Mumbai Court July 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.
Girish K. Shah Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1997
Reported in: (1997)(72)LC584Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applicant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. two lakhs by the stay order dated 19.10.1992. After depositing Rs. 50,000/- there was no further deposit by this applicant. His appeal was, therefore, dismissed on 28.4.1997 for non-compliance with the stay order under Section 129E of the Customs Act 1962. The ld. counsel Shri Kantawalla informs that this applicant has since obtained a cash order for the amount of Rs. 1, 50,000/- which may be directed to be accepted in compliance with the stay order so that the applicant has an opportunity of hearing the appeal on merits.3. Considering that initially this applicant had made pre-deposit of Rs. 50,000/- and having regard to the fact that subsequently he has deposited the balance amount directed in the stay order, in the interest of justice, we direct that the appeal be restored and the further deposit now made be accepted towards compliance with the stay order....
Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT496Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this case, the department has denied Modvat credit on the ground that the input was originally classified under Chapter 27 which is not one of the notified inputs for Modvat purposes under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. Subsequently, the input came to be classified under Chapter 38 and on the basis of a certificate by the Central Excise Officer with regard to the payment of duty by the manufacturer of inputs, the appellants took Modvat credit of duty paid on the input under Chapter 38. This has been sought to be reversed.2. We have heard Shri George Cornelio, General Manager of the firm for the appellants and Shri S.V. Singh, the ld. DR for the respondents.3. We find that the matter is fully covered by the Larger Bench decision in the case of TELCO v. Commissioner - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 157, where under identical circumstances, the Larger Bench has held that the varying duty credit consequent upon the reclassification of the input from Chapter 27 to Chapter 38 has to be exten...
Abdul Haque Umar Khan Vs. the Estate Manager-ii, Bombay Housing and Ar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALLMR750; 1998(1)BomCR246
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner in this petition impugns the order dated 26th March, 1990 passed by the Appellate Officer under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, Bombay, in Appeal No. 40 of 1989. By the said order, the appeal, preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The said appeal was against the order dated 31st January 1989 passed by the Competent Authority directing eviction of the petitioner as unauthorised occupant of Block No. C-31/269. M.I.G. Gandhi Nagar, Bandra (East).2. The respondent No. 2 was allotted a tenement by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (in short MHADA) on 9th July 1982 on a monthly rent of Rs. 123.75 Ps. Sometime in May 1967 the Tenancy Arrangement was converted into a Hire Purchase Scheme whereby the allottee was required to make monthly payment towards the purchase of the tenement. Sometime in September 1974 respondent No. 2 vacated the premises and started occupying Flat No. 7, Garden King', Santacruz, Bombay. ...
Kinetic Engineering Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1997
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(Bom)419; [1998]233ITR762(Bom)
B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, made at the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the entire guarantee commission paid to the Bankers for securing timely repayment of credit facility under bills discounting scheme for the purpose of machinery and equipment required by the running business is not a revenue expenditure'. 2. This reference pertains to asst. yrs. 1985-86 and 1986-87. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing mopeds. It follows the accounting year ending on 30th June. During the asst. yrs. 1985-86 and 1986-87, the assessee paid guarantee commission to its bankers who issued guarantees on behalf of the assessee favouring IDBI/ICICI for securing timely repayment of the deferred credit obtained by it under the bills discou...
Orkay Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1997
Reported in: 1997LC809(Bombay); 1998(98)ELT310(Bom)
A.A. Desai, J.1. The petitioners are manufacturers of Polyester Yarn from imported item described as MEG Alcohol. The additional levy was charged by Customs between October, 1985 to February, 1986. They paid the duty. Subsequently, they realised that recovery or levy of the duty was wrong. Therefore, by application dated 26-2-1997 (sic), they asked for refund. Since the Department has refused to refund, the petitioners have made the instant Petition, claiming writ of mandamus against the department for payment of the amount. 2. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in : 1997(89)ELT247(SC) as per Section 27, application claiming refund as such, should be presented within a period of six months as envisaged. In the present case, the claim is barred by limitation. 3. The learned Counsel for Petitioner vehemently urged before us, that since the levying of duty itself was without any authority of tariff, Section 27 as such has no application. In the submission of learned Cou...
Shree Services Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1997
Reported in: 1998(98)ELT47(Bom)
ORDERShri A.A. Desai, J.1. The Petitioners have questioned the correctness and legality of Order dated 18.5.1987 marked as Exh. 'E' to the Petition. During the course of hearing, it is realised that the Petition raises certain disputed question of facts, which could not be adjudicated in this proceedings under Article 226. It is, therefore, expedient to direct the Petitioners to go in Appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals and it is open for the Petitioners to file such Appeal within a period of four weeks from today. The Petitioner was bona fide litigating in this Court for considerable period of more than 11 years. It would be therefore more expedient in such circumstances that the Commissioner of Appeals, if the Appeal as indicated is filed, within period stipulated, shall decide the same on merit. Taking into consideration the rival contentions, the disposal of the Appeal shall be within six weeks from the date of filing of the Appeal. 2. The Petitioners are directed to keep the...
Ravindra Ramchandra Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)688; (1998)1BOMLR481
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Though this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 11-9-1990, passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, in Sessions Case No. 108 of 1989, convicting and sentencing him to a consolidated sentence of 5 years R.I. and a line of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for 6 months, for offences under section 323, 376 and 506 I.P.C.At the very outset, I would like to remark that the learned trial Judge should have given a separate sentence on each of the three counts and a consolidated sentence is contrary to law.2. In short, the prosecution case is that the prosecutrix Marima Shaikh, RW. 4 on 24-12-1988. at about 1.30 p.m. along with her sister-in-law Khatun Hasan, RW. 5, had gone to the field of one Shatru Naik Beldar situated in village Sarade, Taluka Phaltan, District Satara, to cut grass. After she had cut some grass, the appellant came and stood there. At that time, one person came and when the appellant tried to catch th...
Smt. Hansa Dattatraya Moodaliar and Others Vs. the Pune Municipal Corp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)BomCR647; 1998(3)MhLj10
ORDERA.P. Shah, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 13th March, 1984 passed by She Municipal Commissioner of Pune Municipal Corporation and the Planning Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'Planning Authority') under section 51 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ('Act' for short) whereby the Planning Authority has revoked the permission granted to the petitioners for building construction vide commencement certificate No. 85 dated 30th April, 1982.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present petition are as under:The petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are the owners of the property bearing City Survey No. 590, situate at Rasta Peth, Pune and the petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are the persons with whom the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 have entered into agreement for development of the property under the agreement dated 23rd January, 1982. The development plan for Pune was approved on 16th Augus...
Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1997
Reported in: 1997LC811(Bombay); 1997(96)ELT246(Bom)
1. This petition is filed against the order dated 31st March, 1986 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Respondent No. 3 herein, rejecting the claim for refund preferred by the petitioners. 2. The short question raised by Mr. C. N. Korde, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the bill of entry was dated 22nd June, 1984 and as such the rates of Customs Duty as prevailing on that date would be applicable. However, the Customs Department wrongly levied the rates as stipulated in the Notification dated 28th June, 1984. According to the learned counsel, the rates of Customs Duty as prescribed in the said Notification would not have retrospective application. We heard the learned counsel at length. The Customs Department rejected the contention of the petitioners on the ground that the date of the bill of entry was immaterial and the rate prevailing on 28th June, 1984 was relevant. The matter was agitated in Appeal. The Appellate Authority also rejected the contention of the ...
Vishnu Sadashiv Deshpande Vs. Rangnath Krishna Salunkhe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1997
Reported in: 1997(4)ALLMR278; 1998(1)BomCR250
ORDERV.R. Datar, J.1. What is the material date for comparing the holdings of the landlord and tenant in a proceeding under section 33-B(5)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) is a short but important question involved in this writ petition.2. It arises as follows: The petitioner is the landlord of land bearing Survey No. 420/4 admeasuring 3 Acres 38 Gunthas of Village Rethare-Harnax, Taluka Walwa, District Sangli. The petitioner also owned other lands, Survey Nos. 300 and 374/1 of Village Rethare, which were held by the other tenants. The petitioner applied for and obtained exemption certificate under section 88-C of the Tenancy Act on 10-10-1968 from Tenancy Aval Karkun in respect of these three lands separately. The petitioner then issued notice terminating the tenancy of the respondent, herein, on 7-11-1968 which was duly received by the tenant-respondent. Thereafter, on 29-11-1968, he filed application under sectio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »