Mumbai Court January 1999 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.
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Shri Subhash N. Ghodke and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR421; 1999(2)BomCR177; [1999(82)FLR219]; 1999(2)MhLj952
ORDERN.J. Pandya, J.1. The petition is filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India against the Award given by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. II in Reference No. CGIT-2/26 of 1997, a copy of which has been produced at Exhibit R, Page 155. The Award is dated 6th April, 1998.2. Admitted position is that the respondent No. 1 (for short 'an Employee') was working with the petitioner- Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter would be referred to as 'the Employer'). The respondent -employee, who was facing the charge to the effect that the premium amount which has been misappropriated, has accounted the same subsequently. There were two such incidents. For our purpose, they can be referred to as the case of temporary embezzlement.3. I am not entering into the details of charges and evidence led in support thereof because all through the grievance of the employee has been that he was not permitted to be represented by a defence representative of his choice and, the...
State Through the Public Prosecutor Vs. Kiran S/O Mohan Kandolkar and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR499
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The State has come in appeal against judgment dated 4th March, 1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa whereby the respondents were given benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges under sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 427, 302, 120-B and 109-B read with section 149 Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor Shri Lawande has urged before us that respondent No. 10 was granted pardon and was made approver against the other respondents, but he was never examined as an approver in the trial Court and, on the contrary, he was tried alongwith the other accused, as a result of which the entire trial has been vitiated in view of the provisions contained in sections 306 and 308 Criminal Procedure Code. He has placed before us the relevant details in this connection to which we shall make reference hereinafter. He has also placed reliance on judgment of the ApexCourt in State (Delhi Admn.) v. Jagjit Singh reported in : 1989CriLJ986 and judgment of the Div...
Asiatic Oxygen and Acetylene Co. Ltd. Vs. Industrial Court of Maharash ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1999
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ529Bom
J.N. Patel, J.1. Rule made returnable by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. Heard forthwith. The petitioner/employer impugns the order dated August 3, 1998 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Nagpur, on an application under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, in Complaint (ULP) No. 460 of 1990.2. The respondent No. 2 employee had challenged the transfer order dated May 14, 1998 issued by the petitioner/employer, transferring him to their Chandrapur Depot on the same terms and conditions of service as from May 25, 1998. It was the case of the respondent/employee that because he requested for extending the benefits available under the Standing Orders, the petitioner/employer was annoyed by the said representation and effected his transfer from Nagpur (Kamptee) to Chandrapur Depot, during the period when he was on medical leave. It was also contended that the condition of transfer ...
Hardcastle and Waud Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1999
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC665Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 29.10.1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. In the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) held that the product 'Hawco Cut Refrigerant Base' merit classification under chapter subheading 3403.00 of the Central Excise Tariff and is not entitled for the benefit of notification No. 20/88-CE as amended.3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Hawco Cut Refrigerant Base and filed a classification list classifying the product under sub-heading 1508.90 of the Central Excise Tariff and the classification list was duly approved by the competent authority. A notification no. 20/88-CE was issued on 1.3.1988 which wholly exempts vegetable fats, boiled, oxidised, dehydrated sulphurised, blown, polymerised by heat in vacuum or in inert gas or otherwise chemically modified falling under subheading 1508.90 of schedule to Central Excise Tarif...
Quest International India Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1999
Reported in: (1999)(82)LC555Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These 20 appeals are against the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals) denying modvat credit taken by the assessee the appellant on various grounds.3. In ten notices, the ground for denying it was that the invoices which were issued by the appellant for movement of goods from its godown to its factory were lacking prescribed details under Notification 32/94, 33/94. Notification 32/94 prescribes the category of persons who could issue invoices under Notification 33/94. By Notification 33/94 the Central Excise rules were amended to incorporate Rule 57GG about invoke number. This rule does not prescribe the details of the invoices but provides in Sub-rule (4) for such details to be prescribed by the Board or the Commissioner. Apart from this inaccuracy, none of the notices indicate what particulars, which were lacking in the invoices in question. A reading of copies of couple of such invoices No. 474 dt. 29.8.1994, No. 475 dt. 30.8.1994 does not show absence of any particulars. W...
Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Videocon V.C.R. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1999
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT306Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the decison of Collector of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Pune in Order-in-Appeal No. A-393/94 dated 24-11-1994 whereunder he had held that the dry battery cell is eligible for Modvat credit as it is an essential component of the remote control for making it operational.2. It is contended by the department that the lower authorities has followed the judgement of Tribunal in Jayshree Ind. v. Collector of Central Excise -1993 (63) E.L.T. 492 as that decision dealt with the admissibility of Modvat credit in respect of dry battery used in quartz clock and time pieces. But here, in the case of remote control it is not an essential component of T.V. but an accessory of T.V. The T.V.can function even without a remote control.3. I have considered the submissions raised by the department. What they stated may be factually correct. But yet, when a T.V. has been manufactured and sold along with remote control then the denial of Modvat ...
LupIn Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1999
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT983Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant manufactures Pharmaceutical products one of them being Ethambutol Hydrochloride. The process of manufacture of this product involves reaction of DL-2 Amino Butanol with Tartaric acid and methanol. This produced D-2 Amino butanol Tar-taric (impure) as also L-2 Amino Butanol Tartaric (impure). Whereas the former was processed further to produce the end product, the latter substance was a by-product from which Calcium Tartaric could be recovered, the remaining product L-2 Amino Butanol being drawn away as a total waste product. The entire process of manufacture was given by the assessee to the department vide their letter dated 15-1-1987. On 27-4-1988, the assessee applied for permission to remove L-2 Amino Butanol Tartaric for recovery of Calcium tartarate to the factory of Yash Pharma under the provision of Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rule, 1944. The process of manufacture was once again given in this application. The permission was given vide department's letter...
Morendha Rubber Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT961Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellant was a manufacturer of tyres. It declared in the classification list filed by it on 28-10-1987 and 1-4-1988 inter alia pneumatic tyres used for animal drawn vehicles or hand carts bearing mark 'ADV of the size 16x4 and claimed the benefit of Notification Nos.91/87 and 135/87. These notifications exempt from additional duty of excise, such tyres intended to be used on animal drawn carts or hand carts. The classification list was approved. Subsequently the department came to the conclusion that as these tyres were used on autorickshaws so benefit of the notification would not be available and issued notice demanding the duty on the tyres cleared under exemption.The notice invoked the extended period in the proviso to Section 11 A, alleging misdeclaration. The assessee resisted the notice, raising various contentions. These were not accepted by the Collector who confirmed the proposal in the notice and accordingly demanded duty and imposed penalty. Hence this appeal.2. The co...
Hindustan Pencils Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC806Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the decision of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai made in the order-in-appeal captioned above, whereunder, he rejected the appellant's plea of stock lot.2. The appellants imported 11700 gross of Pencil sharpner blades from Japan @ Yen 72 per gross vide Invoice No. 704, dated 15-4-1993. The goods had been described as pencil sharpner blades Art No. 5B "NTR" size 6.40-6.50 and it was supplied by M/s. Toa Industrial Co. Ltd. The department's case was that in respect of import of identical goods, it was noticed that the price was @ Yen 131 per gross of the same Art number and size and supplied by the same supplier from the same country of origin against Bill of Entry No. 911/193, dated 5-5-1993 and Invoice No. 703 dated 9-4-1993 imported by another importer. A query Memo was given. It was pleaded by the appellant that the goods are not comparable as the other importer M/s. Allied Instruments did not place the order with the manuf...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Surya Roshni Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT938Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal by the Commissioner is against the order of the Collector (Appeals) holding that importer is entitled to the duty refund of customs duty paid on hot rolled steel coils imported by it.2. We have heard the departmental representative. Although the adjournment is requested on behalf of assessee, we do not consider that such adjournment requires to be granted.3. In the order impugned in the appeal the Collector (Appeals) overruled the order of the Assistant Collector holding that assessee was entitled to receive the amount of customs duty paid in excess and claim for refund before the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector had found that six of the refund applications were barred by limitation and three premature on the ground that assessments were provisional and not finalised. He also ordered of amount held to be refundable to be paid to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that the claimant had not shown that the incidence of duty claimed as refund has not been t...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »