Mumbai Court January 1998 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.
Star Industrial and Textile Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)(75)LC285Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 25.87 lakhs approximately and penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs along with the interest at 20% per annum passed by the adjudicating authority by his order dated 3/21.4.1997. The period involved is 31.1.1988 to 23.7.1991. A show cause notice was issued on 1.9.1993 calling upon the appellants to pay duty on the bought out items and components manufactured by them. It is contended by the learned Advocate for the appellant that by their letter dated 1st November, 1988 they had informed the department about the nature of the transactions, in that on all items manufactured by them,, bought out items in assembled conditions and bought out items supplied loosely which they had not carried out any manufacturing/assembling activity in their premises.They also specifically stated that they have discontinued payment of excise duty on such bought out items. They also specifically stated that they have discontinued taking modvat cre...
Vickers Systems International Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)(75)LC287Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellant is absent. Appellant was represented before us on the last occasion, namely, 27.11.1997, when we adjourned the appeal to today at the request of the appellant's representative. We have heard Shri K.Srivastava, SDR.2. Under Order-in-Original dated 18.10.1989, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand of Rs. 31,500. Appellant challenged this order before the Collector (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal without notice on the ground that the appellant had not deposited the amount of duty demanded nor filed an application for stay. This order is now challenged. A copy of the PLA has been produced before us which shows that on 1.8.1990 appellant had debited Rs. 31,500 pursuant to the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Collector. Appeal was filed before the Collector (Appeals) in April 1990 long prior to the PLA debit. It is possible that the appellant did not bring to the notice of the Collector (Appeals) the fact of subsequent debit. Nevertheless, the Collector (Appe...
Cce Vs. Aarti Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)(75)LC811Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The only dispute in the appeal relates to the applicability of Notification No. 119/75. The respondent, engaged in the manufacture of tooth brushes, uses raw materials supplied by customers. The Supreme Court in Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd., has held that in such circumstances the job worker would be entitled to the benefit of the notification. That the benefit was not claimed in the classification list cannot be a ground to disallow the benefit at a later stage. The appeal of the Department against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) granting benefit of the notification to the respondent is not sustainable. The appeal is dismissed....
Ronuk Dyes and Chemicals Vs. Collr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT695Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants, a small scale industrial unit, 1 submitted classification list on 6-6-1990 for clearance of iron drums under Heading 73.10 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, for being captively consumed in packing S.O. Dyes under Notification 175/86. They availed or Modvat credit under Notification 175/86 read with Rule 57B of Central Excise Rules. By an order dated 27-3-1991 the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division IV, Ahmedabad held that the appellants are ineligible for the higher notional credit since the drums had not been received from outside the factory from another SSI unit. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad rejected the appeal against the Asstt. Commissioner's order.2. The appellants have requested for decision on merits. They have urged that the lower authorities have erred in holding that higher notional credit is available only for input material received from another SSI unit and not for input manufactured and captive...
Cce Vs. Hickson and Dadajee Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)(75)LC812Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Respondent, manufacturing two varieties of Dyes and selling the same to wholesalers and on contract to industrial consumers, filed price list in Part-I declaring the price as Rs. 175.00 per kg. and Rs. 220.00 per kg. and price list in Part-II declaring the price as Rs. 117.50 per kg. and Rs. 135.00 per kg. for supply of 1000 kgs. to industrial consumer. The Assistant Collector approved the price list directing that Part-I price list will govern the contract covered by Part-II price list. Collector (Appeals) set aside this order and held that the contract will govern prices in price list in Part-II which were less than the declared Part-I price. This order is now challenged by the Department.2. The industrial consumer buying huge quantities of Dyes is a separate class of buyer, distinct from the wholesale buyers in respect of whom Part-I price list was filed. Therefore, it would be contrary to law to assess the goods contracted to be sold at the same price as the price shown in Part...
Cce Vs. Brown Box
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)(75)LC280Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing, but has sent a request for adjournment. We find no ground for adjournment. We have heard Shri K. Srivastava, SDR and perused the papers.2. Respondent, as job worker was receiving raw materials from customers manufacturing corrugated boxes, supplying the same to the customers and paying duty on the job charges under Notification No. 119/75. The Assistant Collector denied the benefit of the notification on the ground that the product delivered to the buyer was different from the raw materials from the buyer and the benefit of the notification was not claimed in the classification list. The Supreme Court has held that in such cases the job worker would be entitled to the benefit of the notification See Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. .The omission to claim the benefit in the classification list cannot stand in the way of the respondent claiming benefit at a later stage.There is no ground to interfere. The appeal is dismissed....
Mrs. Dhanika Jaggi Vs. Competent Authority
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)233ITR26(Mum.)
1. The appellant is the wife of Iqbal Singh Avtar Singh Jaggi who was detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA), on November 30, 1976, under an order of detention dated November 27, 1976, of the Government of Maharashtra.2. The Competent Authority, Mumbai, issued a notice under section 6 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1.976 (SAFEMA), dated March 30, 1989, to the appellant to show cause as to why three properties mentioned in the said notice should not be forfeited under section 7 as the provisions of section 2(2)(c) read with Explanation 2(i) of the SAFEMA are applicable to the appellant. In reply to the show-cause notice, the appellant took the stand that the provisions of the SAFEMA are not applicable to her and that the properties are not liable to be forfeited as they are not illegally acquired properties of her husband and there was no nexus with the illegal mon...
Charuvil Koshy Varghese Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR692; 1998(2)BomCR387; 1998(2)MhLj177
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The appellant was entrusted the work of Rural Water Supply Scheme to Village Deussua and surrounding areas in Salcete Taluka by the respondent. Certain disputes arose and the appellant filed his claim before the Executive Engineer, calling upon him to settle and pay the amount claimed. The claim was not settled and the appellant, by letter dated 4-11-85 called upon the Chief Engineer to appoint Arbitrator, but Arbitrator was not appointed. Accordingly, the appellant filed arbitration suit before the District Judge, South Goa, praying that the agreement entered into between the parties be filed and requested the Court to make reference of the disputed claim contained in letter dated 16-10-85 to the Arbitrator. The learned District Judge allowed the suit and directed the Chief Engineer, P.W.D., Goa, to appoint an Arbitrator to settle the disputes existing between the parties. The Chief Engineer was required to appoint Arbitrator in terms of the Court Order. However,...
Ulhasnagar Municipal Council Vs. Shri Arjun Kungooram Balani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR99; 1998(2)BomCR358; 1998(3)MhLj49
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. A cryptic order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ulhasnagar is the subject matter of the present Civil Revision Application. It is expected of the Judicial Officers to give reasonably detailed orders to enable the Appellate Court to appreciate the legality and validity of their orders and to examine how they have applied their mind to the facts and law before them.2. The petitioner, the Ulhasnagar Municipal Council (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Council) has challenged the aforesaid order dated 31-1-1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ulhasnagar on an application filed by the Municipal Council before the learned Judge requesting him to decide as preliminary issues which were framed at Serial Numbers 5 and 6 i.e. Issue No. 5 whether the suit is barred by jurisdiction? and Issue No. 6 whether the suit is maintainable or not in the light of sections 169, 170(b) and 172 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965? It is curi...
Keshav Raghunath Deshpande and Others Vs. Dattatraya Anant Ravetkar (D ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR590; 1998(5)BomCR263; (1998)2BOMLR34
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order passed by the IInd Extra Joint District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 305 of 1985. That appeal was filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment and decree dated 30-7-1984 passed by the Addl. Judge Small Causes Court, Pune in Civil Suit No. 322 of 1980. That civil suit was filed by the predecessor-in-title of the respondent by name Dattatraya Anant Ravetkar, claiming therein that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises, which consists of two rooms on the first floor of the building owned by the plaintiff landlords, which is being occupied by the defendants as tenants. The landlord sought decree of eviction against the tenant on several grounds including the ground that the tenant has acquired suitable residence and that the landlord needs the suit premises for their bona fide occupation. The trial Court recorded findings in favour of the land...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »