Mumbai Court August 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.
Cce Vs. Harness Wire Systems P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)(82)LC391Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the decision No.GS/976/B.II/93 dated 22.9.1993 whereunder the Collector (Appeals) had held that the respondent had intimated the department of the manufacture and the utilisation of the inputs and also held that the fact that the particular form prescribed for the purpose was not used would not be a bar for availing of the credit.2. The respondents were manufacturers of wiring harness and battery cable assembly for which they had declared PVC sleaves and PVC tapes as inputs under Rule 57G. Subsequently they started manufacturing these two items. The declarations to be filed under Rule 57G were not filed by the assessee declaring PVC tapes and PVC sleaves as final product for which a demand was issued for recovery of modvat credit availed on inputs used for manufacturing the said product. The A.C. confirmed the demand. The respondent filed appeal to the Collector (Appeals) who held that as the assessee had obtained permission under R...
M/S. Mukund Limited Vs. M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)BomCR494; (1998)3BOMLR636
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. This petition is directed against the Award dated 27th June, 1994 passed by the learned Arbitrator in proceedings between the petitioners and the respondent. The arbitral proceedings commenced with the respondent herein invoking the provisions of the arbitration clause in the agreement by letter dated 6th January, 1993 to the Sole Arbitrator Mr. Bhatkal. The respondent referred disputes as raised by them and also the dispute raised by the petitioner as to the existence of the arbitration agreement itself. Parties thereafter appeared before the Arbitrator. The petitioner appeared under protest and without prejudice in terms of the letter dated 11th May, 1993.2. The respondent herein on 7th November, 1989 forwarded tender enquiries to nine companies for design, supply, fabrication, erection and commissioning of Propane De Asphalting (P.D.A) heater at Mahu, Bombay. One of the offers received was from the petitioner and Engineering India Limited (E.I.L.). Subsequent...
Shri Pratapsing Raojirao Rane and Others Vs. the Governor of Goa and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Bom53; 1999(1)BomCR574; (1998)3BOMLR173
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioner was Chief Minister of Goa when the Governor of Goa withdrew his pleasure and dismissed him vide Order dated 29th July, 1998 passed in exercise of powers vested under Article 164(1) and other enabling provisions of the Constitution of India. By another Order of the same date the Governor of Goa appointed Dr. Wilfred Anthony D'Souza (respondent No. 3) as Chief Minister of Goa in the exercise of powers vested under Article 164(1) of the Constitution of India. Respondent No. 3 Dr. Wilfred D'Souza as at that time Deputy Chief Minister of Goa. The petitioner seeks writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order or declaration that the said Orders bearing No. G/CM/98/258 (Exh. 1) and No. G/CM/ 98/260 (Exh.P-16) both dated 29th July, 1998 be quashed and set aside.2. Brief events which led to the passing of the said Orders are required to be stated at this stage.3. The petitioners' case is;-At the general elections held to Goa Legislat...
Shri Abdul Rehaman Sajanbhai Bagwan, Since Deceased by His Heir and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR423; 1998(4)BomCR668; 1998CriLJ3939
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. The order passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 6-9-1983 affirming the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati on 31-3-1980 and the order passed by Additional Tahasildar and A.L.T. Purandhare on 30-6-1978 is a subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.2. Shri Abdul Rehaman Sajanbhai Bagwan (since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives) was tenant of the present respondent Shri Yeshwant Raghavendra Purandhare in respect of various lands including Gat No. 892 situated at village Khalad. On Tiller's day i.e. 1-4-1957, the tenant became deemed purchaser under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 as amended from time to time. The tenant purchased the lands of which he became deemed purchaser except Gat No. 892 which he declined to purchase. As a result thereof the purchase relating to Gat No. 892 became ineffective. It appears that in the year 1968, the former tenant surrendered the possession of Gat No. 892 an...
Suresh Exports Vs. Orient Shreyas Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Bom20; 1998(4)BomCR828; 1998(3)MhLj703
ORDERS. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parlies; Mr. Rahul Narichania for the plaintiffs and Ms. F.S. Sethna for the defendants. The defendant No. 1 vessel was arrested by an arrest warrant issued by this Court on 27th September, 1995. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff prays that time to serve defendant Nos. 2 and 3 be extended. Hence date of service of writ of summons on defendants 2 and 3 is extended to 25th November, 1998. 2. Incidentally in this suit, an interesting issue cropped up, that is to say whether in case a defendant vessel is arrested by an arrest warrant issued under the admiraltyjurisdiction, thereafter whether it is necessary in addition to the aforesaid arrest warrant, serving of writ of summons again on the defendant vessel. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff in this behalf brought to my notice Rules 945 and 946 of the Rules and Forms of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Original Side, in its several jurisdictions, 1980. The said R...
Smt. Jayalaxmi Janardhan Walawalkar and Others Vs. Lalchand Laxmichand ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR295; 1998(4)BomCR665; (1998)3BOMLR169; 1998(3)MhLj618
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. None appears for the parties.2. The writ petition relates to the year 1984 and earlier also the writ petition was dismissed for default and then restored. In the circumstances, I thought it fit to consider the matter on merits and in the absence of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order dated 30-3-1984 and the available material.3. One Janardan P. Walawalkar filed ejectment suit against Krishnaji L. Prabhu (respondent No. 2 herein) in the year 1972 in the Court of Small Causes. In that proceeding decree for eviction was passed against the respondent No. 2 herein. The decree holder Janardhan P. Walawalkar levied execution in which Lalchand Laxmichand Kapasi (respondent No. 1 herein) obstructed the execution of the said decree. The obstructionist notice was made absolute in favour of decree holder. Before the decree could be executed against obstructionist the decree holder Janardhan P. Walawalkar died. The present petitioners are hei...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Vapi Paper Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1998
Reported in: (1997)(104)ELT780Tri(Mum.)bai
1. By the Finance Act, 1982 enacted on 11th May, 1982, Explanation was added to Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (d) of Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. We are not concerned here with the scope and applicability of that Explanation. Briefly it provided that for deducting the amount of excise from the sale price of excisable goods in order to arrive at the assessable value, it is the effective duty of excise calculated as provided in the Explanation that has to be taken into account. Section 47 of the Finance Act provided that the Explanation shall be deemed to have been inserted from the first October, 1975. Clause (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 47 reads as follows : "(d) recovery shall be made of all such duties of excise which have not been collected or, as the case may be, which have been refunded but which would have been collected or, as the case may be, would not have been refunded, if the amendment made by Sub-section (1) had been in force a...
Mukhtar Ahmed Balarangadi Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT842Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is against the order imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant.2. When the appeal was called a pass over was requested on behalf of Mr. S.N. Kantawala who it was stated was appearing by H.S. Dave, Advocate on record on the ground that Mr. Kantawala was appearing in hearing of an adjudication. He was informed that the matter would be taken after two other matters were called. This matter was called again at which time the Advocate was not present. We therefore proceeded to hear the departmental representative, at the conclusion of whose address Mr. Kantawala arrived. At this point we did not consider it necessary to hear him.3. The penalty has been imposed on the appellant on the ground that he was concerned with taking delivery of 57 out of 121 packages of polyester texturised yarn of Korean origin of which it was found by the department to be smuggled. In the order the Additional Collector notes that he found the appel...
Lakhanpal National Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT102Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant could take Modvat credit on a gate pass which came in to in after it has been endorsed thrice. Credit has been denied on the ground that the instructions of the Board permitted only two endorsements.2. Representative of the appellant relies upon the Tribunal decision in SBS Organics Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. -1990 (45) E.L.T. 701 and C.C.E., Calcutta-II v. Modern Malleables Ltd. -1997 (92) E.L.T. 284. The Departmental Representative relies upon contrary decisions in Sree Gopalakrishna Polly Industries v. C.C.E. -1996 (84) E.L.T. 235 and SBS Organics Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E.The reasoning in this decision was that relaxation permitted by the Board from one endorsement initially to two was purely administrative, based on considerations of implementing the Modvat scheme and that if duty paid nature of the goods could be established there should be no objection to any further endorsements being made. The South Regional Bench in...
Shivram Co-operative Housing Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)70ITD8(Mum.)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 22nd December, 1997, for the asst. yr. 1993-94. Various objections are taken, but the gist of the main objection is that the CIT(A) erred in taking the sale proceeds of a property sold by the appellant, for the purpose of working out the capital gains thereof at Rs. 1,13,25,000 instead of Rs. 71,79,720.2. The appellant, which is a co-operative society filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 59,77,670 which comprised capital gains on sale of a plot No. 1087 (CST No. 1051, Mulund) of Rs. 57,14,286. The assessee worked out the capital gains as follows : Rs. Rs.price 71,79,720Less : Cost of plot purchased as per valuationreport of Mr. Namavati Roshan attached 11,83,159Legal fees payable :Paid to compound wall 16,750Demolition of office shatter & temporary officeconstruction (as per statement) 47,775Security salary & other expenses (as perstatement) 60,000 --------Long-term capital gain 57,14,286" ------------ 3. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »