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.
Sharda Crimpers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1998
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT307Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Application is for waiver of deposit of Rs. 12.44 lakhs approximately.2. After hearing both sides we find prima facie the position to be as follows. Rs. 4.74 lakhs approximately has been demanded twice; since the invoices for this amount appear in both the notices to the applicant on different grounds. A demand to the extent of Rs. 4.90 lakhs is prima facie barred by limitation, notice having been issued on 1-2-1995 for credit taken between July and August, 1994, at the time when Rule 57-I required notice to be issued within six months of taking credit Rs. 99,000/- approximately is on the basis of invoices issued from the manufacturers depot denied on the ground that the depot was not registered as a dealer. Prima facie the contention that the manufacturers depot does not require to be registered seems acceptable.This leaves a balance of Rs. 1.80 lakhs of the credit taken on the basis of invoices issued by the manufacturer to some one else who endorsed them to the applicant. There ...
Cce Vs. Harinagar Sugar Mills and ors.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1998
Reported in: (1998)(77)LC42Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These appeals filed by the Commissioners of Central Excise, Mumbai-I, Mumbai-II and Aurangabad, against the orders of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) captioned above, involve a common issue.The question is, whether grant of refund under Section 11B of Central Excises Act, 1944, even during the period prior to its amendment with effect from 20.9.1991, would be governed by the condition that the assessee seeking refund should prove that the duty burden has not been passed on to his customers. The amendment to Section 11B of 20.9.1991 incorporated this condition. In all these cases, the impugned orders have been passed prior to the amendment in which the Commissioners (Appeals) have held that unjust enrichment was not an ingredient in Section 11B of Central Excises Act for grant of refund and hence cannot be lawfully invoked by the departmental authorities to deny the refund if otherwise eligible on merits.2. We have heard Id. DR Shri D. Gurnani who relied upon the judgment o...
Bhoruka Drums and Allied P. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1998
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT809Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We have heard the ld. Counsel Shri S. Kantawalla for the applicants/appellants and Shri S.V. Singh, the ld. JDR. We find that these are all applications for stay filed along-with the appeals arising out of the same common impugned order demanding duty and imposing penalty of various amounts on the applicants. On a perusal of the records, however, we find that there was a fundamental infirmity in the passing of the adjudication order by the Commissioner, because of which the whole order is vitiated and therefore, we are of the view that the matter itself will have to be remanded to the adjudicating authority. We accordingly, grant stay and take up the appeals themselves for disposal in this view of the matter.2. In this case, proceedings were initiated by the department against the appellants alleging under-valuation in respect of computer peripherals for which a show cause notice was issued on 26-4-1995 to the appellants. Reply was furnished to the show cause notice by the appellan...
Mercury Paints and Varnishes Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)(77)LC299Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The common appellant in these appeals is absent in spite of notice of hearing. There is no representation and no request for adjournment.We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR and perused the papers.2. The appeals arise out of disallowance of the deduction claimed for prompt payment discount, turnover discount, product rebate, interest on receivables, interest on finished goods and distribution expenses.Going by the decision in MRF Ltd. , deduction has to be allowed for prompt payment discount, turnover discount, product rebate and interest on receivables and deduction has to be disallowed for interest on finished goods and distribution expenses of depots. The lower authorities were in error in disallowing the five deductions referred to above. The impugned orders are set aside to that extent.Appeals are allowed....
Mrs. Sudhatai Pandurang Kale Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR370; 1998(3)BomCR696
ORDERN.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. Petitioner is the President of Jalgaon Municipal Council, a Council established under section 2(6) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. Petitioner is elected as the President of the said Council on 25th November 1997. Section 62 of the Act of 1965 provides that there shall be a Standing Committee and six Subject Committees for 'A' and 'B' Class Municipal Councils and if any Council has acquired or establisheda Transport Undertaking, then an additional Transport Committee. The number of members of each committee is to be determined by the Council. However, it shall not be less than 1/4th and more than 1/3rd of the total number of Councillors. Sub-section (2) of section 63 provides that the Collector shall, within seven days of the election of the President under section 51, call a special meeting of the Council for the purpose of determining the number of members of each of the above referred Subject Co...
Kailash Gangaram Chandgude Vs. Shri Ranjendra Balkrishan Parhad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR576; 1998(4)BomCR54
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. The matter was placed on Board on an application for interim relief. However, with the consent of the parties, the main revision itself was taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. On behalf of the applicant, it is contended that the order of the Competent Authority is without jurisdiction in as much as the Competent Authority could not have exercised jurisdiction as Part II-A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 had not been extended to the area where the suit premises was located. Counsel has drawn my attention to the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 2 of the Act. Counsel points out that in the instant case the provision of Part II-A or Part II or all of them could have been extended only by notification in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (3) of section 2 of the Act. It is contended that by Notification dated 8th August, 1958 Part II was extended to Chinchwad Village and thereafter on 21st Jan...
Mr. M.D. Kale, Intelligence Officer, N.C.B. Bombay Vs. Mr. Mohd. Afzal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR214
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. This Criminal Revision Application has been filed by the Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bombay challenging the order below Exh. 1 in Criminal Bail Application No. 1041 of 1997 wherein the accused-respondent No. 1 has been ordered to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond for Rs. 30,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount. The accused has also been directed to attend Vasai Police Station on every Sunday between 8.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. and not to leave the limits of the said Police Station till further orders. 2. The facts as narrated in the impugned order may be noticed. In accordance with the information received by the Intelligence Officer of Narcotics Bureau, Mumbai, house of the accused was searched. This search was made in the presence of the panchas. As a result of the search, 60 grams of opium and 6 grams of methaqualone powder were recovered. The search was made in the presence of the panchas and the contraband was seized fro...
Dr. Mohammad Laeeque S/O. Mohammad Ibrahim Vs. State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR368
ORDERD. G. Deshpande, J. 1. Heard Mr. Barlinge, Advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Pradeep Deshmukh & Mrs. Smita Deshpande, Advocates for the respondent No. 4.2. The dispute between the parties is regarding admission to post graduate course in medical faculty and the petitioner in this petition has challenged the order of the University College Tribunal dated 23-9-1997, by the which the Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.3. In the said appeal the petitioner had challenged the order dated 5-8-1997 issued by the respondent No. 1 selecting the respondent No. 3 for admission to M.D. (Medicine) against the seat of January, 1996. returned from All India Entrance Examination. The petitioner wanted the University Tribunal to cancel the admission given to the respondent No. 4 and to grant him admission against the returned seat.4. I heard Mr. Barlinge and Mr. Pradeep Deshmukh Advocates at length. Both of them took me through all the relevant provisions and the Government Resolution ...
Mangala D/O. Anand Chowdhary Vs. Shreyas Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR157; 1998(5)BomCR374; [1999(81)FLR407]; 1988(3)MhLj384
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Barlinge, learned Advocate (or the petitioner, Shri Sunil A. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 & 2, Shri Patil, learned Advocate for respondent No. 3 & Shri Chillarge, A.G.P. for respondent 4.2. The petitioner, by this writ petition, has challenged the order of the School tribunal, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad dated 10-5-1994 by which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and ex parte ad-interim stay was vacated.3. It is the case of the petitioner that she is a trained teacher within the meaning of Rule 2(k) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 having passed S.S.C. and C.T.C. Examinations. She was appointed as an 'Assistant Teacher' by the respondent No. 1 by order dated 19-6-1989. That her appointment was approved by the Education Officer. That her services came to be terminated on the ground that she was surplus. She, therefore, challenged the order of termination dated 16-7-1993 ...
Kumble Achutrao Ramrao (Deceased) Through Lrs. Vs. Shantilal Pranjivan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR686
ORDERA.B. Palkar, J.1. This is defendant appeal against a decree passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay in Suit No. 4509 of 1966 on 22-1-1982. The suit was filed in 1966 and issues were framed in 1981. Suit came up for hearing on 22-1-1982. The suit was called out in the morning session but since the defendant and his advocate were absent it was postpone to the afternoon session. Again it was called out in the afternoon session at 4.15 p.m. and that time plaintiff and his advocate were present and defendant and his advocate were absent. The suit being of 1966 and issues were framed and settled in July, 1981 in the presence of both the advocates, and the suit was adjourned from time to time. The learned trial Judge did not think it just and proper to adjourn the suit when the defendant and his advocate were absent. After recording the evidence of the plaintiff and perusing the document and correspondence tendered by the plaintiff in the Court and after hearing the advocat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »