Mumbai Court July 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.
Rosalee Paints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT845Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant is a manufacturer of paints and varnishes at its factory at Vital Udyog Nagar, Anand District, Gujarat. It claimed as a deduction from the price, in order to arrive, at the assessable value of paints and varnishes in containers of 4 litres, 2 litres, 1 litre and 500 millilitre cleared to Berger Paints, Calcutta and Bombay the cost of corrugated boxes in which they were packed. The department was of the view that paints in such packing are "mostly removed" from the factory in the secondary packing which was therefore essential for the goods rendering marketable therefore did not permit such deduction. The notice to show cause in this regard resulted in issue of the order by the Assistant Collector (confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) disallowing such packing and demanding duty consequently payable. Hence this appeal.2. Representative of the appellant says the facts are identical to those dealt with by the Tribunal in Bee Pee Coating Ltd. v. C.C.E.-1996 (62) ECR 628 an...
Velji Shivaji and Bros. and Others Vs. M/S. Mathuradas Narandas and So ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR50
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. The defendants have taken out this Third Party Notice in the Summary Suit. The question is whether such third party procedure is available in a Summary Suit. The learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Parasmal Chordia v. Rajlakshmi Ammal & another, : AIR1970Mad47 . The said suit, as can be seen from the facts, was a regular suit, though on a negotiable instrument. Therefore, that judgment is of no assistance in so far as the issue involved in the present case is concerned.2. It is then contended that the defendants were permitted to issue third party notice by order of Single Judge of this Court. Mere fact that permission was granted to issue third party notice by itself cannot amount to holding that provisions of the third party notice are available in a summary suit.3. Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code, provides a special procedure in so far as summary suits are concerned. Firstly, the suit is maintain...
Shri Thomas Sebastian and Others Vs. the Chief Secretary, State of Goa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR654; 2000(2)BomCR190
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. By the present petition the petitioners are challenging the Government Circular dated 15-10-1992 by which the respondent No. 2 has ordered the aided secondary schools to recover the alleged overpayment made to the teachers on account of grant of post graduate pay-scales to the teachers, like the petitioners, as also the non-payment of post-graduate scales to the secondary schools teachers by the Government of Goa despite decision to that effect as early as on 20-8-1993.2. At the outset, a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition on the ground of res judicata is sought to be raised on behalf of the respondents. It is the contention of the respondents that in past the petitioner No. 4 had filed two writ petitions, one in his personal capacity and another in the name of All Goa Secondary School Teachers Association, being Writ Petition No. 66/B of 1976 and No. 170/B of 1976, respectively, and the matter in issue in these petitions is a...
Garware Plastics and Polyester Limited and Another Vs. the Municipal C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR266; 2000(2)BomCR698; 2000(1)MhLj8
ORDERV.K. Barde, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a Public Limited Company, having its factory at Waluj, about 13 Kms. from Aurangabad. Petitioner No. 2 is the share holder of the company. Petitioner No. 1 manufactures polyester chips. These polyester chips are manufactured from D.N.T. and M.E.G., which are, in turn, petrochemicals derived from the petroleum. The polyester chips manufactured in the factory at Waluj are then imported into petitioner No. 1's factory at Chikalthana within the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation area. In the plant at Chikalthana, the polyester film is manufactured from the polyester chips.2. Respondent Aurangabad Municipal Corporation has rules for collection of octroi. The octroi is being collected on the goods imported into the Municipal Corporation area for the purpose of consumption, use or sale within the octroi limits of the Corporation area. Schedule O of the said Rules classifies various kinds of goods for the purpose of octroi charges. Entry No. 38(a) of Sch...
Shri Mohamad Ashraf Vs. the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR205; 2000BomCR(Cri)205
ORDERPer Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the cousin brother of the detenu Abubakar Umar Abbas seeks to challenge the detention order dated 21-9-1998 passed by the First Respondent-Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, detaining the detenu under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996). The detention order along with the grounds of detention also dated 21-9-1998 was served on the detenu on 23-9-1998. True copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to the petition. 2. The prejudicial activities of the detenu necessitating the issuance of the impugned detention order are contained in the grounds of detention. A perusal of the grounds of detention shows that the basis of the impugned det...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Yadav Natthuji Kohachade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR743; 2000CriLJ959
ORDERJ.N. Patel, J.1. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the applicant-State and the learned Counsel for the non-applicant. The State of Maharashtra was required to approach this Court by invoking its powers of revision as well as its inherent powers impugning the order of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Criminal Revision No.490/99 passed on 3rd July, 1999, under which the learned First Additional Sessions Judge having partly dictated the order went on to observe, 'The fate of this revision is based on the findings of the proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it will not be just and proper on the part of this Court to proceed with this revision till the decision of the proceedings pending before the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, the interim stay granted by this Court on dated 28-6-1999 shall continue until further orders.' 2. This, according to the prosecution, has resulted in scuttling the investigation in ca...
Cipla Ltd. Vs. Cipla Employees' Union and Ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ1072Bom
1. Heard the Counsel for both the parties at length.2. Letters Patent Appeal is admitted. Hearing is expedited. Respondents waive service.3. We have perused the Order passed by the learned Single Judge. We have also considered the impugned Orders passed by the Industrial Court, Thane. We have also perused the relevant clauses of the Settlements and the classification Orders dated October 30, 1986 issued to the employees including the Machine Operators. It reads as under:'With effect from November 1, 1986 in terms of the settlement dated October 23, 1986, you,have been classified as Machine Operator and your basic wage is revised to Rs. 415/- per month in Grade I. The classification in particular is subject to the provisions of the said settlement, which are reproduced below:- 1. All the workmen posted in any grade shall perform the task which may be of a lower grade, as and when the need arises. 2. The workmen placed in a particular job position of a grade may be deployed for any other...
Rajendra Devidas Hirurkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: I(2000)DMC590
J.N. Patel, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.The petitioner husband has impugned the order dated 14.10.1994 passed by the Sessions Judge, Akola, in Criminal Revision No. 39/91 which was filed by the respondent wife challenging the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola, dismissing her claim for maintenance.2. It is not disputed that the petitioner was married to respondent No. 2 Smt. Shobha on 25.6.1988. It was the case of the respondent wife that after some days of marriage she was treated with cruelty and asked to bring money from her parents. On persuasion, the parents and the brothers paid Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner husband to purchase a house at Surat. At times the petitioner used to take her to Surat where he is working, there she came to know that the petitioner has illicit relations with one girl and she suspected that respondent wife is unchaste, and that she was sent back to Akola while she was pregnant. The respondent wife delivered a girl ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Jindal Texolab Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT730Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing both sides for quite sometime it appeared that the issues before us are not clear. From the Assistant Commissioner's Order it appears that there are two streams of documents produced, one under Rule 13 where the end products are exported and one where the products are manu- factured for sale in the domestic market. Shri Nankani states that there are no products sold in the domestic market at all. If that is the situation then the question of exemption under the notification need not enter the scene. We find that the issues are not clear on perusal of the claim made in appeal. We, therefore, direct the revenue to file a complete paper book bringing out exactly in what manner the assessees were operating, what the requirement of law were and in what way they were discharged. To enable the department to prepare, adjourned to 31st August, 1999....
Acc Machinery Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT231Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The appellant manufactures, on order from its buyers, machinery for the manufacture of rubber tyres. It takes from its customers advances in cash which are adjusted, after delivery of the goods against their price. Following issue of notice, and subsequent adjudication proceedings, the Assistant Commissioner held that the interest notionally accrued on these advances, (but not actually paid) should form part of the assessable value of the goods in respect of such advances is taken. On appeal by the assessee, Commissioner (Appeals) held that the order of the Assistant Commissioner (which incidentally disposed of 14 notices), was bad in law. He, however, remanded the case back to the Assistant Commissioner for a decision afresh "after considering the factor of nexus between advances obtained and prices charged, benefit directly or even indirectly enjoyed by the appellant and reference to Section 14A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 as per the circular of CBEC dated 27-5-19...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »