Mumbai Court March 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.
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Abhideep Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT105Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The manufacturer, the respondent in this appeal, manufactured bon acid. It took credit of the duty paid on beta naphthol, an input in the manufacture of bon acid. The Department objected recovery of part of the credit taken on the ground that the manufacturer of beta naphthol had discharged the portion of duty payable on it by adjustment of the duty paid on naphthalene which is used in the manufacture of bon acid in accordance with the provisions of Notification 432/86 on the ground that Notification 432/86 was one which exempted duty payable on beta naphthol to the extent of duty paid on the naphthalene used in its manufacture. Notice was issued proposing to recover that portion of the credit taken which represented the duty paid on the naphthalene shown as "set-off" in the gate pass issued for beta naphthol. After considering the contentions of the assessee, and hearing it, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand. In appeal, the Collector (Appeals) took the view that this wa...
Cc Vs. Universal Cables
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)(76)LC27Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the interpretation of law relating to unjust enrichment in a case where the goods imported were not to be sold at all and were consumed captively.The Respondents M/s. Universal Cables Ltd. imported 'Accessories to the Impulse Generator', paid duty as demanded and subsequently claimed the refund of Rs. 24082.13. The Asstt. Collector, Customs, Bombay was satisfied that the amount was refundable. He however, ordered that the said amount should be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. On appeal, the Collector, Customs (Appeals) relying upon a number of decision as cited in para 4 of his order came to the conclusion that the principles of undue enrichment shall not apply to the facts of the case.2. The Revenue in their appeal had contended that the Revenue had filed an appeal against the order of the Bombay High Court in the case of Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI .3. We have heard Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR for the Revenue and Sh...
Ashok Kondiba Yenpure and Another Vs. the State of Election Commission ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALLMR281; 1998(3)BomCR583
ORDERDr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. The question that falls for determination in this writ petition is whether a Councillor of Municipal Corporation who is elected to a reserved seat is eligible to contest the election for the office of Mayor when it falls in the general category. In other words, the controversy is whether all the members of the Corporation, whether elected on reserved seat or general seat, are eligible for election to the office of Mayor when it falls in a general category.2. The petitioner, Ashok Kondiba Yenpure, is a Councillor of the Pune Municipal Corporation. He was elected to that post from a ward which was unreserved/open category ward. In the year 1997, the office of Mayor of the Pune Municipal Corporation was unreserved. The petitioner submitted his nomination paper for election to the said office of Mayor of Pune for the year 1997. The respondent No. 5 Mrs. Vandana Chavan, who was elected as a Councillor from a ward reserved for woman candidates, also filed her nomina...
Gafoor Ali HusseIn and Others Vs. Ram Mahadik and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR752; 1998(5)BomCR685; (1999)3BOMLR468
ORDERD.K.Trivedi, J. 1. Heard the respective Counsel for the parties. The applicants original defendants have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay dated 24-12-1997 passed in Suit No. 3399 of 1983 filed by the respondents plaintiffs and the First Appeal is admitted as per order dated 16-2-1998. 2. In this application the petitioners have prayed for order of injunction restraining the opponents, their agents from disturbing or interfering in any manner in respect of the use and occupation of the applicants in respect of the suit shed. In view of the decree the applicants-defendants are directed to hand over possession of the suit premises in favour of the plaintiffs. 3. The Trustees of the Nagarik Sahayya Kendra, a registered Public Trust have instituted a suit in the month of April, 1983 against the applicants defendants and sought for possession of the suit premises on the ground that the applicants defendants have trespassed over the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharat Radiators P. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR608(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 question of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses-see is entitled to investment allowance in respect of patterns and dies of the value of Rs. 63,710 and electric installations of the value of Rs. 1,30,226 under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. This reference pertains to the assessment year 1979-80. The assessee is a company carrying on the business of manufacture of radiators. In its return of income under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), for the assessment year 1979-80, the relevant previous year being the year ended on March 31, 1979, the assessee claimed investment allowance, inter alia, in respect of patterns and dies of the value of Rs. 63,710 and electrical installations of the value of Rs. 1,30,226. The Income-tax Officer d...
Balkrishna Pandurang Moghe Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4496
A.V. Savant, J.1. Heard all the learned Counsel; Shri Deshpande for the petitioner-original accused, Shri Thakur, Asstt. Public Prosecutor for the State of Maharashtra and Shri R.M. Agrawal for the Union of India and the learned Attorney-General.2. This is a Revision against the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 1986, decided on 21 st June 1987 under which, he confirmed the Judgment and Order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 3, Pune, on 13th February 1986 in Regular Criminal Case No. 319 of 1984. Under the impugned Judgments, the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 18 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six weeks. This Revision was admitted on 23rd June 1987. By an order dated 3...
Balkrishna Pandurang Moghe Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: II(1998)DMC569
A.V. Savant, J.1. Heard all the learned Counsel; Mr. Deshpande for the petitioner-original accused, Mr. Thakur, Asstt. Public Prosecutor for the State of Maharashtra and Mr. R.M. Agrawal for the Union of India and the learned Attorney-General.2. This is a Revision against the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 1986, decided on 21st June, 1987 under which, he confirmed the Judgment and Order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 3, Pune, on 13th February, 1986 in Regular Criminal Case No. 319 of 1984. Under the impugned Judgments, the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 18 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six weeks. This Revision was admitted on 23rd June, 1987. By an order dated 30...
Cc Vs. Kirloskar Cummins Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: (1998)(76)LC32Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue for our consideration is whether the imported internal combustion engine parts were classifiable for the purposes of counter-vailing duty under Item No.34A of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff or were classifiable under Item No. 68 of the said Tariff. At the time of the import, the countervailing duty was charged as applicable to the motor vehicle parts under Item No. 34A of the Tariff. Subsequently, the importers claimed re-assessment on the ground that the goods imported were parts of diesel engine and not of motor vehicles and that the correct classification for countervailing duty purposes was Item No. 68. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) under his order dated 12.2.1986 observed that the imported parts were to be used in diesel engines, which were to be used in non-vehicular type of industrial engines. The importers were engaged in the manufacturer of bull-dozers, cranes, oil drilling rigs, marine compressors, etc. These goods ...
Cc Vs. Elder Pharmaceutical
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: (1998)(76)LC29Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 28.5.1993 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. None appeared on behalf of the respondents, M/s Elder Pharmaceutical, Bombay in spite of service of notice dated 2.2.1998 to the respondents. Therefore, we are going to decide the matter in the absence of the respondents.3. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the "Health Air Concentrator' and Intermittent positive pressure apparatus cannot be treated as "Consumer Goods or Consumer Durables" from Import Licensing angle.5. The adjudicating authority in the adjudication order held that the goods in question are the consumer items, therefore, require specific licence for clearance.6. The Health Air Concentrator and Intermittent positive pressure apparatus are used only on medical advice and are not ordinary equipment used for domestic usage. It is not disputed by the Revenue that these goods are only used on medical advice.7. T...
Cc Vs. Hyderabad Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: (1998)(76)LC30Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) is under challenge. The matter relates to the refund in respect of spare parts for generators imported by M/s.Hyderabad Industries Ltd. and used captively by them. The Asstt.Collector of Customs Refund Department had held that the amount of Rs. 11,750/- have become refundable under Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. He however, ordered that the amount of refund was to be credited to Consumer Welfare Fund. On appeal, following the Bombay High Court's decision in the case of Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. and the Tribunal's decision in the case of Vardhman Spinning and General Mills , the Collector held that the question of undue enrichment within the meaning of Section 27 did not arise in that case.2. The Revenue had contended in this appeal that the order of the Bombay High Court in the case of Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI had not been accepted by the Department and a SLP had been file...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »