Mumbai Court April 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.
P and P Containers (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1998
Reported in: (1998)(77)LC277Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice, but has furnished written submissions for decision of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri K.Srivastava, SDR and perused the papers.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of P & P Containers, was purchasing printing blocks from the respective manufacturers, the cost of which was being reimbursed by the customers of the appellant.However, appellant was paying duty on the basis of the price charged from the buyers without including the cost of printing blocks in the assessable value. The period in dispute is from 1.1.1987 to 30.4.1990.Show cause notice dated 24.1.1992 was issued stating that the cost of printing blocks was ultimately met by the buyers though it was the responsibility of the appellant and therefore, such cost should have been included in the assessable value and duty paid accordingly. Notice proposed demand of differential duty on this basis. Though appellant resisted the notice, the Additional Collector confirmed the ...
Sulabha Ramchandra Jadhav and Others Vs. Kalidas Dnyandeo Patil and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR696
ORDERA.B. Palkar, J.1. Respondent No. 1 Kalidas Dnyandeo Patil filed a petition for grant of probate of Will of his deceased uncle Ganpat Laxman Patil executed on 25th April 1978. Deceased Ganpat Laxman Patil father of the original petitioner by name Dnyandeo Laxman Patil were the real brothers and were residing together. The petitioner's mother died when petitioner was a child and he was brought up by deceased Ganpat Laxman Patil (his uncle), and Ganpat's wife Gojabai. Deceased Ganpat being elder brother was looking after the entire family. He was working as a head clerk in the office of the Registrar in Kolhapur State for some years and thereafter, he was working with the Kolhapur Municipal Council. Opponent Nos. 1 to 6 are the daughters of deceased Ganpat. Ganpat did not have son and has left behind the daughters. Even during the life time of Ganpat some of his daughters were trying to get possession of his property, and therefore, deceased Ganpat had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 87...
V.V.F. Limited Vs. Sarva Shramik Sangh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1998
Reported in: [1998(79)FLR503]; (1999)IIILLJ687Bom
F.I. Rebello, J. 1. Rule, Respondents waive service. By consent heard forthwith. The Labour Court by the impugned Award dated February 26, 1998 set aside the domestic enquiry conducted by the employer on the sole ground that in the charge sheet wrong Standing Order number was referred to.2. A perusal of the charge sheet shows that the charge in respect of which the enquiry was conducted was mentioned in the charge sheet. It is also not the case that apart from the certified Standing Orders there are any other Standing Orders subsequently certified in respect of the Company. In these circumstances the reason given by the Labour Court in setting aside the domestic enquiry cannot be sustained. It is contended on behalf of the workmen that there are other points which he has pressed in respect of the enquiry being vitiated and the same had not been dealt with and if those issues are considered then the enquiry will have to be set aside.3. As already pointed out the Award as passed cannot b...
ShalIn M. Vora Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT857Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These applications are for waivar of deposit of duty of Rs. 81.32 lakhs and penalties of Rs. 20 lakh on Manharlal H. Vora (Application 1045), Rs. 10 lakh on Ashwin S. Mehta (Application No. 1189) and Rs. 5 lakhs on Shalin M. Vora (Application 1044). The advocate for Manharlal H. Vora explains that the duty and penalty relate to imports of 12 consignments of ball bearing of which four were cleared finally and eight provisionally. The Commissioner has found, subsequent to clearance that these goods were undervalued, based on documents showing remittances for the goods which he says was made to the supplier at Hong Kong and accordingly enhanced the value. He contends that, according to him, if any duty has been short-levied it is to be paid by M/s. Nikki Traders and M/s. Deep Corporation the appellant importers and not by the applicant. He further contends that the Commissioner has chosen to disregard the fact that there were contemporaneous imports of identical goods at the prices at...
Shri Kiritkumar Vallabhdas Gajaria and Another Vs. Champaben N. Kapadi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR223; 1998(4)BomCR58
ORDERP.S. Patankar, J. 1. Both these Petitions can be disposed of by this common order as they involve the same point. The point involved is 'whether the Court of Small Causes at Bombay under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as SCC Act), in its pre-1976 form as also post-1976 form, has jurisdiction to entertain and try an application or suit for ejectment against a gratuitous licensee'?FACTS IN WRIT PETITION NO.2336 OF 1997: The suit premises involved are the upper floor (mezzanine floor) of the garage premises situated at Napeansea Gringe, 91, Napeansea Road, Bombay 400 006. In 1959, the Respondents permitted the Petitioners to use the said premises on license basis without payment of any compensation. The parties are closely related. By notice dated 29th March,1968 the permission granted to the petitioners to occupy the premises was revoked. No reply was given to the said notice. The petitioners refused to deliver the premises. Hence,...
Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs. Sidramappa R. Gaikwad and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR29; 1998(5)BomCR841
ORDERA. A. Halbe J.1. The Maharashtra State Electricity Board had filed these appeals against the order of the District Forum in Complaint Nos. 248, 250, 259, 295 & 296 of 1994 passed by District Forum, Solapur, directing the M.S.E.B. to refund Rs. 4,745/- to each of the complainants out of the amounts of Rs. 4,995/- collected from each complainant. We may indicate that Appeal No. 822 is filed against C/259/94, Appeal No. 823 is filed against C/195/94, Appeal No. 824, is filed against C/250/94, Appeal No. 825 is filed against C/248/94 and Appeal No. 820 is filed against C/296/94.The relevant facts are as follows:2. The complainants belong to Other Backward Class. They are allotted Block Nos. 40, 47, 25, 52 & 27 in Samrat Ashok Housing Society, Solapur. Complainants are the members of the Society. In 1990, they asked for the electricity connection from the M.S.E.B. and they made applications accordingly. The complainants and other members (47) were given electric connection on the basis...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Rainbow Instruments Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT869Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The assessee, in its declaration dated 10th March, 1986 filed under Rule 57G, declared permanent magnets classifiable under Heading 85.05 as an input for use in or in relation to the manufacture of the finished product. Department subsequently noticed that the goods which were received were not magnets but articles intended to become permanent magnets. Notice was therefore issued alleging as an undeclared input taking of credit. The Assistant Collector, in his order, confirmed the proposal in the notice and ordered recovery of the amount.2. In appeal from this order, Collector (Appeals) accepted the contention of the appellant before him that gate passes, invoices and bills of entry produced showed that the product has been declared as permanent magnets and that credit has been taken for five years. He noted that chapter heading had been correctly declared and that there are instructions to say that credit should not be denied on account of minor variation and he concluded that the...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajgir Builders
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1998
Reported in: [2000]70ITD226(Mum)
ORDERVimal Gandhi, V.P.These cross appeals one by the assessee and the other by the revenue for the assessment year 1989-90 are directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The revenue has raised the following grounds:-'1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) XIV, Bombay has erred in allowing relief for the addition made for provision for cost of construction of building No. 9 at Kalpak Estate (Wadala) to the tune of Rs. 23,73,685.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) XIV, Bombay has further erred in allowing relief for the addition made under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Rs. 2,00,000.'2.The assessee-firm is a builder. On 09-04-1986; it entered into an agreement with M/s. Kalpak Development Corporation to construct building and flats for them in Wings B-8, B-9, B-11 & B-12 and also a shopping centre. The assessee was to take an appropriate sale proceeds of 57 f...
Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT665Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24-3-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara. The appellants are manufacturers of acrylic synthetic staple fibre tow falling under sub-heading 5501.30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and acrylic staple fibre was also their final product falling under the same sub-heading.The Central Excise Preventive officers visited the appellants' factory on 27-10-1993 and studied the manufacturing process. It was found that acrylonitrile and methyle acrylate were polymerised and thereafter the polymer forced under high pressure through pack filter media and extruded through spinnerate, and the thread lines emerging from spinnorates pass over the finish rolls and then collected in the form spun rope, which is pulled by rollers and taken to draw machines, where it is first drawn and then crimped, and the crimped tow is collected and finally sent to cutter for producing staple fibre which is finally packed in bales. ...
Lakme Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1998
Reported in: (1998)(77)LC295Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These appeals are directed against the common order in appeal dated 2.1.1992 passed by the Collector (Appeals) confirming the two original orders dated 31.12.1990 and 25.2.1991.2. The appellant engaged in the manufacturing of cosmetics of various varieties filed price list declaring the wholesale prices and claiming deductions, inter alia, for the cost of secondary packing (corrugated boxes). The price list was provisionally approved denying the benefit of this deduction. Subsequently three show cause notices were issued proposing demand of differential duty on the element of the cost of secondary packing in respect of three different periods. Though the appellant resisted the notices, the Assistant Collector passed two separate orders confirming the demands and these orders have been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals). Hence the present appeals.3. In respect of an earlier price list, the Collector (Appeals) upheld the claim for deduction of the element of the cost of secondary p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »