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.
Cc Vs. Gold Craft Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1998
Reported in: (1998)(76)LC3Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-original passed by the Collector, Customs, Bombay. In the impugned order, the Collector held that in the Notification No. 159/86-Cus. as amended by Notification No. 99/87-Cus. dated 1.3.1987, which provides concessional rate of duty, require the importer to use the machines for export production failing which the importer was required to pay differential duty. In this Notification there was no condition which prohibits the importer and the use of these machines for the production of the items for home consumption.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents made import of 14 chain making machines and 30 kgs. soldering powder in the year 1987 and 1988. The machines were assessed to customs duty after giving the benefit of Notification No. 159/86-Cus. as amended vide Notification No. 99/87-Cus. dated 1.3.1987. The respondents sold the jewellery manufactured on these machines on retail and wholesale basis in the local marke...
Kopran Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1998
Reported in: (1998)(79)LC705Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the order dated 10.7.1997 had disallowed the deduction on account of packaging charges, interest on stocks and godown expenses. The appellants in this case are manufacturing patent and proprietary medicines and clearing the same packed in wooden box. The entire sale is effected from their depots.Ms. Reena Kher appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the patent medicine is sold, packed in strips form and the packing in large corrugated boxes is effected only for safe transport. She relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lucky Biscuit Company v. CCE, Patna in which the Supreme Court held that the cost of wooden cases used to protect the goods in transit is excludible from the assessable value of the goods. As far as the other two deductions are concerned, she fairly conceded that both are covered by the Supreme Court decision in MRF case reported in 1995 (75) ELT 433 (SC) : 1995 (58) ECR 385 (SC).2. Countering the argume...
M/S. Garage Kamat Vs. Regional Director Employees State Insurance Cour ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1998
Reported in: I(1999)ACC199; 1998(4)ALLMR681; 1998(3)BomCR861; (1999)ILLJ55Bom; 1998(2)MhLj574
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the Order dated 27th November 1990 passed by the Employees Insurance Court at Panaji, hereinafter referred to as 'E.S.I. Court'. It appears that this Court did not formulate any substantial questions of law at the time of admission of this Appeal. Moreover, in terms of section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, hereinafter called as 'the said Act' an appeal can lie from on order of E.S.I. Court only if it involves substantial questions of law and not otherwise. No doubt paragraph 1 of the Memo of Appeal itself enumerated certain questions stated to be substantial questions of law. However, the point is whether all those questions can be said to be substantial questions of law? Moreover, Shri N. Sardessai, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, has fairly admitted that the appellant wants to restrict the challenge to the impugned order only to the four grounds, which, according to the learned advocate, g...
Shri Gajanan Pandurang Shet Parkar and Others Vs. L.D. Authorised Pers ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR356; 1998(3)BomCR850; 1998(2)MhLj483
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The basic point which is raised for consideration in all these three petitions is that whether failure on the part of the members of the Managing Committee of the Co-operative Society in performing their duties as prescribed by the provisions of certain Bye-laws of the Society would amount to misfeasance under section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 as applicable to the State of Goa. Simultaneously yet another question is sought to be raised herein is whether the decision in a disputed case under section 91 of the said Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act as applicable to Goa at the instance of the management of the Society would bar the jurisdiction of the Registrar to proceed under section 88 of the said Act against the Managing Committee of the Society or its members. Since common questions of law are sought to be raised in all these three petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of together by this common judgm...
Mahendra A. Dadia and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR115; 1999(5)BomCR124; 1999BomCR(Cri)124; 1999CriLJ4361
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. This order will dispose of Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 645 of 1998 in Case No. 1060/S/97, 646 of 1998 in Case No. 1061/S/97, 647 of 1998 in Case No. 1063/ S/97, 648 of 1998 in Case No. 1064/S/97, 651 of 1998 in Case No. 1062/S/97, 3690 of 1997 in Case No. 1056/S/97, 3691 of 1997 in Case No. 1054/S/97 and 3692 of 1997 in Case No. 1057/S/97 and Criminal Application No. 624 of 1998 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3690 of 1997 and 3691 of 1997 and Criminal Application No. 694 of 1998 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3692 of 1997. The prayer made in the writ petitions under section 482 of the Cr. P.C. is that proceedings in respect of the aforesaid cases pending in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate's 20th Court at Mazgaon, Mumbai be quashed and set aside. The petitioners are sought to be prosecuted in the aforesaid cases for an alleged offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act'), as amended. All the petitioners are accus...
Bedrock Ltd. (In the Matter of Scheme of Compromise/Arrangement Betwee ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR729; 1998(4)BomCR710; (1998)2BOMLR5; [2000]101CompCas343(Bom)
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. The petitioner under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 has been filed for the sanction of a scheme of compromise/arrangement, hereinafter referred to as 'the 1996 agreement.' This compromise agreement has been arrived at between the petitioner and its preferential and unsecured creditors whereby the petitioner shall sell on 'as is where is' and on 'as is what is' basis, its immoveable property comprising of land and building situate at B-2 Laxmi Industrial Estate, Goregaon, Bombay-400 090 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Goregaon Property') in such a manner to ensure that the entire sale proceeds are received within one year from the date of agreement of sale and pay firstly to the preferential creditors and secondly to the unsecured creditors of the petitioner, in final satisfaction of all claims, the principal amounts due to them as on 31st March, 1996 as per the audited accounts of the petitioner company.2. The petitioner is a company incorporate...
Jagat Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR692; (1998)1BOMLR203
ORDERA.P. Shah, J.1. The petitioner had joined Indian Signal Corps Jabalpur as a Signal Man on 19th September, 1941. He participated in mutiny that was directed against the British Rule. He was tried under section 27(1)(a) and (b) of the Army Actin April, 1946. He was found guilty under section 27(1)(a) of the Army Act and was sentenced to suffer two years rigorous imprisonment under order dated 1st June, 1946. He was also dismissed from service. Pursuant to the order of conviction, the petitioner was detained in Central Jail, Jabalpur on 30th June, 1946, where he remained till September, 1947. The petitioner was awarded Tamra Patra on 15th August, 1972 for rendering contribution to the freedom struggle.2. On 3rd August, 1972, the petitioner made an application to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, for grant of pension admissible for freedom fighters. During the pendency of the application the Central Government introduced a new scheme of grant for...
Echjay Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT466Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant filed a bill of entry for clearance of goods described as Model YB-9332-C, gear tooth chamfering machine complete with standard equipments. Clearance was claimed in terms of entry serial No.3 (i) 60 of Appendix-1 Part B of Import & Export Policy 1990-93. This appendix permitted import of goods to actual users under Open General Licence (OGL). The benefit of entry No. (i) 36 of Notification No.154/86-Cus., was also claimed. The Custom House on examination of the goods was of the opinion that machine imported was capable of performing the functions of deburring and tooth rounding on gears in addition to chamfering. Therefore, notice was issued proposing denial of the clearance under the OGL, the benefit of notification and confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty for wrong declaration. The importer replied to the notice. It raised various contentions which we shall consider later in detail, as these contentions are reiterated in appeal. Essentially the co...
Nhb Bearing Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT476Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Application is for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 2.28 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh demanded by the Commissioner on a finding that the polished steel balls mentioned in the classification list filed by the applicant are classifiable under Heading 84.82.2. Advocate for the applicant requests that the appeal may be taken up and disposed of. He contends that, in an earlier order passed on 24-4-1994 the Commissioner (Appeals) following his own order of 3-11-1993 had set aside the classification decided by the Assistant Collector and remanded the matter for him to decide the issue of classification after considering all the aspects discussed by him. He says that the present case too, will have to avail this determination.He further contends that the decision of the Tribunal in C.C.E., v. New Heaven Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. -1994 (72) E.L.T. 307 supports the contention that goods prior to 1988 would be classifiable under Heading 7308.90. He therefore prays for setting aside the order...
Shri Sagun Dipu Harmalkar and Others Vs. Ramakant Ramnath Harmalkar an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)BomCR846
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The respondents (hereinafter referred as plaintiffs) had filed a suit against the appellants (hereinafter referred as defendants) for their eviction from the suit house and vacant possession thereof and also for perpetual injunction from causing any obstruction to the plaintiffs in the enjoyment of the said property. The plaintiffs' case, in brief, is that they had purchased the suit property by Sale Deed dated 28-10-67 along with the store room; prior to 26-9-67 the defendants were residing in their parental house at a distance of 50 metres from the suit property but on 26-9-67 they forcibly broke open the lock of the said store room and occupied the same and soon thereafter constructed a kitchen.2. The defendants, on the other hand, claimed that they were using the said premises as dwelling house as mundkars. This suit was filed on 15-7-68 and on 7-6-1972 the plaintiffs had filed an application under section 10 of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Protection from Eviction...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »