Mumbai Court December 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.
Bajaj Electricals Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1999
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT751Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When this stay application was called out none was present for the applicants. There was no intimation and there were no requests for adjournment. The stay application has been posted regularly from 25-2-1999 onwards. On some occasions, i.e. on 25-2-1999 and on 7-6-1999 there were requests for adjournment. On 12-8-1999 and today there were no requests for adjournment. Initially on 25-2-1999 one Shri M.N. Roy had made the statement that the assessees had taken recourse to KVSS Rules, 1998. A specific query was made in the intimation dated 28-7-1999 that the appellants declare the result of the procedure under the KVSS. To this also there was no reply. We are, therefore, disposing of the stay application after hearing Shri B.K. Choubey for the Revenue.2. In the impugned order the Commissioner confirmed demand of duty amounting to Rs. 22,17,334/- and also imposed equivalent penalty on the assessees. The basis for this confirmation was that the assessees were receiving in their factory...
Dr. Rushad T. Udwadia Vs. the Maharashtra Medical Council and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR11; 1999(1)BomCR639
ORDERS.S. Parkar, J. 1. The petitioner who is a Medical Practitioner has impugned in this petition the show-cause notice dated 2nd February, 1987 issued by respondent No. 1 i.e. Maharashtra Medical Council which is annexed as Exhibit 'K' to this petition. By the said petition, the petitioner has also impugned the communication dated 12th October, 1987, which is annexed as Exhibit 'S' to this petition whereby the respondent No. 1 - Medical Council had rejected his application to disallow Dr. Lalmalani to participate in the inquiry as a member of the Maharashtra Medical Council.2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows:Respondent No. 2 was examined in Sion Hospital for Primary Sterility. The petitioner had performed testicular biopsy test on the respondent No. 2 on 17-10-1985 for assessing sperm production. After the said test was carried out and receipt of the biopsy report, the respondent No. 2 had filed complaint that instead of performing biopsy test the petit...
Mr. Kamla Kant Dube and Another Vs. M.V. Umang and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Bom211; 2000(2)ALLMR48; 2000(2)BomCR556
ORDERR.M. LODHA, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit against the 1st defendant vessel to be condemned in the sum of Rs. 45 lacs along with interest at the rate of 18%f per annum and for direction that the 1st defendant vessel to be sold and the proceeds thereof to be applied towards the satisfaction of plaintiffs claim. The plaintiffs have claimed damages and prayed that 2nd defendant be ordered and decreed to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of Rs. 45 lacs along with 18% interest thereon.2. The plaintiffs are the parents of Mr. Arvind Dube who died on 16-8-1996 on board the 1st defendant vessel when she was lying at Kandla Port. The 1st defendant is the vessel M.V. 'Umang' registered in St. Vincent and Grenadines. The 2nd defendant is a Liberian Shipping company and owner of the 1st defendant vessel. The 3rd defendant is the local agent of the 1st defendant vessel. The suit has been filed in the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court on 11-3-1997 and at that time the vessel was lying ...
Ketan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanjiv P. Bansod
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR524
ORDERS.P. Bagla, Member.1. M/s. Ketan Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur are the appellants and Mr. Sanjiv and 2 others are respondents before us in this First Appeal No. 556/94. The facts of this case are very limited and precise. The respondents engaged the appellants to build and deliver two flats to them-one in the name of Mr. Sanjiv and the other in the name of his wife. The price agreed for these flats was Rs. 1,80,000/- each. The agreement for the delivery of the flats was entered into after the construction of the flats had started and the stipulation was that it shall be delivered within 18 months of the agreement. Although somewhat late, a temporary sort of possession was given to the respondents for doing Vaastu Puja and they were also allowed to do the furnishing of these flats. Meanwhile, the owner of the land on which the flats were built filed a suit against the appellant-M/s. Ketan Consultants saying that she has not been paid Rs. 2,00,000/- which was the price of the land. ...
Ganpati Son of Kondbaji Sant Vs. Shri Sant Gulab Baba Shikshan Sanstha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR499; 2000(4)BomCR196; 2000(1)MhLj658
ORDERD.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Lambat, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, and Shri Dhote, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. The writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 20-2-1989 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur in Appeal No. STN/35 of 1988 presented by the present petitioner against the order of termination, which was dismissed. Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was serving in the School run by the respondent No. 1 as Assistant Teacher. The petitioner being the senior-most qualified and eligible Teacher, was promoted to the post of Head Master on 1-7-1982. It is submitted that from 1970 till 1986, co-education was imparted in the school run by the respondent No. 1 Management, i.e. Ashok Vidyalaya, Umrer. The respondent No. 1 Management took a decision to bifurcate the school into two, i.e. boys...
Dr. Vishwanath Raghuvir Sinai Edo. Vs. Shri Ashok Dattatray Dande and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR576; 2000(4)BomCR734
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Common question of law arises in both these revision applications and therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Both the revision applications arise from the order dated 16th February 1999 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1998 and Regular Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1998 by the Additional District Judge at Panaji. By the impugned order, the lower Appellate Court has held that the appeal against the unamended as well as amended decree in Special Civil Suit No. 382 of 1979-A passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji would lie before the District Court considering the valuation of the suit.3. The contention of the petitioner is that the suit was initially valued at Rs. 10,810/-. However, the value of the decree ultimately granted by the trial Court exceeded the quantum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. There is no dispute that in case the value of the suit is Rs. 1,00,000/- or above, then the appeal against the dec...
Mohd. Khaleelulah Khan Vs. Commr. of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1999
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT411Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These applications for condonation of delay and for seeking stay of the penalty had come up for hearing earlier when the hearing was adjourned to enable the department to produce the case file. The learned DR Shri B.K. Choubey has presented the case file but the appellant is not represented.2. We have seen the appeal memorandum. This has been signed by the advocate for the appellant. Section 129(6) prescribes that the appeal should be in such form and shall be verified in such manner as and be prescribed by rules made in this behalf. These rules are called the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Rule 8(3) prescribes that the appeal memorandum should be signed and verified by the appellant personally.The same is the requirement for any application made in terms of the provisions relating to the appeal. In the present case the appeal memorandum has been signed by the advocate for the appellant. The application for condonation has similarly been signed by the advocate.The appeal and the ap...
Magicut Tools Ltd. and R.M. Vs. Commr. of Central Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1999
Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC414
2. M/s. Magicut Tools Ltd. had removed under a delivery challan hacksaw blades and tool bits. These goods were not accompanied by any document evidencing payment of duty. The officers seized these goods totally valued at Rs. 77,519. The officials of the company in their statement claimed that these materials were being sent to a job worker for affixing the brand name of the buyer. No irregularity was noticed in the maintenance of statutory accounts or in the accountal of finished goods. The Additional Collector confiscated the goods, allowed their redemption on fine and confirmed the duty amounting to Rs. 8,404.80 leviable ther upon. She also imposed penalties of Rs. 5,000 each on the assessee company and two Directors thereof, namely R.K. Gupta and Rajiv Agarwal. These appeals are filed by the assessee company and Rajiv Agarwal.3. Shri K.V. Sahasrabudhe submits that it was an inadvertent error. He submitted that the statements of the concerned persons indicated that these goods were ...
Anant Samant Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1999
Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC416
1. These two appeals are against the Order-in-Appeal No. 115/90 whereunder the Collector (Appeals) while confirming the order reduced the penalty from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- in respect of Anant Sitaram Sawant and Rs. 40,000/- from Rs. 50,000/- in respect of Nitin Jadhav.2. The facts of the case are that on 17-9-1989 one Ms. Pragna Patel arrived from Singapore at Bombay, on way to London. It was alleged that she had on her person 100 gold bars of 10 toals each. It is the case of the department that one of the appellants viz. Samant helped her in the sense that he opened the Reserve lounge at the airport. A show cause notice dated 26-10-1989 was given to the appellants charging the appellants for aid and abetting Ms. Pragna in smuggling the gold and the appellants were charged for violation under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. One of the appellants Samant appellant in C. 43/91, whose statement was recorded in which he admitted that he had opened the Reserve lounge in the airpo...
KevIn Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1999
Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC411
1. This appeal was argued by Shri M.H. Patil, Advocate. Revenue was represented by Shri A. Ashokan, JDR. The appellants were manufacturing" Polypropylene Tower Packing" at Baroda. The important input for manufacture of metalic Tower Packings namely the Stainless steel sheets were being sent to job workers in Mumbai under the Rule 57F(2) procedure . In the applications dated 28.06.1986 and 30.08.1986 for operating under this procedure, it had been made clear by them as part of the prescribed proforma that the raw materials were being supplied direct to the job worker, without their first being brought into the factory. In terms of this Rule, the processed material or semi-finished goods were to be brought into the factory of the original manufacturers from the job workers' factory. The Central Excise officers visited the factory when they found some quantity of final products was not entered in the RGI Register. This quantity was seized. In subsequent investigations it was found that t...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »