Mumbai Court October 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.
icpa Health Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT76Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applicants manufactured a product described as "Moyzen liquid" and cleared at Nil rate of duty during the period 1994-98 and also not the same goods manufactured from job workers situated in same division.The classification claimed for this product was under sub-heading 3303.00 as perfumes and toilet waters. A show cause notice was issued to the Job workers viz. M/s. Gran Heal Pharma Ltd. on 1-10-1996 seeking to classify the product under sub-heading 3304.00 as preparation for care of the skin. The classification list filed by the present applicants claiming classification under sub-heading 3303.00 however, continued to be approved. In the classification list, the composition of the product was shown to be consisting of liquid paraffin, isopropyl, myristate. The bottle described the content as moisturising liquid for dry skin-disorders. The sale literature described the product as "skin emollients" as also "skin humectant". The product was claimed to prevent skin dehydration an...
S.S. Crop Care Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1999
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT875Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing Shri S.N. Parikh, Advocate on the stay application and Shri Choubey for the Revenue, it appeared that the issue being settled, the main appeal itself could be disposed of at this stage. This was done by granting waiver of deposit of Rs. 17,75,791/- confirmed as differential additional duty of customs.2. The demand arose on the observation that whereas the appellants had paid 8% CVD on Fipronil insecticides imported by them, the Customs held that the duty correctly applicable was at 18% under Chapter 29 as leviable on separate chemically defined elements. The Asstt.Commissioner confirmed the demand. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) the judgment of the Delhi High Court in C.W. No. 5693/97, dated 30-11-1998 [2000 (115) E.L.T. 324 (Del.)] was cited. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that this would apply to authorities working under the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court but would not cover the Customs officials in Mumbai. On this observation, he upheld the lower order....
Mohmadbhai S/O Miyabhai and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR351; 2000(1)BomCR841; 2000(1)MhLj729
ORDERPer B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Writ Petition No. 905/86: The petitioner No. 1 claims to be the owner of lands located in Survey Nos. 16, 17 and 91 of village Mukundwadi, taluka and District Aurangabad. The Government of Maharashtra issued notifications on 30th October, 1972, 3rd February, 1973 and 4th May, 1973 under section 40(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the M.R.T.P. Act for short) and constituted and appointed City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra as a Special Planning Authority for the development of Aurangabad Notified Area specified in the schedule which included the land of the petitioner. On 24-5-1973 the Special Planning Authority issued a Notification under section 126 and reserved, allotted and designated the area including the lands of the petitioner and prepared a Development Plan. On 16th October, 1975 the Planning Authority modified the Development Plan of 1973 and published a final notific...
Kapus Ekadhikar Karmachari Sangh and Others Vs. the State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR344; 2000(2)BomCR854; (2000)2BOMLR671; (2000)ILLJ575Bom
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. These three writ petitions filed by the Kapus Ekadhikar Karmachari Sangh, which is a registered Trade Union for and on behalf of the seasonal employees working under the Aurangabad, Nanded and Parbhani Zones of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Ltd., (Respondent No. 2) who is the successor of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. (Respondent No. 3). By these petitions the petitioner Union is seeking a writ or directions in the nature of Mandamus against respondent No. 1 the State of Maharashtra to require respondent No. 2 to abide by the decision of the Government to implement the accepted recommendations of the Bhuibhar Committee Report and more particularly the recommendations under Clauses 15, 19, 23, 25, 26, 34 and 40, specially when these recommendations have been translated into an agreement dated 18-1-1984 between the petitioner Union and respondent No. 3.2. Before we deal with the merits of ...
Dayandev Mohiniraj Nipunage and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR371; 2000(2)BomCR849
ORDERV.K. Barde, J.1. In these two writ petitions, common points have arisen for consideration and, therefore, those are being disposed of by common judgment.2. The petitioners in both petitions and the respondent Nos. 5 to 9 are the elected members of Mukindpur Gram Panchayat (Taluka : Newasa, District: Ahmednagar). The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4431/1999, Dnyandeo, was elected as Upa-sarpanch. While the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4432/1999, Sau. Manda Ingale, was elected as Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat in the meeting held on 30-7-1998.3. On 21-1-1999, the respondent Nos. 5 to 9 gave notices to Tahsildar, regarding no confidence motion against both the Sarpanch and Upasarpanch. The Tahsildar then on 22-1-1999, issued notices to all members of the Gram Panchayat including Sarpanch and Upasarpanch, that the meeting for the consideration of no confidence motions against the Sarpanch and Upsarpanch will be held on 29-1-1999. Accordingly, on 29-1-1999, first meeting was h...
Goa Auto Accessories Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Sales Tax and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR122; (2000)1BOMLR132; 2000(2)MhLj732
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioner had sought classification of brake shoes and other processed components manufactured by them under Schedule Twenty-Eight of the Goa Sales Tax Act, 1964 (hereinafter called 'the said Act'). According to the petitioners the said products were not covered under schedules One to Twenty-Seven of the said Act. The office of the Commissioner of Sales Tax informed the petitioner that the item 'brake shoe' falls within the ambit of Entry I of the Twelfth Schedule and the rate of tax applicable is 5% at the first point of sale. The petitioner then filed an application for review before the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Panaji, under section 27-A of the said Act. In the said representation it was urged by the petitioner that it was not given any opportunity to be heard in the matter as required under section 27-A of the said Act; that the brake shoe and other components are taxable at 7% under section 7(1) (xxviii) of the said Act. In this application for review,...
In the Matter of Manuel theodore D'Souza
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)BomCR244; II(2000)DMC292
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. Two couples, Indian citizens, professing the Christian faith, applied to this Court for being appointed as guardians under the Guardians & Wards Act. In the course of the proceedings they amended their petition, to seek a prayer that the children be given to them in adoption. The petitioners being Christians are presently only entitled to be appointed as guardians. They do not fall within the definition of 'Hindu' as defined in the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956. A question immediately arose,whether a civilised State committed to the Rule of law, governed by a written Constitution and signatory to International Conventions on the Rights of a child, could deny to a section of its own citizens the right to adopt a child and to give that child, a home, a name and nationality. Article 14 of our Constitution ensures equality before law to all citizens. Non-arbitrariness is the hallmark of this Article. On 26th November, 1949 we gave to ourselves, a Bill of Ri...
Mumbai Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1999
Reported in: [2000(84)FLR764]; (2000)ILLJ1225Bom
A.P. Shah, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges order dated March 11, 1994, passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (I), Maharashtra and Goa under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. Facts giving rise to this petition are that the 2nd respondent is a partnership firm duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act. Since last 125 years the firm has been engaged in 'trading and commerce activities', having its office at Princess Street, Mumbai. Respondent No. 2 is duly registered under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. This establishment, hereinafter for brevity's sake, is described as 'trading establishment'. Respondent No. 2 has been dealing in umbrellas. In or around 1940 respondent No. 2 set up a factory to carry on manufacturing activities in the name and style of 'National Umbrella'. The said factory is situated at Reay Road, Mumbai. The ...
Pfizer Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT358Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an application for stay of penalty of Rs. 25.00 lacs imposed on the applicants under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and of Rs. 7,42,366/- imposed under Section 114A of the Act by the impugned order.2. The appellants had imported Virginiamycin (Poultry feed) by brand name Stefac 1000 from Belgium under various Bills of Entry. The details of the Bills of Entry in respect of goods imported are covered under Bills of Entry 4166 dated 7-3-1997, No. 10158 dated 17-3-1997 and No.16389 dated 29-4-1997 are itemised in the Show Cause Notice. The appellants claimed that the imported goods fall under Tariff Item 2302 and not under various subheadings under Heading 29. The department claims that the goods covered under Bills of Entry 4166, 10158 and 16389 should be assessed under Heading 2941.00 and Heading 2941.90. The department also charged them for violation of Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act. It is the contention of the assessee before the authorities that the goods ar...
Sharda Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC486Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The appellants processed grey fabrics received from merchant manufacturers. The period under dispute is March, 1982 to January, 1989. During this period the presumption was that the merchant manufacturer was the manufacturer in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Notification 305/77-C.E. exempted such manufacturers from licensing control provided they filed a declaration giving the cost of construction each time the grey fabrics were sent. The declaration by the merchant manufacturers formed the basis of the price list filed by the predecessors in terms of Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as it then stood. There was divergence in opinions' as to what should be the assessable value. In a judgment the Delhi High Court had held that the quantum of job charges alone attracted the central excise duty. The issue was finally settled by the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ujagar Prints and Ors. In this judgment and in the clarificatory judgment...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »