Mumbai Court April 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.
Sangli Miraj and Kupwad City Municipal Corporation Vs. Balkrishna Hari ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR188
D.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner takes exception to the order passed by the State Government dated 20th of June,1997 allowing the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 wherein respondent No. I had challenged the order passed by the petitioner-Municipal Corporation rejecting the plan submitted by respondent No. 1 seeking permission to sanction layout plan on his property -- survey No. 451/A + 2/1/1 of Sangli, District Sangli. The appeal was filed under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional And Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short the said 'Act'). The facts, which are material for the decision of this petition and about which there is no dispute between the parties, are that the development plan of Sangli town under the said Act was sanctioned by the State Government on 28th of March, 1977 and it came into force on 1st of June, 1977. In that plan, the land of the respondents which is the subject-matter of the present petition, was reserved for school and play-ground. On 22...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Nathani Machinery Mfg. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC553
1. This appeal from revenue was argued by Shri G.B. Yadav, Shri D.H.Mehta, Advocate, appeared for the respondents.2. The first issue for decision is whether a manufacturer operating under Notification 175/86 could avail of the facility of paying duty on certain products after utilising the Modvat credit facility, and at the same time choose to clear other products entirely without payment of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled that these two facilities could be availed of simultaneously relying upon the Tribunal judgment in the case of Abhilash Rubber Products v. C.C.E. - 1991 (56) E.L.T. 168 and other similar judgments. Shri D.H. Mehta submits that this is also the finding of the three member bench judgment in the case of, Faridabad Tools Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1993 (63) E.L.T. 759. This has been followed by the single member bench judgment in Noble (India) v. C.C.E.-1996 (88) E.L.T. 500, Shri Yadav relied upon the five member bench judgment in the case of Kamani Foods v. C.C.E. - ...
Vardhaman Spinning and General Mills Ltd. Vs. the Municipal Corporatio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)BomCR506; 1999CriLJ3533; 1999(3)MhLj172
ORDERDr. Pratibha Upasani, J.1. Heard all the Advocates. The petitioners, case is that they are a Public Limited Company, carrying on business in manufacturing of sewing threads, yarns and other goods having their registered office and factory at Ludhiana, Punjab. They are having a Bombay Branch Office at Dalamal House, Ist floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Bombay 400 021. About twenty persons are employed in this Branch Office at Bombay. According to them, at the request of the staff members, an electric hot plate is kept there to warm their lunch boxes and for preparation of tea and coffee. According to them, apart from this, there is no activity which can be even remotely called as catering business.2. It is submitted by the petitioners that on 3rd September, 1991, some officials from respondent Nos. 1 office visited their premises, and after seeing the electric hot plate, insisted that the petitioners should have a licence for catering business from Bombay Municipal Corpor...
Mohd. Arshad Mohd. Tahir Shaikh Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR635; 1999(1)MhLj317
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. The appellant aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 29th September, 1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 845 of 1991, convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- indefault, to suffer R.I. for one year, for the offence under section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. has come up in appeal before us.2. In short, the prosecution case runs as under :---P.W. 2 Ibrahim Kureshi was a friend of Nissar Mohd. Hydross who, in turn was a friend of the deceased Salim @ Salim Builder. The deceased had leased out his hotel to Nissar Mohd. Hydross on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. On 12th February 1991 at about 4.45 p.m. Nissar Mohd. Hydross and Ibrahim Kureshi while passing near Chohan Motor Training School, on way to the house of the former, at S.V. Road Goregaon (West) Bombay, saw that Salim was running from Goregaon towards Jogeshwari on the S.V. Road and was being chased by the appellant and o...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. I.A. and I.C. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1999
Reported in: [1999]239ITR1(Bom)
B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, has referred the following questions of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for higher investment allowance even though the mandatory condition that the required certificate from the prescribed authority should be furnished along with the return of income, as laid down in Section 32A(2B)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had not been fulfilled ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the disallowance in respect of expenditure incurred in provision of remuneration and perquisite to the employee-director of the company is to be computed under the provisions of Section 40(c) and not Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' This reference pe...
S and K Trading Company Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT404Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 25.01 lakhs approximately and penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the firm and 1 lakhs on its sole proprietor.2. The advocate for the applicant says that in the impugned order, Commissioner has found that the applicant manufactured "bridge building system"; and classified by the department under Heading 84.80 of the tariff. He has made the following contentions : (i) The goods are not marketable because they are fabricated for the purpose of building bridges and cannot be taken to the market for being bought and sold. Karnataka High Court's judgment in Thungabhadra Steel Products Ltd. v. Union of India -1998 (98) E.L.T. 344 is cited in support. (ii) The applicant was only a sub-contractor of U.P. State Bridge Corporation who was supervising the construction and providing the technical know-how and raw-material. (iii) The goods are not classifiable under Heading 84.80 which is for completely different goods such as moulding boxes, metal ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bharat Automatics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC994Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The assessee, the respondent to this appeal was availing of the benefit under Notification 175/86, in the financial year 1991-92. It normally continued to avail notification in the next financial year. On 31-3-1992 Notification 55/92 was issued. This notification substituted, inter alia the second proviso to paragraph 4 of the notification. A further Notification No. 67/92 issued on 22-5-1992 added a third proviso to paragraph 4 declaring that nothing contained in the second proviso shall apply on and from 22nd May, 1992 to 31st March, 1993.Notice was issued to the assessee on the ground that the effect of these two notifications was to disqualify it from the benefit of the notification for the period from 1-4-1992 to 21-5-1992 and demanding duty accordingly payable on clearance during this period. The Assistant Collector accepted the contention of the assessee that these amendments did not have the effect disqualifying for the benefit of the notification and dropping the proceedin...
Essar Oil Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT148Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applicant in the above matters have sought for dispensation of the pre-deposits of duty and penalty, interest and redemption fine under the impugned orders, dated 29-9-1997, 28-11-1997 and 27-1-1998 challenged in these appeals, on the ground that they have got a strong prima facie case, specially on limitation and also on merits. Essar Oil Ltd. (EOL for short) has also urged in the stay application that it will be put to grave financial hardship if directed to pre-deposit the duty and penalty amount. EOL has to pay a duty amount of Rs. 10,16,35,914/-and penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs under the impugned order, dated 29-9-1997 and duty of Rs. 4,95,406/- and interest and redemption fine under the impugned order, dated 28-11-1997. M/s. Aban Lloyd Chiles of Offshore Ltd. (ACO for short) has to pay the duty of amount of Rs. 5,06,12,412/- and penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs under the impugned order, dated 29-9-1997, and duty amount of Rs. 4,69,104/-, interest and redemption fine under the impugned o...
Jagdish Cancer and Research Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1055Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Application seeks for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 64.93 lacs (approx) and a penalty of Rs. 5000/- imposed on the applicant.3. The question involved relates to the applicability of Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988 i.e. as to whether the applicant, a cancer treatment centre, has treated 25% of the out patient free entitled in the absence of in patient facility to the benefit of the notification. The related question would be whether on in patient what is described as a sister concern hospital would quality for the 25%.3. The goods have been ordered to be confiscated. The Commissioner himself stated that the goods are not yet redeemed by paying the redemption fine which was offered. The title to the goods at present rests with the Government. The question of deposit of duty at this stage therefore does not arise. Taking into account the arguable nature of the issue, we waive deposit of the penalty amount and stay its recovery.4. We accept the validity of the applicatio...
ivp Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT215Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant manufactured special vegetable non essential oil and subjected it to processing with alkali, bleaching and hydrogenation, resulting in coming into existence of hardened technical oils. Such hardened technical oil was sold to manufacturers of soap, removal being under Chapter X procedure. The appellant claimed the benefit of Notification 33/63 as amended in respect of the oil so utilised. The notification exempts inter alia processed vegetable non essential oils falling under Item 12 of the tariff if used in the manufacture of soap.The notification provides for the procedure under Rule 56A to be followed if the oil used in a factory other than the factory of its production. The Explanation to the notification explains that processed non essential vegetable oil are that which are subject to any one or more following processes, treatment with alkali or acid, bleaching and deodprization.2. Notice was issued to the appellant proposing denial of the notification on the grou...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »