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.
Amitech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: (1998)(77)LC60Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice, but has sent a request for decision of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR, and perused the papers.2. Appellant manufactured and cleared five knotting machines and spare parts, etc. during the period from August, 1989 to January, 1990 on payment of appropriate duty on approved prices. Show cause notice was issued stating that the appellant had collected the entire price in advance from all the customers and notional interest at 12% per annum should be included in the assessable value. Accordingly, show cause notice proposed demand of differential duty. Though the appellant resisted the notice, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand and his order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal.3. At page 2 of the order-in-original, we find an illustrative case.The total value was Rs. 5,57,825.00. The machine was supplied on 2.8.1989. The price was received in three instalments, namely Rs. 25,000....
Janak Manufacturing Works Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: (1998)(77)LC63Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice, but has sent a request for decision of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri M. Ali, the Learned JDR and perused the papers.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Steel Furniture filed a price list dt. 1.3.1979 claiming abatement on account of dealers discount, freight, and secondary packing charges. Assistant Collector found the deductions inadmissible. Collector (Appeals) allowed deduction of the freight element and disallowed deduction of discount and packing charges. This part of the order is now challenged.3. The Additional Collector rejected the claim for deduction of discount on the ground that dealers discount was incentive for promotional sale. We are unable to understand on what basis the Additional Collector formed this view. If it is a discount available to all dealers and known at the time of clearance, deduction should have been allowed. On the question of secondary packing the lower authorities did not indicate whether ...
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Osprey Underwriting Agencies ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR713; 1998(5)BomCR344; (1998)2BOMLR179
ORDERM.S. Rane, J.1. The suit herein has been filed in somewhat peculiar circumstances as will be indicated herein below.2. The plaintiff herein is a statutory body constituted under the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 and subsequently incorporated in 1994, under the Companies Act, 1956, as ONGC Limited. The 1st defendant is a foreign underwrite concern organized under the laws of United Kingdom and have undertaken the risk of Protection and Indemnity (P & I) in respect of the 3rd defendant-vessel which is Motor-vessel registered in India and owned by the plaintiffs. The 2nd defendants are the agents of the 1st defendant. The 4th defendant is a company who were entrusted with the work of salvage of the 3rd defendant vessel after it capsized in July, 1995 and the 5th defendant is the Port Trust. (For the brevity's sake hereinafter the plaintiffs are referred to as 'ONGC', the 1st defendant as 'Osprey', the 2nd defendant as 'Allied Marine', the 3rd defendant as 'the said vessel'...
Aryl Pharmaceuticals Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)(76)LC400Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of PP Medicines and availing benefit of exemption Notification No. 245/83, filed certain price lists in regard to physician's samples declaring the prices as the sum total of the cost of manufacture and margin of profit. The Assistant Collector approved the price lists. The Department challenged the same before the Collector (Appeals) who directed that physician's samples should be valued on the basis of prices of comparable goods and where packing is different, on pro rata basis. This order is now challenged by the the appellant.2. The physician's samples are of those medicines which are also manufactured and sold by the appellant. The direction of the Collector (Appeals) is to value the physician's samples at par with the value of the medicines being cleared by the appellant for sale. We find no error in law in the view taken by the Collector (Appeals) and accordingly dismiss the appeal....
Nagesh Hosiery Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)(77)LC353Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Nagesh Hosiery Exports (Pvt.) Ltd. had imported one second-hand machinery which they described as Loop Drier for Tubular Knitted Fabrics. The importers claimed that the import was covered by the Open General Licence Entry SI. No. 94 of the Appendix-I Part-B of Vol. 1 of the Import and Export Policy April, 1985 to March, 1988. SI. No. 94 of the Appendix-I covered the following: The Customs Department was of the view that the goods imported were not covered by the OGL Entry. The matter was adjudicated by the Dy.Collector of Customs, who imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/-.This order was confirmed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals).2. We have heard Shri T.R. Tondon, Consultant for the appellants and Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR, who is present for the respondents/Revenue.3. We have carefully considered the matter. We find that in their communication dated 11.4.1986 (at page 37 of the paper book), M/s Nagesh Hosiery Exports Pvt. Ltd. had written to the Assistant Collector of Cus...
R.K. Brothers Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)(77)LC69Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants, M/s. R.K. Brothers. On 17.3.1998, the case was adjourned for today i.e.23rd March, 1998, in presence of Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate. On that date, the Bench directed the counsel of the appellants to submit proof in respect of compliance to Stay Order No. C/71/95-B2, dated 28.9.1995.2. The Tribunal vide Stay Order No. C/71/95-B2, dated 28.9.1995 directed the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. On 28.12.1995, the appellants submitted an application stating therein that they have deposited a sum of Rs. 1 lakh against the Stay Order. In the application, the appellants also submitted that they are moving an application for waiver of deposit of the balance amount. From the record, we find that the appellants have not filed any such application nor they have deposited the balance amount as directed by the Tribunal in the Stay Order dated 28.9.1995.3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for non-appearance under Rule ...
Shabbir Khan and Others Vs. Krishna Babusso Naik and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)BomCR877
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The respondents No. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred as plaintiffs) had filed a suit against the appellants (hereinafter referred as defendants No. 14 to 17) and against the present respondents No. 3 to 15 (hereinafter referred as defendants No. 1 to 13) for declaration that the only access of the plaintiffs to the public road is through Plot No. 5 (which is surveyed under No. 110 sub-division 4) of property Gorbatta and which further passes through property Ubodando and property Oilem Morod in the part which belongs to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs seek right of preference and pre-emption in respect of the said Plot No. 5, Surveyed under No. 110/4 on payment of the price of Rs. 40,000/- which is paid by defendants No. 14 to 17 due to purchase of the said Plot No. 5 from defendants No. 1 to 13.2. The plaintiffs' case, in brief, is that the property 'Gorbatta' was divided by Deed dated 25-4-1916 into 5 plots and plots No. 1 to 4 belonged to the plaintiffs out of Surv...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Gulam Rasool Dawood Malvi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR384
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent of the learned Counsel for respondents Nos. 1, 3, and 4. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 is absent. Counsel for the respondents waive service.2. By this Application, the State of Maharashtra has impugned the Order dated 20th November, 1996, passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazgaon, Bombay, in Case No. 95/P/96 allowing the application preferred by the respondents praying therein that the case may not be committed tothe Court of Sessions as no offence under section 307 I.P.C. is made out.3. I have heard Mr. I.S. Thakur lor the State of Maharashtra and Mr. A.P. Mundargi for Respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Mr. Gulam Rasool, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 is absent.4. The impugned order is founded on the premise that although the injuries to the victim were caused by lethal weapons, like chopper and knife, but inasmuch as they were inflicted on non-vital parts of his b...
The State of Bihar and Others Vs. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR236; 1998(3)BomCR495; [1999]97CompCas528(Bom)
ORDERA.Y. Sakhare, J.1. This appeal is filed by the original defendant Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in Suit No. 3295 of 1992, challenging the order dated 9th February 1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in Notice of Motion No. 2475 of 1992. By the impugned order the learned Single Judge has restrained the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 viz., the State Bank of India, State Bank of Patiala and Indian Bank from making the payment, under the bank guarantees and the defendant Nos. 4 to 6 viz., State of Bihar, Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer, are restrained from invoking the bank guarantees.2. On 25th April 1989, the plaintiffs were awarded a contract for construction of Icha dam across river Khadkai at village Kuju, Bihar for an amount of Rs. 39,71,31,019. The duration of the contract was for a period ot 42 months, i.e. upto 24th April 1992. Clause 5 of the said contract provides for obligation on the part of the plaintiffs to furnish bank guarantee for 10% of the contract price as performance...
The Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Doodh Mahasangh Ltd. Vs. Messrs. Ideal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALLMR536; 1998(3)BomCR670; (1998)2BOMLR344
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J. 1. The plaintiffs-Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Doodh Mahasangh Limited are a Co-operative Society duly registered in the year 1967 under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The plaintiffs are engaged in procuring, pasteurizing and homogenizing cow milk in the State of Maharashtra and distribution thereof in Greater Bombay, Navi Mumbai and other adjoining areas. In the year 1983 they commenced their pasteurizing plant at Goregaon (E), Mumbai. In the said plant there is facility of pasteurizing as well as homogenizing cow mifk. The plaintiffs are processing 7 lac liters of cow milk per day in their said plant and the same is sold after packing in half and one litre polythene pouches. The cow milk is sold by the plaintiffs under the trade name 'MAHANAND COW MILK (HOMOGENISED AND PASTEURISED). The polythene pouches of the plaintiffs have on one side the logo printed alongwith the trade name in green ink. The trade name appears both in English as well as Mara...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »