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.
indo Rama Synthetics (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT277Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the applicants appeal on merits, they are required to deposit Rs. 1,59,93,755/-. This amount is in respect of Modvat credit taken on Capital Goods under Rule 57Q. The disputed inputs, in respect of which Modvat credit has been denied, are cement and steel structurals. It is held by the authorities below that both these inputs have been held to be not Capital Goods and they cannot also be components or accessories of Capital Goods.2. Shri A Hidayatullah, the ld. Sr. advocate refers to the diagram to plead that this is not a case of cement being used for construction of building or the structurals used for such construction of buildings.Modvat credit has been restricted only to cement and structurals, which is going into the foundation, on the basis of which machinery is mounted at a elevated position. Hence, this should be construed to be a component of the machine. The Commissioner is not justified in holding them to part of the plant and plant being not excisable, bein...
Hybrid Electronic Systems P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT526Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Since the arguments covering the stay petitions by both the sides were considered adequate for disposal of the appeals themselves, with the consent of both the sides, I find that the appeals themselves can be disposed of.2. All the three appeals arise out of the common order-in-appeal cited above, though they are covered by three different Orders-in-Original.3. In the case of Appeal E/912/96-Bom., Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 22,154/- was sought to be denied on the allegation that subsidiary gate pass that emanated from one party being the supplier, but payment for the inputs has been made on the basis of invoice raised by another party. It is not disputed that the subsidiary gate pass is issued for movement of the goods to the appellants. On this ground Modvat credit to the extent of Rs. 22,154/- has been denied and a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- has been imposed. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. On hearing this appeal, I find...
J.K. Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT112Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All these matters were listed for hearing of Stay Petition however, considering the issue involved, granting waiver against pre-deposit, all the appeals are taken up for final disposal. The issue involved in all the appeals is the same namely, the appellants had caused import claiming duty exemption and agreed to furnish the end-use certificate within a period of 6 months. Based on the same they were granted exemption. They however failed to submit the end-use Certificate and hence enforcement orders were issued, subsequent to the issuance of enforcement orders, the appellants produced the end-use Certificate and simultaneously preferred. Appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and agitated before the Commissioner (Appeals), that the end-use Certificate were duly submitted and they had been also verified and cancelled, and that therefore the enforcement orders ought to be set aside. The Commissioner (Appeals) however held that because, the certificates were produced subsequent to...
Sujit Gulab Sohatre and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1996
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR630; 1997CriLJ454; 1997(2)MhLj142
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Vide judgment and order dated 27-1-1994 passed in Sessions Case No. 170 of 1991 the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag convicted and sentenced the Appellants in the manner stated hereinafter.' (i) Under Section 302 read with 149 IPC to imprisonment for life; (ii) Under Section 148 IPC to suffer 6 months rigorous imprisonment; (iii) Under Section 147 IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The sentences of the Appellants were ordered to run concurrently. Hence this appeal. 2. The prosecution case in brief runs as under : Suresh Kamble P.W. 2, the deceased Babu alias Suraj and Gajanan Jadhav were friends. On the evening of 23-4-1991 the three of them had gone to Municipal garden in Panvel. They sat there till about 7 p.m. and thereafter returned to the house of Gajanan. They sat at Gajanan's house till 9 p.m. Thereafter they left for attending the Haldi function at the house of one Dattatraya Mahase. When they reached near Datta Hotel, Suresh ...
Smt. Savitri G. Sachnandani and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR674; (1996)98BOMLR271
A.P. Shah, J.1. By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners are mainly seeking two reliefs. Firstly, they are seeking a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 17th February, 1987, passed by the Desk Officer, Government of Maharashtra. Secondly, they are seeking a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a appropriate writ or order directing respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to implement the resolution passed by the Municipal School Board, Ulhasnagar and to pay salary of the teaching and non-teaching staff of (1) Shri Gangaram Sind National Sindhi Primary School and (2) Jai Hind Academy Sindhi Primary School with effect from 1st April, 1984. The petition has been filed for and on behalf of the teaching as well as non-teaching staff in the aforesaid two Schools situated at Ulhasnagar. Their main grievance is that they have not received ...
Jagannath Shindu Rahane Vs. Manisha Manohar Nimkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1996
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR451
M.S. Rane, J.1. The petitioner in this petition has questioned the legality and validity of the election of the respondent herein to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Palghar, district Thane Constituency No. 62 held on 12-2-1995 the result of which was declared after counting on 12-3-1995 in which the respondent was declared as elected having got highest number of votes being 55,399 votes as against 33,250 secured by the petitioner. In all there were five contesting candidates who secured votes less than the petitioner herein. Exhibit 'C' to the petition is the copy of the result as declared by the Returning Officer of the said constituency. The said Palghar constituency is a reserved constituency specifically for the members belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. According to the petitioner he belongs to the schedule tribe viz. Hindu Malhar Koli.2. The petitioner has challenged the election of the respondent principally on the ground that she does not belong to the Schedule Tribe f...
Sudhir Kewalchand Vora and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR619; (1996)98BOMLR474
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith, Mr. D.N. Kukday, Government Pleader waives service on behalf of the respondents. Heard the counsel by consent finally at this stage.2. A notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 3-11-1992 issued by the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur was published in the Official Gazette on 26-11-1992, specifying the lands mentioned in schedule including land comprising of Survey No. 59, admeasuring 1 hector and 56 Rs. stating therein that the land mentioned was needed or likely to be needed for the public purpose, viz. research and development area of the Defence Department. It was further stated in the notification that the Government of India by notification dated 23-4-1996 issued under Clause (1) of Article 258 of the Constitution of India, has empowered the Divisional Commissioners in the State of Maharashtra, to discharge the functions of the Central Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in relation to acquis...
Navbharat Packaging Indus. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1996
Reported in: (1996)(64)LC525Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. SKM-642/89-B1 dated 17.3.1989 2. The issue involved relates to admissibility or otherwise of concession under Notification No. 119/75 dated 30.4.1975 relating to manufacture on job work basis.3. Arguing for the appellants the Ld. representative of the appellants company submits that they manufacture corrugated cartons on job work basis out of the material i.e. paperboard supplied by the customers and return such corrugated boxes after manufacture. They only charge job work charges from the customers and there indeed is no dispute about it. Collector has held against them, in relation to process of manufacture being undertaken, that what the appellants have performed is not merely a process incidental or ancillary to the completion of the goods but a new and distinct product, different in name, character and use has come into existence and, therefor, the appellants would not be entitled to concessions under Notification No. 119/75....
Bhupal Anna Vibhute Vs. Collector of Kolhapur and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Bom314; 1996(3)BomCR717; (1997)2BOMLR641; 1997(2)MhLj651
ORDERShah, J. 1. The petitioner is a citizen of India and is resident of Jaisingpur in Taluka Shirol, District Kolhapur and is a tax payer and is in service at Jaisingpur. The petitioner has come to this Court by way of a public interest litigation by filing this petition wherein he has challenged the order of the State of Maharashtra (respondent No. 2 herein) passed on 6th November, 1984 (Annexure-B to the petition) whereby respondent No. 2 has cancelled its earlier order dated 30th September, 1983 and has ordered to allot Government land admeasuring 1115.4 sq. meters bearing C.T.S. Nos. 2256 and 2257 situated at Jaisingpur to Raosaheb Dhanpal Patil (respondent No. 3 herein) as a special case for Motor Mechanical Servicing Centre without auction for Rs. 78,078/- as occupancy price. This order has been passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 40 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short 'the Code')- This order, as said above, is under challenge in this petition. The petitio...
Manoj Mandrekar Vs. State (Through P.P.)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3341
Batta, J.1. The appellant was tried for the offence of rape on prosecutrix aged 7 years and has been convicted by the impugned judgment, which is challenged in this appeal, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, six months' Rigorous Imprisonment. The period of detention during the trial with effect from 27-1-92 to 27-2-92 has been ordered to be set-off in accordance with Section 428, Cr.P.C. The appellant has been convicted under section 376(2)(f) of the I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case lies in a narrow compass. The appellant along with his parents are staying in a house in separate portion and the other portion of the house is occupied by the father of the prosecutrix. The father of the appellant and the father of the prosecutrix are brothers. Besides the said brothers, the other brothers are also occupying the joint house, but all of them live in separate portions. The prosecution case is that on 26th January, 1992 prosecutrix went to the Scho...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »