Mumbai Court February 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.
Vadilal Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1998
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT513Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Appellants manufacture ice-cream falling under sub-heading 2105.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Ice-cream became dutiable from 20-3-1990. They had filed declaration for availing Modvat credit on inputs under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules on 29-3-1990. The Department found on a scrutiny on RT 12 monthly returns filed by the Appellants that the inputs on which the Appellants had taken Modvat credit had not been received in their factory but were stored in various godowns located outside the factory. They had also applied for transitional Modvat credit under Rule 57H in respect of inputs lying in stock in their godown prior to filing declaration. Two show cause notices were issued under Rule 57-1 for recovery of Modvat credit as well as transitional credit wrongly availed. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division IV, Ahmedabad considered their defense and dropped the demands for Rs. 4,35,233/- for transitional credit and for Rs. 5,24,554/- fo...
Jyoti Refinery Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT571Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Brief facts of this case is that the Appellants are engaged in refining precious metals and also manufacture chemicals made from precious metals as well as wire strips and plates all of which, during the relevant period fall under Tariff Item 68. By the impugned order captioned above the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I held that the Appellants employing more than 9 workers and therefore was liable to be treated as a factory under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948 and were disentitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification 46/81, dated 01-03-1981. The Commissioner also rejected the Appellant's contention that they employed only 6 workers and held that certain persons employed by the two other concerns were the workers of the Appellant. The Commissioner directed the Assistant Commissioner to re-compute the Appellant's duty liability for the period 1-2-1985 to 31-7-1985 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the Appellant. He ordered confiscation of the goods ...
S.T. Bhingardive Vs. Punamchand Kashyalal Agarwal and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1998
Reported in: II(1998)ACC657; 2000ACJ562; 1998(3)ALLMR599; 1998(3)BomCR690; [1999(81)FLR550]
ORDERA.D. Mane, J.1. Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith.2. This petition arises out of the following set of circumstances :-The respondent Nos. 2 to 5 filed Workmen's Compensation Case No. 59/94 against the respondent No. 1 claiming compensation under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. The petitioner who is a practising Advocate, was representing the claimants before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. It appears that the petitioner filed a compromise-cum-settlement before the Commissioner o( Workmen's Compensation, on behalf of the claimants, but the learned Commissioner found that compromise was not permissible as the offer was below the permissible limit. The case, therefore, proceeded on merit and while disposing of the case, the learned Commissioner made following observations against the petitioner :---'... right from 17-8-1996 till 5-4-1997 so also on 28-5-1997, both partiesremained absent; along with their advocates on record. .....This is nothing but chea...
State of Goa Through Deputy Collector and Another Vs. Shri Naguesh Ray ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)BomCR724
ORDERN.J. Pandya, J.1. The State has come in appeal against the decision of the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 268 of 1991 given on 18-4-1994 whereby the learned Judge had increased the price by Rs. 15/- per square metre of the acquired area as against the rate offered by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs. 5/ - per square metre. The learned Reference Judge was pleased to fix the market price at Rs. 20/- per square metre.2. The land in question is situated in the interior of Taluka Canacona and it admeasures 9025 square meters. The property was to be acquired for Forest Staff appointed at Poinguinim. The notification for the purpose under section 4 dated 9-2-1988 was published in the Official Gazette on 18-2-1988. The price has to be determined, therefore, with reference to the aforesaid date.3. The learned Reference Court Judge for this purpose has relied upon one of the Sale Deeds which were produced by the applicant, but that too, is not available to the original claim...
Madhav Narayan Mujumdar and Others Vs. Southern Knitting Works Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR194; 1998(4)BomCR153
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this civil revision application, the petitioners challenge the order dated 16-9-1997 passed by the Appellate Court in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 240/ 97. That appeal was also filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 19-6-1997 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune below Exh. 5 in Civil Suit No. 379/97. The Civil Suit No. 379/97 was filed by the respondent No. 1. In that suit the respondent No. 1 - original plaintiff had claimed a declaration that the plaintiff is a tenant of the suit property. A permanent injunction was also sought, restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 5, namely, the present petitioners from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property. The suit property was described as Survey No. 707/final plot No. 411, admeasuring about 12 acres. A temporary injunction in the same terms namely restraining the present petitioners from disturbing the possession of the suit property of the plaintiff was also sought. It appears that the tr...
Vasant @ Mankya Bangade Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR595; 1998(5)BomCR511
ORDERA.B. Palkar, J.1. Smt. Bodade, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the State. Therefore, the application is heard on merits.2. Heard Shri Mirza, Advocate for the applicant and Smt. I. Bodade, A.P.P. for the State. This application under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, is filed in view of the fact that the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur had already passed an order of bail on an application moved by the applicant under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on 7-1-1997. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had also put certain conditions in consequence of release on bail of the applicants. However, it appears that the applicants could not procure any surety and surety bonds were not executed as per the said order. In the meantime, charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions Court.3. After the committal of the case to the Sessions Court when the applicants approached the learned Sessions Judge for fur...
Smt. Sugandha Manik Kane and ors. Vs. the Conservator of Forests with ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR377
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. A short question that arises in the present petition for determination is whether on promulgation of survey, the inquiry under Section 14 (3) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') in respect of a land in such village, town or city is barred2. The facts which are relevant for the decision in the matter are that the Range Forest Officer of Canacona, sometimes in April, 1981 brought to the notice of the respondent No. 3 herein that though the department of forest is in possession of the land surveyed under No. 43 of Maulinge of Cotigao Village of Canacona Taluka, which covers huge part of forest land, the same is shown in the survey records in the name of Boruskar family of Borus Loliem and, therefore, the inquiry under Section 14(3) of the Code was necessary. Pursuant to the said application, notice under Section 14 (3) of the Code was issued, to which the petitioners herein objected to by filing their wri...
Sambhaji D. Hendre and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2117
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.2. Rule made returnable forthwith.3. The Petitioners approach this Court for quashing criminal proceedings initiated by the Respondent No. 2 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadgaon, Maval, District: Pune in R. C. C. No. 145/1997. The allegation before the Magistrate was that the sale-deed came to be executed in respect of the land belonging to the 2nd Respondent in favour of the 1st Petitioner. The allegation is that he played fraud by misleading the 1st Respondent, owner of the land who got executed sale deed by means of fraud. Therefore, the Petitioner was implicated under Sections 416, 420, 423, 464, 468 etc. IPC. The learned Magistrate examined the complainant and took cognizance of the case.3-A. According to me, in the light of the allegations, it is only a matter of civil dispute. Moreover, the execution of the sale deed cannot be done between the parties without the aid of the official machi...
Blue Star Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1998
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT143Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Application has been filed for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 10.90 lacs and payment of penalty of Rs. 10.00 lacs.2. The facts lie in a narrow complex. The appellant is manufacturing parts of air-conditioners falling under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It cleared the same as intermediate product for captive consumption without payment of duty under Notification 217/86. For the period from 24-8-1987 to 9-7-1991 the final products manufactured by them were cleared without payment of duty by availing of various notifications. It is the case of the Department that when the intermediate products are not applicable for exemption contemplated under Notification 217/86, if the final products are exempted from payment of duty. A show cause notice was issued by the Department on 3-9-1992 charging the applicant for suppression from the Department that intermediate products for which exemption Notification 217/86 had been claimed were meant for final products to be c...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kirloskar Tractors Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1998
Reported in: [1998]231ITR849(Bom)
B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following three questions of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the liability to pay the entire amount of DM 1,40 millions did not arise on the execution of the agreement and that it arose only in the account period?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the liability for the payment of technical know-how fees accrued at the stated intervals as per Clause (i) of the agreement and arose only when the permission of the Reserve Bank of India was received? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the payment made by the assessee-company to Deutz in consideration for the use of the know-how...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »