised. One relates to the ground of time bar and another on the ground of unjust enrichment. Refund is yet to be sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner. In the circumstances, it would appear that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of U.O.I. v. ITC - 1993 (67) E.L.T. 3 (SC), the Assistant Commissioner is entitled to go by the amended provision of Section 11B of the Act for considering the refund claim. However, Shri N.K. Arora the ld. C.A. pleads by referring to a statement on the basis of 4 invoices to show that the cum duty price remained the same both during the period of payment of duty at 15% as well as during the period they were required to pay duty at the rate of 10%. On this ground, he pleads that when the cum duty price remains the same, it has to be h...
Pudumjee Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT557Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both stay application as well as the appeal are in respect of the order cited above imposing penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellants.2. Since the arguments covering both stay application as well as the appeal fall within a short compass, appeal itself was taken up for disposal, granting waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty amount.3. Following facts are not disputed. The appellants received certain Capital Goods on 12-12-1994 under gate pass evidencing payment of duty, in respect of which Modvat credit as available under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was taken. This credit was also utilised during the period 16-12-1994 to 2-3-1995. These Capital Goods were erected and installation was completed on 30-3-1995. However it was alleged that the credit could not have been utilised before installation of the Capital Goods. On that ground proceedings were initiated. In the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner, he took note of the fact that the Capital Goods have alre...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »