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.
Siemens Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC229Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two Appeals E/207/95-Bom & E/208/95-Bom have been filed by the assessees appellants against the decision of Collector of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals) made in Order-in-Appeal Nos. A-419/94 & E/A-417/94 issued on 7-12-1994 confirming the orders passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Nasik.2. Issue involved in these both appeals are whether the assessee can plead limitation in terms of provisions of Rule 57-1 (as it then stood) knowingly the time to reckon from the date of such credit and not the time which has been calculated by the lower authorities.3. The assessee appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapters 84, 85 & 90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing Modvat credit facility the appellants it would appear, filed declaration from time to time under Rule 57G to enable the appellants to avail credit of duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture...
Silkaans Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1024Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants in this case were manufacturing Rivets of Aluminium, Copper and Mild Steel. Separate show cause notices were issued seeking duty not paid by them as also seeking imposition of penalty for their having manufactured dutiable goods without obtaining a licence or without obtaining the exemption from licensing control. The Collector dropped the demands pertaining to the levy of duty as being unsustainable but imposed a penalty on the present appellants. Against this order the present appeal has filed.2. I have heard Shri K.P. Chaudhari C.A. for the appellants and Shri V.K. Suman for the Revenue.3. Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 prescribes for licensing control on manufacturers. Rule 174A exempts those manufacturers who are nominated in a notification issued under that Rule from the operation of Rule 174. It is the submission of Shri Chaudhari that Notification No. 111/78-C.E., dated 9-5-1978 exempted from control manufactures of goods which were unconditionall...
Bhimabai Eknath Shejwal Vs. Suresh Dayanand Kasab
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Bom379; 1999(3)ALLMR126; 2000(1)BomCR117; 1999(2)MhLj285
ORDERB.B. VAGYANI, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Shri S.D. Kulkarni for the petitioner.Respondent is duly served.2. This Civil Revision Application raises a question as to whether respectability and veracity of a witness necessarily dependant upon his status in life.3. The petitioner herein had advanced a hand loan of Rs. 2,500/- to the respondent (original defendant) on 22-9-1980. Written agreement with regard to said loan transaction was also prepared. The respondent did not repay the hand loan and, therefore, the petitioners served a notice dated 8-9-1983 on the respondent. The respondent did not reply the notice. He did not repay the amount. The petitioner, therefore, was compelled to file Regular Civil Suit No. 637/1983 against the respondent for the purpose of recovery of Rs. 2,500/- and further interest. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner on 13-2-1986.4. The respondent filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 215/1986. Learned 5th Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar, by his ...
M/S. R.P. Souza and Co. by Its Partners Vs. the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Bom74; 1999(4)ALLMR78; 1999(3)BomCR738; (1999)3BOMLR193; 2000(1)MhLj558
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Since common questions of law and fact arise in both the applications, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. Heard the Advocates for the parties and perused the records.3. These are applications for appointment of Arbitrator in terms of section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called 'the said Act').4. It is the case of the applicants that the second respondent awarded work of construction of B Type Quarters at Sada, Vasco-da-Gama to the applicants under Work Order dated 7th January, 1992. Though the work was completed in all respects by October, 1994, the final bill was not prepared and paid till October, 1998. Under the Agreement between the parties in relation to the said work, in terms of Clause 25 thereof, all disputes arising under the Agreement are required to be settled by way of arbitration. The applicants, by letter dated 8th October, 1998, called upon the respo...
Dattatraya Kundlik Gund Vs. the State of Maharshtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)BomCR21; (1999)2BOMLR641; 1999(3)MhLj149
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal the appellant challenges the Judgment and Order dated 7th November, 1992 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No. 89 of 1992, convicting and sentencing him in the manner stated hereinafter: i) under section 306 I.P.C. to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment andto pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for 1year; ii) under section 498A I.P.C. to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for 1 year; andiii) under section 304B I.P.C. to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. l,000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for 1 year; The substantive sentences of the appellant were ordered to run concurrently. We may mention that along with the appellant three other co-accused persons viz. Kundalik Narayan Gund, Tanaji Kundalik Gund and Anusaya Kundalik Gund; father, brother and mother respectively of the appellant...
Shri Indrajit Goswami Vs. Shri R.H. Mendonca Commissioner of Police an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR691; 1999CriLJ4332
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. Challenge in this petition is directed against the order passed by R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai dated 16th April, 1998 ordering the detention of the petitioner under the provisions of The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug-offenders Act, 1981 (hereinafter called the Act). Annexure-A to the petition is the said order. Annexure-B to the petition is the grounds of detention. In the grounds of detention, it is stated that the petitioner along with other two of his associates became persons dangerous to the life of people residing in the areas of Chamdewadi, Kherwadi Road, J.P. Road, Teen Bunglow, Jawahar Nagar, Adarsh Lane, Maratha Colony, Deepak Wadi, Service Road, Khar (East) and the areas adjoining thereto in the jurisdiction of Nirmal Nagar Police Station in Brihan Mumbai. It is further stated in the order that the petitioner and his associates Hemant Surti Murti and Ajay Kasare a...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Anand Namdeo Patil and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR503
ORDERDr. Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This criminal revision application is filed by the State, being aggrieved by the order dated 26th November, 1992 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, rejecting the application dated 29th October, 1992 made by the Prosecutor under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to recall prosecution witness No. 1 Smt. Jyoti Patil, whose deposition was over.2. In this case, the accused/respondents are facing trial for offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.3. I have heard Mr. Galeria, A.P.P appearing for the applicant-State, so also Mr. M.S. Mohite, appearing for the respondents. I have also perused the proceedings. It is revealed that after the trial commenced, prosecution witness No. 1 Smt. Jyoti Patil was examined. Her cross-examination and re-examination also was over. Prosecution specifically stated that they had nothing to ask, and the witness was discharged. Thereafter, on 29th October, 1...
Kishandas and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC615Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. East India Hotel Ltd. (EIH for short) 6 appellant in C/74/86 imported by sea colour heads model AC 707, AC 650 M 670 for photographic enlarger and conversion kits for model 707. The import was made in September, 1984. M/s Kishindas & Sons, appellant in Appeal C/2645/86, imported by sea in February, 1985 colour heads for photographic enlarger. M/s. A.K. Corporation Ltd., appellant in Appeal C 774/86, imported in the same month the same goods. The goods in question were manufactured and supplied by M/s. Durst Phototechnik, Italy. Notice in writing was issued to the EIH and oral notices to the other two importers proposing confiscation of the goods on the ground that the imported goods constituted photographic enlarger import of which additional licences produced were not valid. When EIH appeared before the Additional Collector for hearing, they were informed that they were also proposing to enhance the value of the goods from the declared value on the basis of their value co...
Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT150Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question involved in these appeals are whether Modvat credit can be granted for following inputs : Originally one appeal has been filed and thereafter other two appeals have been filed as there are other show cause notices involved. The COD's have been filed and the same are excused as it is mere technical delay. This has arisen due to the judgment of the Tribunal in Kolsite India Ltd. case 1998 (99) E.L.T. 564. The delays are excused. Now all the three appeals are taken.2. In respect of the above matters, after hearing both parties, I am of the view that the issues are covered. As far as the first three items are concerned, viz. X-ray films, flow guide developers and flow guide penetrants, the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Walchandnagar Inds. Ltd. v. C.C.E. -1996 (83) E.L.T. 117 where the Tribunal has held that the in respect of X-ray films Modvat credit should be granted and the other two items flow guide developers and flow guide penetrants are the inputs which are...
Gujarat Metal Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC952Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Each of the appellants was, at the relevant time, the manufacturer of washers, rivets, "chaplas", "pattis" (strips). The manufacture was done in each case on job work for manufacture of gas lighters being classified by them under Heading 9613.56.2. We are concerned with the period 1-3-1989 to 21-4-1993. Each of the appellants had claimed the benefit of exemption Notification 175/86 and filed the appropriate declaration specified in that notification. By notice dated 15-10-1993- issued to each of the assessees the department proposed to deny the benefit of the notification on the ground that the goods were component parts of lighters to which the benefit of Notification 175/86 would not apply since they were not included in the table to that notification. The assessees replied taking the stand that the goods were not parts of lighters. They were articles of general use, and hence classifiable on merits. The assessees also contended that the notice was barred by limitation. This cont...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »