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.
Sunpra Energy and Recovery Engg. Vs. Commr. of C. E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT551Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For disposal of the appeal, it is necessary to understand how the final product viz. Polyurethane Sandwich Panel' comes into existence.Shri R.K. Habbu, Ld. Advocate informed us that the entire operation is conducted in a single machine. The three inputs mentioned in the dispute, viz. (i) Freon 11, (ii) Di-isocynate Dyphenyl Methane (MDI), and (iii) Polyol are fed into the machine. With the help of these chemicals (and other materials), Polyurethane foam in sheet form is generated inside the closed machinery. The galvanized steel sheets are also fed into the process at a stage after coming into existence of the foam sheets. In the continued covered process, the Polyurethane sheets are sandwiched between the two galvanized steel sheets in which form it emerges from the machine. The Polyurethane foam sheets were classifiable under Tariff sub-heading 3221.90 and attracted duty @15% in terms of Notification No. 243/83, dated 9-9-1983. The final product viz. 'Polyurethane Sandwich Panel'...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT296Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal by the Department is against the Order-in-Appeal No.DCJ/83/BRD-93, dated 17-6-1993 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad at Bombay setting aside the demands confirmed by the Assistant Collector against the Respondents.2. The demands against the Respondents were raised on the ground that the Respondents were the manufacturers of various types of Glass and glassware and the documents showed that during the period 27-7-1987 to 11-8-1987, the entire items manufactured by them were supplied to one Darshak Ltd. having premises situated in the same compound adjacent to the factory of production of the Respondents and that such clearances were only through Plastic durable and returnable containers in loose and unpacked condition and that Darshak Ltd. had packed the material and had sold them by despatch to various places in India. It was, therefore, felt that the assessable value ought to be the price charged by Darshak Ltd. from their customers and not the on...
Growmore Research and Assets Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1996
Reported in: (1998)65ITD435(Mum.)
1. These are cross-appeals by the two companies and cross-appeals by the revenue, that involve certain common issues and hence, these appeals have been grouped together for the sake of convenience. The parties rendered their arguments on the above basis and accordingly, these appeals are being disposed of by means of this common order.2. The common issues as raised by the appellant-companies are that the loss in money market transactions are allowable as business losses and that the loss on forward speculation of shares, etc., are allowable to it with reference to the valan date as fixed by the Stock Exchange and not with reference to date indicated on the forward contract notes.3. Mr. Mistry, the learned counsel for the appellant-companies, submitted that there are two common issues in the appeals raised by the appellant companies. He pleaded that he be permitted to place the facts and the legal contentions starting with Growmore Leasing & Investment (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter referr...
Deepak Dwarkasingh Chhabria Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom181; 1996(2)MhLj877
ORDER1. By this petition under Article 226, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by the Regional Passport Officer, Mumbai refusing the passport to the petitioner under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 ('Act' for short). Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner is a citizen and national on India. The petitioner was issued passport on 5th July, 1984. When the validity of this passport had expired on 4th July, 1989, the same was renewed for a further period of five years i.e. upto 4th July, 1994. 2. Sometime in 1986 the State had filed Special Case No. 4 of 1986 in the Court of the Special Judge at Pune against the petitioner and other for offences under Sections 120B, 109, 420, 467, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Sections 147(o) and 147(p) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Accused No. 1 in the said Special Case No. 4 of 1986 made ...
Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs. Cipla Limited and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR171; (1997)ILLJ933Bom; 1997(1)MhLj201
Tipnis, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union impugns the legality and validity of the order dated October 24, 1994 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 7th Labour Court, Bombay, dismissing the complaint bearing Complaint (ULP) No. 334 of 1993 filed by the petitioner-union under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MRTU & PULP Act'). The petition also challenges the order dated July 27, 1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order passed by the Presiding Officer, 7th Labour Court, Bombay, dismissing the complaint. 2. The complaint was filed on the ground that respondent No. 1, CIPLA Limited, a company manufacturing pharmaceutical products has been engaging in unfair labour practices under items 1(a), (b), (d) & (f) of Sch...
Mahadu S/O Jamnaji Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1996
Reported in: 1997(4)BomCR117
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. This writ petition was heard by His Lordship Justice N.P. Chapalgaonker of this Court on 30th July, 1991 and by his order of the same date, His Lordship had directed to send the Caste Certificate No. 77-A-Misc. CR. 68-77, dated 10-10-1977, issued by the Tahsildar, Biloli to the Scrutiny Committee headed by the Director of Tribal Research and Training Institute, Pune for his necessary opinion thereon by issuing necessary certificate with a finding as regards the truthfulness or otherwise of the certificate and with a further necessary direction to specify as to which caste the respondent No. 2 belonged to. It was further directed that the said opinion should be given by the Committee within two months after giving opportunity to the parties of being heard. Liberty was also given to the parties concerned to file appeal if dissatisfied with that decision if it was so provided under the rules to the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Nasik. Thus the matter wa...
Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs. Cipla Limited and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1996
Reported in: (1996)98BOMLR727
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union impugns the legality and validity of the order dated 24th October, 1994 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 7th Labour Court, Bombay, dismissing the complaint bearing Complaint (ULP) No. 334 of 1993 filed by the petitioner-union under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour. Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MRTU and PULP Act'). The petition also challenges the order dated 27.7.1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order passed by the Presiding Officer, 7th Labour Court, Bombay, dismissing the complaint.2. The complaint was filed on the ground that respondent No. 1, CIPLA Limited, a Company manufacturing pharmaceutical products has been engaging in unfair labour practices under items 1(a), (b), (d) and (f) ...
Rajaram S/O Mango Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR98
N.P. Chapalgaonkar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner Rajaram Mango Patil, Prisoner No. 3637 now detained in Central Jail, Aurangabad, for his premature release. The petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death vide judgment dated 21st August, 1981 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. This Court in Criminal Appeal No. 745 of 1981 alongwith Confirmation Case No. 4 of 1981, by judgment dated 12th November, 1981 confirmed the order of conviction for an offence under Section 302 of I.P.C but set aside the sentence and substituted it by imprisonment for life. The State Government by an order dated 21st January, 1995 had passed an order that the petitioner will have to serve imprisonment for a period of 30 years since he was covered by Rule 7(a) of the guidelines applicable. This order was challenged before this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 455 of 1995. It ...
Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus., Acc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1996
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT556Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the goods described as "Wind-up Buggy" are accessories to the PFY spinning plant of the appellant. The appellant had claimed these goods as spares (which includes accessories) under Appendix 6 Serial No. 4. In the order impugned in the appeal the Collector has held that the goods are not accessories and therefore they are not entitled to clearance under O.G.L.3. There is no dispute about the function of these goods. These are stated to be specially designed and manufactured by M/s. Dupont, who also manufacture wind-up assemblies of the plant. In the wind-up assembly the Polyester Filament yarn which is manufactured is wound on to the cones which are subsequently removed for weaving the fabric. The advocate stated that the purpose of the buggy is to remove the wind-up assembly and transport it for cleaning. It was stated that such cleaning was required frequently, say once a week in order to ensure that the wind-up assembly wa...
Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd., Bombay Vs. I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom186
ORDERDR B. P. Saraf, J. 1. An important and interesting question of law for the consideration in these appeals of as to whether Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ('CPC') would apply to summary suits under Order XXXVII of the CPC. 2. The facts of the case giving in rise of this controversy, briefly stated, are as follows: A summary suit was filed by the Indian Bank (respondents herein) against the Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. (appellants herein ) for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,96,59,160.25. It is was filed on 6th February, 1992. In the said suit a notice of motion was taken out by the original defendant (appellate herein) for stay of the trial of the above suit in view of the fact that the matter in issue of the view the said suit was also directly and substantially in issue in a suit previously instituted the appellants against he respondents in this Court numbers as Suit NO 400 of 1991 which was pending. The case of the appellants was that the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »