Mumbai Court April 1997 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. Diamond Metal Inds.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1997
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT665Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this appeal the issue involved is whether the Respondents herein are eligible for taking deemed Modvat credit under Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on lead scrap and waste in terms of Government of India order dated 29-9-1986. This order waives the requirement of receiving input material under cover of duty paying documents in respect of certain specified goods in the Notification but the order says that such deemed credit cannot be taken where the article is clearly recognisable as non-duty paid or is subject to nil rate of duty under the Tariff. The Additional Collector of Central Excise initiated proceedings against the Respondents by issue of Five Show Cause Notices between 1-1-1992 and 30-6-1993 for the period between June 1991 to June 1993. The charge was that the material on which Respondents had taken deemed Modvat credit was in the nature of Bazar scrap on which no duty has been paid therefore, they are recognisable as non-duty paid leading to denial of de...
Aegis Chemical Ind. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)65ITD147(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 1-10-1990. Wherein the following two grounds have been taken : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not holding that the additional tax is not leviable under section 143(1A) as the appellant has no positive income. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to issue a notice under section 143(2) after expiry of time limit specified in the said section, and complete regular assessment under section 143(3)." 2. At the time of hearing ground No. 1 was not pressed by the assessee's counsel and, therefore, the same is dismissed as such.3. As regards ground No. 2, we have heard the learned counsel for the assessee as well as the learned D.R. The assessee's counsel has submitted that in appeal against order under section 154, which was against the ITO's order dated ...
Miss. Mugdha Anil Katdare Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Bom293; 1997(2)MhLj299
ORDERY. S. Jahagirdar, J.1. The petition is filed by a student taking education in an unrecognised medical college by name M. A. E. E. R.'s Medical College, Talegaon, Dabhade, Pune. The grievance in the petition is that the Authorities are declining to grant transfer to the petitioner from M. A. A. E. R.'s medical college to B.J. Medical College which is a college recognised by Medical Council of India.2. Mr. Bhagalia, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that though M. A. A. E. R.'s Medical College is not a recognised College, the petitioner had opted against M. A. A. E. R.'s Medical College, Talegaon, Dabhade, Pune, status 'A' is shown indicating that the said college was a approved college and according to Mr. Bhagalia, the said status has to be equated to the status of recognised Medical College, especially after the amendment which was introduced by the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 1993, inserting Sections 10A, 10B and other relevant Sections. Mr. Bhagalia ...
Smt. Neeta Sanjay Tadage Vs. Smt. Vimal Sadashiv Tadage and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ3263; 1997(3)MhLj884
ORDER1. By this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Smt. Neeta Sanjay Tadage, challenges the order dated 3-3-1994 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Court No. 5, Thane, below Exh. 60, allowing composition of offences between the parties registered under Section 498-A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which is annexed as Exh. F to the petition. 2. The petitioner married Sanjay, son of respondent No. 1 and brother of respondent No. 2 at Dhulia. After their marriage, she started residing at Thane with her husband, who is gainfully employed in the Police Department as Police Constable. Soon after the marriage, the petitioner realised that the respondents No. 1 and 2 were out to harass her and they started treating her with cruelty by putting her under restrains and even subjected her to starvation. She was not allowed even to write any letter to her parents at Dhulia without being censured by them. It is also alleged that the respondents...
Laxman Malhari Sable Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)46; 1997CriLJ2556; 1997(2)MhLj780
ORDER1. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides. 2. We have admitted the appeal of the petitioner on 11th February, 1997 when we had granted him liberty to file a separate application for bail. Criminal Application No. 529 of 1997 for bail was granted by us on 17th February, 1997 in the peculiar facts and circumstances which may briefly be indicated as under:3. The incident in question took place on 6th January, 1989. Pending trial of the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C., he was elected as Municipal Councillor of Khopoli Municipal Council in December, 1996. The learned Sessions Judge, Alibag by his judgment and order dated 6th February, 1997 held the petitioner guilty of offence punishable under section 304 Part I of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5.000/ - in default to suffer R.I. for one year. The order of sentence proceeds on the assumption that minimum se...
Sudhir Tukaram SaThe Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and Four ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR165; (1997)99BOMLR272
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard Shri V.D. Hon, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri. H.N. Karwa, Standing Counsel for Union of India absent, Shri V.G. Gangapurwala, learned Counsel for respondents nos. 3 and 4 and Shri S.P. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 5.2. Rule, with the consent of the parties Rule made returnable forthwith.3. The factual matrix of the case is as under:-Respondent No. 3 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, published an advertisement in Daily 'Lokmat' on 18.8.1995 for award of retail outlet at Chashnali, Dist, Ahmednagar. The said outlet was reserved for the defence category and other terms and conditions were set out for being eligible to apply for the said retail outlet. One of the conditions was that the annual income of the applicant during the preceding year should not be more than Rs. 50,000/- and that he should have been a resident at least for five years of any District in Maharashtra, however, other things being equal, preference was to be given to an a...
Cc Vs. Candid Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1997
Reported in: (1997)(70)LC514Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 1 year 5 months and 5 days in filing the appeal which has been preferred by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai against the captioned order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai. The impugned order was communicated on 14.6.1995. The due date for filing the appeal, therefore, expires on 14.9.1995. The appeal was actually filed in the Registry on 19.2.1997.2. Arguing on the application, the Id. SDR Shri K.M. Mondal submitted that the impugned order was implemented under bona fide belief that the facts and documentary evidences taken into consideration in passing the order were acceptable and authentic. It was submitted that investigations conducted by the Central Excise intelligence unit of the Customs, following an intelligence gathered in the month of November 1996 revealed that the impugned order had been obtained by misrepresentation of facts and on documents of questionable veracity.The Id. SDR pointed out that the int...
Converter Adhesives and Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1997
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT203Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These Stay Applications arising out of the above common order of the Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai III, are for waiver of total duty amount Rs. 7,30,49,940.67 and of a total penalty Rs. 2,86,85,730.36 Under Section 11AC of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and a further penalty of Rs. 4.00 crores under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules.2. The ld. Sr. Counsel Shri A. Hidayatullah appeared for the applicants with Shri M.P. Baxi the ld. Advocate. It was submitted that the Department seeks to classify the adhesive product manufacture by the applicants which are sold in sets under sub-heading 3909.60 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, as Polyurethene. Whereas according to the applicants the goods are classifiable as prepared glues and other prepared adhesive, not elsewhere specified or included under sub-heading 3506.00. The ld. Counsel submitted that the appellants' products were nothing but adhesive and, in terms of Section Notes, 2 of Section VI of the Tariff Act, the s...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Candid Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT363Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 1 year 5 months and 5 days in filing the appeal which has been preferred by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai against the captioned order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. The impugned order was communicated on 14-6-1995. The due date for filing the appeal, therefore, expires on 14-9-1995. The appeal was actually filed in the Registry on 19-2-1997.2. Arguing on the application, the ld. SDR Shri K.M. Mondal submitted that the impugned order was implemented uner bona fide belief that the facts and documentary evidences taken into consideration in passing the order were acceptable and authentic. It was submitted that investigations conducted by the Central Excise intelligence unit of the Customs, following an intelligence gathered -in the month of Nov., 1996 revealed that the impugned order had been obtained by misrepresentation of facts and on documents of questionable veracity. The ld. SDR pointed out that the inte...
Apar Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1997
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT698Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue involved in the appeal is relating to the demand of duty on the plain glass tube manufactured by the appellants. The department initiated proceedings against the appellants by the show cause notice dated 21-8-1989, alleging that the appellants had wrongly declared plain glass tube as laboratory glassware. The plain glass tubes were correctly classifiable under sub-heading 7001.90, whereas the laboratory glassware is classifiable under sub-heading 7012.10 at Nil rate of duty. The plain glass tubes under the heading referred to above, on other hand, will have to bear at the rate of 40%. The duty was demanded for the period 3-6-1987 to 19-10-1987. The amount of duty involved came to Rs. 10,213.60. The show cause notice has also alleged that the appellants had mis-declared the plain glass tubes deliberately and as such invoked the longer period for demanding duty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Addl. Commissioner by the captioned order adjudicated the c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »