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.
Commr. of C. Excise Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT597Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Pune, he has allowed Modvat credit in respect of certain chemicals used for phosphate coating. These chemicals are used on the motor vehicle parts in the painting shop. Collector (Appeals) allowed Modvat benefit in respect of these inputs. However, Revenue has come up in appeal against the said order pleading that the chemicals used for phosphate coating do not go into the manufacture of final product. Hence it is pleaded that the Collector (Appeals) order is not correct.2. Though the Respondents were not present, after hearing Shri Grudeep Singh, the ld. JDR, I find that it is not disputed that motor vehicle parts are not only intermediate products but also cleared as such.These parts have to be subjected to phosphate coating in the painting shop for ensuring their quality and chemicals used in such a process cannot be dismissed as not used in the process of manufacture of the final product. Hence there is no reason to inter...
Salgaocar Mining Industries Limited and Another Vs. State of Goa and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Bom374
ORDERPatankar, J. 1. The question involved in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether the Goa, Daman and Diu Barge (Taxation of Goods) Act, 1985 (hereafter referred to as the Act of 1985) is invalid in view of the provisions of Article 301 and Article 304(b) of the Constitution of India? 2. We shall first state the background. The Goa, Daman and Diu Barge (Taxation on Goods) Rules, 1978 was enacted. However, the same came to be challenged in this Court and the Division Bench of this Court by passing order dated 10th October, 1983 in Special Civil Application No. 123/B of 1980 struck down the same on the ground that the provisions of Article 301 and Article 304(b) was not followed, inasmuch as the Bill was introduced without Presidential assent in State Legislature and there was no assent obtained to the said Act under Article 255 of the Constitution. Further, it was held that there was nothing to show except the statement and objects of the Act that it was a levy...
Ganapati Dnyanu Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR262; 1997CriLJ485
ORDER1. This revision application is preferred by the petitioner-accused against the order dated 20-9-1988, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kagal, convicting the petitioner-accused for the offence punishable u/S. 408 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further R.I. for 1 month. The said order was challenged in appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 200/88 in the Court of Learned Third Addl. Sessions judge, Kolhapur and the said appeal also came to be dismissed by the order dated 14-11-90 of Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolhapur. Hence this revision application. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that, the petitioner-accused was serving as Head Secretary of Kalbadevi Vikas Seva Sanstha Ltd. during the period 1-7-75 and 31-7-75 i.e. one month. It is alleged that in the Audit Report dated 28-5-77, it was found that a sum of Rs. 6,759.65 ps. was shown in the name of Rice Mill Division by the presen...
P.S. Constructions Vs. State of Goa Through the Chief Secretary and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR163
R.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioners challenge award of tender in respect of Uguem-Kalay road which has been awarded to respondent No. 5. The petitioners' case is that their tender was lowest being Rs. 13,66,780, but the Government accepted the tender of respondent No. 5 which was to the tune of Rs. 15,17,530/-. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Sr. Advocate Shri Surendra Dessai submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the respondents No. 1 to 4 were bound to accept the lowest tender of the petitioners and without giving any reasons whatsoever or even communicating the said reasons, the Government took decision in accepting the tender of respondent No. 5 which was higher than the tender of the petitioner. Sr. Advocate Shri Dessai has pointed out that another work has been entrusted by the P.W.D. on 9-1-1996 and the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 should not have taken into account the controversy relating to the arbitration proceedings in respect of another contract which had...
Shri Surenderakumar Ganeshilal Rajoria Vs. Shri Satish Sahney, Commiss ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR44; 1997BomCR(Cri)87
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Heard Mr. U.N. Tripathi for the petitioner, Mr. S.R. Borulkar for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. H.V. Mehta for respondent No. 3.By means of this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner (detenu) impugns the detention order dated 27th September, 1995 passed by respondent No. 1 Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay (now Mumbai) detaining him under the National Security Act.2. The prejudicial activities of the detenu warranting the issuance of the detention order are contained in the grounds of detention, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure B to the petition. Since in our view reference to the prejudicial activities is not necessary for the disposal of this petition we are not recapitulating them.3. The short point on which this petition should succeed has been pleaded by the petitioner's Counsel in grounds 6(C) and 6(D) of the petition. The ground is that the petitioner belongs to Uttar Pradesh and knew Hindi an...
Century Rayon Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1996
Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT628Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. AMP-14/B-IH, dated 6-2-1988 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The appellants are engaged in manufacture, amongst others of Viscose Tow and staple fibre, falling under Chapter heading 5502.00 of the Central Excise Tariff, whereunder during the relevant period, the duty chargeable was on the weight. The appellants have contended that Viscose Tow are manufactured in rope form and are even dried and kept in standard atmospheric conditions during which they regain moisture, which is known as conventional allowance. According to them this moisture contents are generally 13 percent and the duty chargeable is on the even dried weight plus conventional allowance of 13 percent.They have pleaded that so far, ISI have not prescribed any standards for conventional allowance and the method for determining commercial weight of Viscose Tow, however the standards prescribed by the International Bureau for standardisation ...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Jai Hanuman Dyg. and Ptg. Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT69Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Department seeks reference to the High Court against the Order No. 5/CB/95-WRB, dated 11-10-1995, passed by this Bench.2. The reference sought for is on the validity of the interpretation giving by the Bench, in relation to the pre-amended provisions of Additional duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957.4. Considering the submissions, it has to be observed that in the year 1994, Section 3(3) of the said Act has been amended to read thus : "The provisions of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) and the rules made thereunder including those relating to refund and exemptions from duty, offence and penalty shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the levy and collection of the Additional Duties as they apply in relation to levy and collection of the duties of Excise on the goods specified in Sub-section (1)". "The provisions of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), and the rules made thereunder including those relating to refund ...
Summit Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT205Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the impugned order cited above, the Collector (Appeals) has confirmed the findings of the Assistant Collector denying Modvat benefit in respect of CPU cards on the ground that it is not specifically declared in the Modvat declaration.2. On a perusal of the Modvat declaration, it is found that as against the final product automatic data processing machines, units thereof, classifiable under Chapter 8471, 8472, 8473, they have declared various components and raw materials as per list attached. It is the plea of the ld. Advocate Shri K.V. Oza that CPU cards is nothing but a part of CPU, which is classifiable under Chapter 8471 and they have broadly described the item as parts of computer against TH 8473; on account of that the benefit of Modvat credit should not be denied. They have given this declaration from the introduction of Modvat Scheme in 1986.However, the objection was raised only in 1987 on account of certain audit and subsequently they have specifically mentioned CPU car...
Anand Fondu Solyekar Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1311
ORDER1. The applicant has been put up for trial for murder of Kashinath Solyekar, aged 25 years, along with co-accused Pramod Solyekar and Ramesh Solyekar. The other co-accused have been granted bail by this Court on the ground that except for their presence at the place of incident, no specific role has been ascribed to them. 2. Advocate Shri Menino Teles argued before me that the deceased was drunk; he abused the applicant and assaulted him as a result of which the applicant sustained three injuries; the applicant had also filed N.C. complaint in respect of incident against the said Kashinath Solyekar and that the statements of witnesses upon which prosecution relies do not disclose as to how the incident in question had started. It was further contended by him that witness Surya Solyekar, who is brother of the deceased Kashinath Solyekar, had been introduced later on by the Police. It is next urged by Advocate Shri Teles that there is no intention to kill and the offence may, at the...
Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR140; (1997)IIILLJ1153Bom
T.K. Chandra Shekhara Das, J. 1. The petitioner challenges in this writ petition the order of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bombay, passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 751 of 1982 dated July 27, 1995. By this order the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bombay, has allowed the complaint filed by the first respondent under Item 9 of Schedule IV of The MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, holding that the petitioner has committed unfair labour practice by non-implementation of the settlement dated January 27, 1971 and also by refusal to negotiate with the first respondent. The Industrial Court based on facts pleaded before it framed the following four issues. '1. Does the complainant prove that respondent has committed unfair labour practice under Item No. 9 of Schedule IV by committing failure to implement settlement dated January 27, 1971 and the agreement arrived at under the correspondence entered into with the complainant in 1957 2. Whether the case is barred by limitation 3. Whether the complaint is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »