Mumbai Court August 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.
S.C. Brothers, Bombay Vs. Sarva Shramik Sangh and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2461]; (1998)IIILLJ1149Bom
1. The petitioner, which is a partnership firm has challenged the order dated 9th April, 1996 passed by the Conciliation Officer under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act directing the petitioner employer to recognise the names of five workmen as 'protected workmen' for the year 1995-96 from the list submitted by the Union. 2. It appears that the only registered trade union by its letter dated 21st September, 1995 submitted a list of 13 workmen which should be recognised by the management as 'protected workmen' under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is contended that in fact the list was communicated by fax message which was sent at 9 p.m. on 21.9.1995 and was actually received by the management in the morning of 30.9.1995. The first objection raised by the management was that in as much as the rule 66 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay Rules), 1957 states that every trade union connected with an industrial establishment to which the act applies, shall communicat...
Shivram S/O Jairam and anr. Vs. Tukaram S/O Raghoji Age and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1996
Reported in: 1997(4)BomCR291
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. The respondent No. 1 Tukaram Raghoji Aage, an 'Andh' by Caste, was the original owner of field Survey No. 23 situated at Village Ekamba, Tq. Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded. It appears that the total area of the field in question is 13 acres, however, the same is shown to have been 13 acres and 20 gunthas in the orders of the courts below. This Tukaram Raghoji Aage, the respondent No. 1, sold the above-said field by three different sale-deeds the particulars of which, are as under :-By sale-deed dated 16-5-1966 Tukaram sold 6 acres of land to one Baliram and Shivram Jairam, who is the petitioner No. 1 before this Court. The second sale-deed executed by Tukaram is dated 13-5-1969 of 4 acres which is sold to Shivram Jairam alone. The third sale-deed is dated 12-12-1969 of 3 acres, which is sold by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner No. 2. It is also necessary to make a passing reference to one additional sale-deed in the matter i.e. sale-deed dated 31-1-1970 which is executed ...
Vijayraj Jivraj Solanki Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1996
Reported in: (1996)98BOMLR811; 1996CriLJ3957; 1997(1)MhLj454
A.V. Savant, J.1. Heard all the learned Counsels. 2. The petition is filed by Vijayraj Solanki, cousin of the detenu Kaluram Danaji Prajapati. The detenu has been detained under the order dated 15th November, 1995 passed by the second respondent Joint Secretary to the Government of India in exercise of his powers under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short COFEPOSA Act). The order of detention says that with a view to preventing the said Kaluram Danaji Prajapati from engaging in keeping smuggled goods as well as dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing smuggled goods in future it was necessary to make the order of detention. The grounds on which the order of detention was passed were furnished alongwith the order of detention. Both the order and grounds were served on 20th November, 1995 alongwith the list of documents. Briefly stated the facts are as under : 3. On speci...
Powder Build Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT487Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Today the matter was listed only for admission. The appellants have vide their letter dated in August 1996 requested for decision on merits in their absence. The appeal is being [x] finally disposed of at this stage only.2. The Appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. Cs-74/BRD/96, dated 9-4-1996, and it covers up to issues namely, denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 1,759/- availed of, on the strength of the certificate issued on 8-4-1994 by the Range Supdt. The rejection of the said Modvat credit is on the ground that vide Notification No. 16/94 (N.T.) C.EX., dated. 30-3-1994, the Certificate was de-recognized as the available document with effect from 1-4-1994, and the certificate so produced was therefore not the proper document. The second demand of Rs. 7,491/- is on the ground that Modvat credit was taken on the original copy of Invoice and the request was made for permitting them to avail of the Modvat credit on the ground that duplicate was lost. The authorities below,...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Viral Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT553Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. KVV-162/91 BRD, dated 6-9-1991 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay setting aside the order-in-original No. 29/AC/Refund/ 91, dated 13-9-1991 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Div.II, Vapi.2. The Respondent here filed a claim for refund of Rs. 13,894.50 on the ground that though they were eligible to avail of Modvat credit at notional higher rate, they took the credit at the lower rate and utilised the same towards payment of duty on the final product. Their claim was that had they taken the higher credit which otherwise was available to them, they could have utilised the same for payment of duty and, therefore, they be granted refund from the duty to the extent of the amount which they would have otherwise not paid by virtue of their having availed of Modvat credit to that extent. The claim was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority but the Collector (Appeals) vide impugned order set...
Suresh Pandurang Tigare Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ157
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Vide judgment and order dated 13/1/1983, passed in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1982, the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated hereinafter :- (i) Under Section 302 I.P.C. to life imprisonment; (ii) under Section 323, I.P.C. to one week's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo one week's R.I. The substantive sentences of the appellant were ordered to run concurrently. Along with the appellant ten others viz. Arun Shivram Vidhate, Dilip Kashinath Borade, Ramesh Kashinath Borade, Nivrutti Baburao Hingmire, Jagannath Shankar Deshmukh. Prakash Ramdas Bhawsar, Rajendra Govind Bhawsar, Vijay Shivram Vidhate, Satwa Kashinath Ekhande and Arjun Pandurang Gaikwad were also prosecuted and tried. Excepting Satwa Kashinath Ekhande who was convicted and sentenced in the same manner as the appellant under Section 323 I.P.C., the remaining persons were acquitted. The State of Maharashtra has not challenged the acq...
Shri Yama Tukaram Mahar and anr. Vs. Shri Ramchandra Damu Choudhari an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)BomCR150
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. The petitioners- Yama Tukaram Mahar and Soma Tukaram Mahar of village Varkhed, tq. Bhadgaon, district Jalgaon, filed an application before the Assistant Collector, Chalisgaon Division, Jalgaon, on 1st March, 1984, thereby challenging the notice dated 6-2-1984, issued by the Tahsildar, Bahadgaon, asking the petitioners to remain present to hand over the charge on 22nd February, 1984 in between 12.00 to 5.00 p.m. in accordance with the order dated 24-7-1970 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chalisgaon Division, Jalgaon. By this order, from the record, it appears that the Sub-Divisional Officer had held the petitioners to be the trespassers on Field Survey No. 135-3 H. 25. R., situated at village Varkhed. This decision appear to have been given, as is clear from the record, on the basis of the application of the respondents, who are the owners of the field in question. The record indicates that the respondent No. 1 - Ramchandra Damu Choudhari had purchased the fie...
Shri Shankar Re-rolling Mills P. Vs. Collr. of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT270Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original Collr. No.75/92, dated 15-5-1993 of the Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad confirming the demand for Rs. 59,703/- against the Appellants and imposing personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on them. Penalty of Rs. 2000/- is also imposed on M/s. Shrinivas Industries but they do not appear to have filed any appeal.2. It was noticed by the Department that during 1987-88, the Appellants had fabricated trusses, purlins etc. and had used them in erection of their factory sheds, but had not paid any Excise duty on the items fabricated by them. Enquiry was made and vide letter dated 7-5-1991, the Appellants stated that they had got the said items fabricated on contract basis from job-workers M/s. Shrinivas Industries. The Appellants however, admitted that they had supplied the necessary material to the said job-workers and had removed the same from the factory of job-workers in their own Trucks and had paid job charges to M/s. Shrinivas In...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Kopran Chemicals Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT487Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal by the Department is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. SDK/449/B-II/91, dated 10-10-1991 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay allowing the refund claim filed by the Respondents by setting aside the order of rejection thereof passed by the Asst. Collector of Central Excise, Division III, Bombay-II vide Order No. V (29) 18-64/90, dated 18-4-1991.2. The Respondents filed refund claim for Rs. 2526.56 and Rs. 80,850/- for duty paid on the goods received back under Rule 173L of the Rules.The claims were rejected only on the ground that form of reprocessing undertaken before re-issue of the goods was not shown. The Collector (Appeals) however held the Respondents had complied with the provisions of Rule 173L of the Rules in substance and not specifying the process actually undertaken in Form V Register was merely a procedural lapse which could not result in denial of the refund. He therefore sanctioned the refund.3. Mr. Gurnani, the ld. DR has pleaded th...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Noble Explochem Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT372Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal by the Department is directed against the Order -in-Appeal No. 386/Appl/IND/93, dated 13-5-1993 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Indore setting aside the Order-in-Original No. 14/Adj/90/AMT, dated 6-11-1990 of the Asstt. Collector, Amravati directing the Respondents to reverse Modvat credit of Rs. 81,875.39 on the ground that the inputs when received were not accompanied by the Gate Passes and even then entries were made in RG 23A Part I and there too, complete details were not given. The Collector (Appeals) however held that the order of the Asst. Collector was not sustainable inasmuch as the same was passed without issuance of Show Cause Notice and was merely in the nature of confirming the order of the Superintendent of Central Excise, who had denied availment of such credit and further held that mere entry was made in RG 23A Part I, when the inputs were received and all other relevant entries in RG 23A Part II were made subsequent to receipt of proper d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »