Mumbai Court January 1998 Judgments
Mirc Electronics Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1998
Reported in: (1998)(75)LC272Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing the Id. counsel for the applicants and the Id. SDR for the department, we find that the appeal has to be remanded. The impugned order makes out that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal memorandum was not signed by the appellants in both the copies and so.it cannot be considered as an appeal. The Id. counsel has cited the case law 1992 (62) ELT 938 (T) : 1992 (43) ECR 75 (T) in the case of Sharda Anand v. Collector of Customs, according to which failure to sign memo of appeal by the party is a curable irregularity and appeal not to be dismissed on this ground, when appeal accepted and number also given after registering it. Papers to be returned for rectification of defects. In view of this precedent decision, the appeal is allowed by remand to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai....
Tag this Judgment!Rosemount (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1998
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT502Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Appellants an SSI unit are engaged in the manufacture of Electronic Transmitters falling under erstwhile Tariff Item 68 and had claimed the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 179/77, dated 17-6-1977 on the ground that their product was manufactured without the aid of power. This claim of exemption was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner vide his Order No. MP/46/85, dated 16-12- 1985.Accordingly, the Appellants had filed an appeal before Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. With the introduction of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, they filed a classification list No. 12/86 under protest w.e.f. 1-3-1986 classifying the product under Chapter 90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. This classification list was approved without vacating the party's protest. Accordingly they paid duty under protest during the period from 1-3-1986 to 31-3-1986.Thereafter, they filed another classification list No. 3/86 effective from 1-4-1986 for the financial year 1986-87 and als...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. Marshal Engineering Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1998
Reported in: (1998)(75)LC547Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Respondent is absent but has requested for decision of the appeal on merits.2. The dispute arose on several price lists filed by the respondent on manufacture of excisable goods on job work. The Assistant Collector passed an order approving price lists provisionally under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules and directing that further assessment shall be provisional until a pending matter involving a similar question was decided by the appellate authority. The Collector (Appeals) set aside the order and directed the Assistant Collector to finalise the assessment in terms of the order of the Collector (Appeals) which was passed in the meanwhile. The short question is whether margin of profit of the supplier of raw materials who receives back the manufactured goods can be added to the assessable value. What is to be added is the profit element on job work and that element has been added since it is a part of the job work charges. The profit which the supplier may earn cannot be added ...
Tag this Judgment!National Rifles Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT483Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant manufacture Air Rifles, Air Guns, Air pistols and parts thereof. Prior to 1-3-1986 the goods manufactured by them were exempted; therefore, they did not take out Central Excise License but only filed declaration for such exemption from Central Excise licensing control as required under Notification 111/78 under Rule 174A of Central Excise Rules. On introduction of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 Air Guns, Air Rifles, fall under sub-heading 9304.00 and parts are covered under sub-heading 9305.00. There was an exemption Notification for Air Rifles under Notification 228/86 but parts were not exempted.The department found that on a scrutiny of the declaration for exemption from licensing control filed by the appellants on 30-5-1988 claiming exemption under Notification 228/86 that the appellants had shown besides sales of Air Rifles other sales and on a visit to their factory it was found that these other sales related to sales of spare parts and accessories which ar...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Joazinho Pereira Vs. State of Goa and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALLMR288; 1998(2)BomCR467; 1998(2)MhLj325
ORDERN.J. Pandya, J. 1. The petitioner was a Government employee of pre-liberation days. After the date of liberation, he opted for the service of the Union Territory and, therefore, got the benefit of protection of pay. At the relevant time, he was getting salary of Rs. 216/- per month. Later on, pursuant to the Absorption Act of 1965 and the Rules framed thereunder, particularly Rule No. 4, the matter came up for his fitment in the corresponding post with other fixation of pay in the revised scale of that post. 2. The petitioner in pre-liberation days was working as a Guard Grade II. Logically therefore, he would be taken into the Police Department and was put in the post of a Head Constable. The post of Head Constable carried the salary of Rs. 110/- to Rs. 130/-. In order to protect his pay, the balance was treated as personal pay. 3. From the year 1963 to the year 1969, during this interval, he worked as Male Nurse in the Police Dispensary. During that period he was given fixed pay...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Jethalal Thakkar Vs. the Union of India, Through the Under Secr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR227; 1998(2)BomCR554
ORDERN.J. Pandya, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the petition for getting Mining Concession within the State of Goa in respect of three mines situate at Tivim, Nadora and Pirna. The details thereof are given in the petition. 2. In fact, according to the petitioner, these Concessions were sought for by his father Shri Jethalal C. Thakker in the year 1962. On or about 7th May, 1962, notices came to be published, being the granting of Mining Concession. Requisite fees for issuing Mining Concession were also paid and therefore, according to the petitioner, all that the said authority had to do was to issue a concession in his favour. 3. Though the concession was not in the name of the father of the petitioner, later on, as per the say of the petitioner, the very father of the petitioner had transferred the claim in the name of the petitioner about which there is hardly any dispute raised by the respondents. 4. In the background of the aforesaid facts, it is required to be considered whethe...
Tag this Judgment!Foods and Inns. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT750Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals viz. E/652/92 and E/855/92 have been filed by the assessee as well as the department against the decision of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Ahmedabad, made in Order-in-Appeal No. KVV/407/92-BRD whereunder he confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector who by his order dated 10-2-1992 disallowed Modvat credit for the inputs which were lying in balance of the assessee or contained in the final products and cleared at Nil rate of duty after the Exemption notification was issued on 25-5-1991. He confirmed the order made by the Assistant Collector, Valsad who confirmed the order made by the Assistant Collector, Valsad who confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 5,57,775.31.2. The assessee in these cases are manufacturing P or P foods classifiable under Sub-heading 2001.10. He was availing Modvat credit.By a Notification No. 19/91, dated 25-7-1991 P or P Foods were exempted from levy of excise duty. The question is what happens to the Modvat credit availed of ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalpana Ananda Sutar and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR106; 1998(3)BomCR712; 1998(2)MhLj626
ORDERA.D. Mane, J.1. The central point involved in all these petitions is common and it relates to the election to Panchayat. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Returning Officer committed an error in rejecting their nomination forms to contest the elections of Village Panchayat. The question arises whether rejection or acceptance of nomination form falls within the bar created by section 15-A of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. Section 15-A of the Act provides that, 'no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except in accordance with the provisions of section 15; and no Court other than the Judge referred to in that section shall entertain any dispute in respect of such election.2. In order to appreciate this question, regard may be had to the word 'election'as interpreted by the Apex Court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer,Namakkal . The Supreme Court laid down that the word'election' has been used in Part XV of the Constitution in t...
Tag this Judgment!Jay Shankar Mallesh Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR764
ORDERN.J. Pandya, J.1. On 27 March, 1994 at village Mandopa, Navelin, between 7.00 to 7.30 p.m. the accused is said to have stabbed the deceased Raju in the course of a quarrel between them. On the aforesaid day, there was Hindu festival of Holi. At about 2.00 p.m. on that very day there was minor verbal exchange in connection with unwanted throwing of colours between the accused on one side and the deceased and his friend on the other.2. As can be seen later on, the actual time of the incident is very much in dispute and is not clearly established. But in the initial part of this judgment, we will be concentrating on the testimony of one of the eye witnesses Francis Fernandes (P.W. 11). According to him, both the deceased and this witness were returning towards Mandopa, when they found the accused standing there.They were coming on a bicycle which on account of the slope they were not riding but actually leading along with them.3. Some verbal exchanges were there between the two and t...
Tag this Judgment!Shaikh Mohamed Salim Karimullah and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR750; 1998CriLJ3170
ORDERS.S. Parkar, J. 1. The five appellants convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay under section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short) and sentenced to life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default in suffer R.I. for one month, and also convicted under sections 143, 144, 147 and 148 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year on each count with direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently, have filed this appeal challenging the order of convictions and sentences passed against them.2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows:The appellant-original accused No. 4 Ramesh Awala and the deceased Fakir Mohammed Sharif Khan Pathan @ Lala Pathan were on inimical terms due to dispute over a plot of land situated at Malad where the deceased had constructed a hut. The said plot of land was bearing Plot No. 33 and known as Colaba plot situate at Malvani, Malad. On 25th March, 1994 at about 4.45 p.m. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »