Mumbai Court February 1998 Judgments
National Radio and Electronics Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT59Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue for decision in this appeal is the includibility in the assessable value of data processing system manufactured by the appellant charges payable for the software supplied, charges paid by the customers for training of the persons and technical charges.2. Advocate for the appellant says that he does not wish to press the appeal with regard to the includibility of technical charges, and they may be included in the assessable value. He says that the software in all cases are application software and not operating software and that the charges payable for the software, and the charges payable for the training are not to be included in the assessable as held by the Supreme Court in PS7 Data Systems Ltd. v. CCE -1997 (89) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). He further contends that, in arriving at the value of the goods by including the technical charges, the duty payable on that portion of the value which the technical charges constitute should be deducted from the assessable value.3. The Depart...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sushilabai Dantye and Others Vs. Ganpat Kudtarkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)BomCR588
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:(1) Whether statutory tenancy under the Goa Rent Control Legislation is heritable or not? (2) Whether the amendment in 1978 of the definition of the word 'tenant' under the Goa legislation is prospective or retrospective? (3) Even if the amendment of the definition of 'tenant' is not retrospective, whether the appellants can still contend that the tenancy is heritable? (4) Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to grant a decree for eviction against the heirs of the tenant or whether the jurisdiction rests exclusively with the Rent Controller under the Rent Control Legislation?2. The undisputed facts which are relevant for the decision are that the respondent herein who is the owner in possession leased out the house in question to one Ramnath Mangesh Dantye, who was the husband of the appellant No. 1 and the lease deeds were registered from time to time and last such lease deed is d...
Tag this Judgment!The Beed District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Beed, Through Its Chief Of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Bom121; 1998(3)ALLMR351; 1998(3)BomCR79; 1998(2)MhLj455
ORDERA.D. Mane, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.This petition is filed by the District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Beed for issuance of writ of mandamus requiring respondent No. 3-Col!ector, Beed, to release four vehicles belonging to the petitioner Bank, which were taken charge of by the respondent No. 4 under the garb of Code of Conduct, which is made applicable for Parliamentary Elections.2. The petitioner submits that the Tahsildar, respondent No. 4 by his order dated nil but served on the petitioner on 2-1-1998 directed the petitioner-Bank to deposit with his office all the four vehicles since there is total ban on use of official vehicles of petitioner-Bank during the enforcement of Code of Conduct. Petitioner, accordingly deposited four vehicles with the office of respondent No. 4. On 6-1-1998, the petitioner-bank then applied to the Collector, respondent No. 3 for release of these vehicles for the reasons stated therein. Petitioner also made a request to State ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Namdeo G. Kalwale Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALLMR454; 1998(3)BomCR305
ORDERP.C.1. Heard both the learned Counsel; Mr. Dalvi for the petitioner and Mr. Parshurami, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.2. In view of the limited controversy raised before us, the matter was adjourned twice to enable Mr. Parshurami to obtain the instructions and, if necessary, to file an affidavit-in-reply. He has obtained the instructions, but no affidavit-in-reply has been filed.3. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith and heard Counsel.4. The petitioner, who was working as a Civil Surgeon at Akola was initially suspended under an order dated 28th July 1995 as a result of some allegations of financial irregularities in the matter of purchases of medicines. However, by order dated 11th January 1996 (Exh. A/pg. 13) the order of suspension was revoked by the State Government. There was no progress in the departmental inquiry and again on 7th August 1996 (Exh. C/pg. 15) a fresh order of suspension has been passed placing the petitioner under suspension. I...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Shantaram Fatu Prabhu Desai and Another Vs. Smt. Harsha Umesh Sar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR319; 1998(3)BomCR730; 1998(3)MhLj631
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. By the present revision application, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 18th March, 1997 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 127/95 in Special Civil Suit No. 57/89 whereby the trial Court has allowed the application filed by the respondents herein under Order IX, Rule 13 and thereby has set aside the ex parte decree passed against them in said Special Civil Suit No. 57/89.2. The facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the petitioners herein filed Special Civil Suit No. 57/89 on 1st December, 1989 against the respondents and three other persons for mandatory injunction. Since the service of the bailiff could not be effected on the respondents herein, the petitioners applied for substituted service by publication of summons in the newspaper and the same was allowed by the trial Court by Order dated 27th July, 1992. The summons was published in the daily, 'Gomantak Times', according...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ulhas Dattaram Narvekar Vs. the Mamlatdar of Taluka Pernem and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Bom215; 1998(3)ALLMR843; 1998(5)BomCR713
ORDERN.J. Pandya, J.1. Making the Guidelines (Exh. 'F' at page 24) to be the basis, the petitioner has a grievance that within the radius of 3 kms. a licence has been issued for running a Fair Price Shop. The petitioner himself is running two shops under licence and the direct impact of the impugned action is that some of the card holders would be affiliated with the new licensee.2. We have gone through the guidelines. We are not convinced that that can be made the basis for getting a writ issued in favour of the petitioner in the manner prayed for. In our opinion, the guidelines are for the purpose of regulating the distribution of licences in a proper manner so that the avowed purpose of the distribution system of making the food grains available to the needy people in the best possible manner is achieved.3. Obviously, therefore, the Guidelines could never be a basis for making the prayer that within the radius of 3 kms. no licence can be issued. In other words, the Guidelines do not...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Hanumant Jotiram Mane and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ667Bom
N.J. Pandya, J. 1. Both these matters are taken up forhearing and disposed of together by a commonorder. The incident took place in the ColabaDepot of the Petitioner Undertaking on thenight of June 13 & 14, 1993 (hereinafter it shallbe referred to as the 'Undertaking' or 'thepetitioner' as the case may be). RespondentNo. 1 in both the matters along with six othershad gone to the said Depot of the petitioner andentered the Depot premises with a specificpurpose of seeing that the buses could not movefrom the Colaba Depot and thereby bus servicesof Colaba Depot are disrupted. 2. The Security Staff and the Traffic Superintendent etc. had some inclination of the brewing trouble. On getting information, the staff was alerted. Mr. Semiyulla, who was, A.S.O. of the Colaba Depot, specifically visited the place of the Colaba Depot at about 1.30 a.m. One Hawaldar Mr. Narayan Singh conveyed to him the aforesaid information. The said A.S.O. already had this information and, therefore, the informati...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ashoka Textools
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1998
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT625Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue is common in both these appeals and they are disposed of by this order.2. Each of the respondent is a manufacturer of twisting machines. In 1987 each of the respondents filed declaration under Rule 57G (1) for the purpose of taking Modvat credit for the manufacture of these machines. Among the inputs declared was aluminium bobbins. Each of the declarations was acknowledged by the Assistant Collector. The assessee thereupon took credit of the duty paid on aluminium bobbins.Subsequently, the department came to the conclusion that aluminium bobbins were tools and therefore, excluded from being considered as inputs by virtue of Explanation to the porviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 11 A. Notices were issued in March and April, 1991 proposing recovery of the credit taken. Each of the assessees contested the proposal in the notice. It urged that the bobbins were imported along with the machine on the order of the customer and therefore, were not tools. It further urged that the not...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Chemical Valves P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT574Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The assessee, the respondent in this appeal manufactures plug valves for supply to Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd. as specially required by the latter. In calculating the assessable value for the price list in Part II filed by it, it did not include the interest of 30% of the advances taken from Gujarat State Fertilizers. The Assistant Collector, after issue of notice, held that although no interest was paid the amount of advance represented addition to the funds of the respondent, which, but for the advance it would have taken from banks and that therefore interest at 18% ought to be added to the assessable value of the goods. Commissioner (Appeals) to whom the assessee took the matter went in appeal applied the ratio of the Madras High Court's decision in Laxmi Machine Works Ltd. v. C.C.E. -1992 (57) E.L.T. 211 and the interest would not form part of the assessable value in absence to show the advance would include reduction in price. Hence this appeal.2. The Departmental Repr...
Tag this Judgment!Dhiren Chemicals Industries Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT112Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We have heard Shri J.C. Patel, the ld. Counsel for the applicants and Shri V.K. Puri, ld. SDR for the revenue.2. The application is for dispensing with the pre-deposit of Rs. 1,05,631/- demanded by the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Dvn. IV, Vadodara as confirmed in the impugned Order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The issue is whether emulsifiers produced by the out of organic surface active agents were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 101/66-C.E. when the surface active agents is produced within the factory and captively consumed under small scale industrial units exemption Notification No.175/86. We find that in this regard reliance placed by the ld. Counsel on the Tribunal's decision in their own case in its Final Order No.332/91-C dated 10-4-1991 prima facie, covers the issue in favour of the applicants. In this view of the matter, we dispense with the pre-deposit and grant stay....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »