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.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sidharth Processors
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)LC72Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is moved by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) allowing the appeal of the respondents.2. The issue relates to refund of handlooms cess collected under the Khadi and other Handloom Industries Development Act, 1953. There is no dispute that the refund is otherwise entitled to the respondents. But the objection raised is that the refund, if it is sanctioned, would involve unjust enrichment to the respondents and applying the ratio of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Roplas (India) Ltd., [1988 (38) E.L.T. 27 (Bom.)] the refund was rejected by the Asstt. Commissioner. On appeal against the said order, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal. Revenue is aggrieved by the said order.2A. Shri Puri, the ld. SDR pleads that according to Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Khadi and other Handloom Industries Development Act, Cess is also a duty of excise and it is to be collected in the same manner as excise d...
industrial Oxygen Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT558Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal has been listed for admission. After hearing both the sides, I find that the issue relates to denial of refund on liquid gas sent in tanker vessel, which could not be emptied at the consignee's end; because of the technical reasons of atmospheric pressure. Such leftover quantities had to be returned and they have been again cleared on payment of duty. When the appellants claimed refund of duty, it has been denied on the ground that there is no provision for granting refund under Rule 173L. The issue seems to be having a recurring implication to the assessee and hence, I admit the appeal....
Vejhurani Thakurdas Jhamandas Vs. Sabir Shaikh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Bom356; 1996(4)BomCR19; (1996)98BOMLR467; 1996(2)MhLj291
1. The petitioner contested the General Election to Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Ambernath Assembly Constituency. The polling took place on 12th February, 1995, the results were declared on 12th March, 1995 and the respondent was declared elected from the said constituency. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent has committed several corrupt practice's and, therefore, his election is liable to be declared void. The alleged corrupt practices on the part of the respondent are narrated in paragraphs 4 to 15 of the petition. The respondent has filed chamber summons No. 150 of 1996 raising preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition. The respondent contends that the allegations in the petition are vague and they are frivolous and vexatious. It is also contended that the petitioner has not complied with the mandate of Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('the Act', for short). The respondent prays that the allegations of corrupt pr...
Kana Nagu Mhatre Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Panvel Division ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR714; (1996)98BOMLR285; 1996CriLJ3144
ORDER1. Rule returnable forthwith. Shri Parshurami, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service for the Respondents. By consent. Rule called out for hearing and heard. 2. The Petitioner is the owner of a restaurant run in the name and style of M/s. Hotel Gopika at Panvel in District Raigad. The Petitioner held licences for running an eating house under the Bombay Police Act, for serving liquor therein under the Bombay Prohibition Act and also for providing 'entertainment' in the eating house. 3. The Petitioner was served with Show Cause Notice dated 16th January, 1996 in which it is alleged against him that there were at least 21 previous cases registered against him for different offences under the Prohibition Act during the period 18th May, 1994 to 11th September, 1995, out of which 16 cases were pending in the Court and in 5 cases, the accused concerned had pleaded guilty and were fined by the Court in various sums of money. It was further alleged that on 15th January, 1996...
Kannadasan @ Mgr S/O Godandaraman Vanniar and ors. Vs. the State of Ma ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR747
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Vide judgment and order dated 17-12-1993 passed in Sessions Case No. 954 of 1988, the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner statedhereinafter :(i) Under section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life; and (ii) Under section 307 I.P.C. read with 34 I.P.C. to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years.The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.Hence, this appeal.2. The prosecution case in brief runs as follows:-On 3rd April, 1988 at about 11.30 a.m. while the deceased Vardrajan Nadar was playing a game by the name of Challa-8 in front of his house in Pragati Nagar hutment, Matunga, Bombay, along with Krishna, Dawood and Babu Anthony, the three appellants along with two absconding accused, Chota Ganesh @ Topiwala and Balan, came there. Topiwala called out to the deceased saying 'Ah Vardrajan'. On that the deceased got up and went near the appellant Kannadasan @ MGR s/o...
Mazda Industries and Leasing Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1996
Reported in: (1997)61ITD235(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee which is directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals)-I, Bombay dated 13-12-1989 for the assessment year 1986-87.2. The assessee is a leasing company and derives income from letting on hire its plant and machinery. It also derives income from hire purchase transactions. Agreements were drawn up between the assessee as lessor or owner and the lessee or the hire purchaser. In both types of transaction the basic feature is the plant and machinery of the assessee is hired out to other parties. The CIT (Appeals) has observed that the distinguishing feature between these two types of transaction is that in the case of lease, the asset is returned by the lessee to the appellant at the end of the lease period whereas in the case of hire purchase, the hirer has the option to purchase the assets at the end of the hire-purchase period. During the previous year 1-7-1984 to 30-6-1985 relevant for the assessment year 1986-87, it is stated that there was only ...
Gkb Opthalmic Ltd. Vs. V. Acc, Goa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1996
Reported in: 1996(84)ELT415(Bom)
ORDER1. 1. Learned counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent heard forthwith. The petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,43,901/- towards the customs duty for the Opthalmic Lenses. The order in that respect came to be passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Customs (Appraising) dated 30.11.1995. The petitioner challenged the same by filing appeal. The petitioner also filed an application for stay on the ground that the petitioner is having strong prima facie case as opthalmic lenses cannot be called as consumer goods, and hence not liable. The Commissioner of (Appeals) has not decided the said application. However, the respondents are pressing for payment of the said amount of Rs. 1,43,901/- and a letter was addressed to the petitioner in that respect on 29th September, 1995. This has brought the petitioner in this Court. 2. The Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the appeal has in fact been heard on 29.3.1996 and judgment is awaited. In view of t...
impact Containers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collector of C. Ex., Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1996
Reported in: 1996(85)ELT213(Bom)
A.V. Savant, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel. 2. This is a Petition for challenging the letter/order dated 23rd September 1987, at Exhibit 'H' issued by the first respondent, Assistant Collector of Central Excise. Under the said Order, the petitioners have been informed that at all stages of production the concerned units have been availing Modvat credit at each stage of the clearance of the goods on payment of duty on job charges. The petitioners were, therefore, directed to follow the procedure under Rule 57F of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules of 1975 for clearing inputs from one unit to another unit and clearing goods finally i.e., to say plain aluminium collapsible tubes or printed aluminium collapsible tubes on payment of appropriate central excise duty to be determined under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Under the impugned letter, the petitioners have been further directed to forthwith stop sending goods to the respective units for doing job work a...
Mrs. Shamimano Mohd. Rafique Shaikh Vs. Satish Sahney, the Commissione ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR475; (1996)98BOMLR139
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Heard Mr. Tejas Muzumdar for the petitioner, Mr. D.G. Bagwe for respondents Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and Mr. H.V. Mehta for respondent No. 3.2. By this petition, the petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Mohammed Asif Rafique Shaikh, seeks to impugn the order dated 13th July, 1995, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, respondent No. 1 detaining the detenu under the National Security Act.3. The prejudicial activities of the detenu necessitating the issuance of the order of detention have been detailed in the grounds of detention; a true copy of which has been annexed as Exhibit 'C' to the petition. Since in our view a reference to those grounds is not necessary for the disposal of this petition, we are not recapitulating them in this order.4. The short ground on which counsel for the petitioner Mr. Tejas Muzumdar assails the detention order is contained in Ground 7(L) of the petition. The substance of Ground 7(L) is that the representation made by the...
Indian Airports Employees Union Vs. Air India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1996
Reported in: [1996(73)FLR1763]; (1997)ILLJ1027Bom
Majithia, J.1. This judgment disposes of writ petition Nos. 233/91, 1494/89, 2362/90, 504/91, 430/92, 3797/90, 892/91, 1443/91, 619/91, 3527/91, 57/91, 1263/91, 1349/91, 3798/90, 3879/90, 487/90, 431/92, 3253/90, 1439/91, 2641/92, 2642/91, 2644/92, 669/91, 255/91, 705/95 and 692/95. These writ petitions raise common questions of law relating to abolition of contract labour system. 2. The factual matrix is as under. 3. This Court in writ petition No. 3797 of 1991 and other connected writ petitions, issued directions relating to prohibition of employment of contract labour (i) in the jobs of maintenance and utility installation of the establishments of Air India, Indian Airlines and International Airport Authority of India and (ii) in the jobs of sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings in the establishments of Air India, Indian Airlines and International Airport Authority of India, that the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board should investigate in accordance with law und...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »