Mumbai Court August 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.
Alleli and Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1999
Reported in: (2000)(89)LC435Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When these applications came up for hearing, it appeared that the main appeals could be taken up for disposal. Both sides agreeing that, this was done.2. We have heard Shri R.J. Parakh, Advocate for the appellants and Shri K.M. Patwari, for the revenue.3. The appellants are processors of fabric on job work basis. From time to time they filed classification lists and price lists and on due approval, processed and cleared the fabrics. Along with the price lists a declaration was attached showing construction of the assessable value. The cost construction showed separately the inclusion of profits at the rate of 10%.3. 9 Show Cause Notices were issued during the period 29.11.1991 to 5.8.1992. These SCNs were identically worded. In each Show Cause Notice the charge was made that assessees had failed to add 10% in the assessable value as manufacturing expenses. On this count each Show Cause Notice demanded differential duty. In some cases it was alleged that the 10% addition sought to b...
Centurion Bank Limited Vs. Indian Lead Limited and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1999
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR556
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The plaintiffs by the present petition have applied for leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The suit by the plaintiff is for a declaration that the Hire Purchase Agreement dated 27th January, 1995 and the Hire Purchase Agreement dated 3rd July, 1995 are validly terminated with effect from 5th June, 1999; a further declaration that the defendants have no right, title or interest or claim whatsoever in respect of the said equipment, etc.; that the defendants be ordered and directed forthwith to hand over and deliver possession to the plaintiffs of the said equipments; that the defendants be ordered and decreed to jointly and/or severally pay a sum of Rs. 31,32,608/- collectively under the said Agreements being arrears of hire charges upto 5th June, 1999 with further interest thereon; that the defendants jointly and/or severally be ordered and decreed to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 25,02,274/- towards hire purchase charges for the remaining period of hir...
Ani. S/O Dnyandeorao Barbude, and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR416; 1999(3)MhLj508
ORDERB.N. SRIKRISHNA, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith to respondent No. 1 and 4 who are the only parties found to be heard to resolve the grievance in this writ petition. Respondents 2 and 3 are mere formal parties and hence no service on them is necessary.2. The petitioners passed H.S.S.C. Examination from Nagpur Divisional Board held sometime in the months of March 1991 and March 1989 respectively. On 16-7-1991, the petitioners joined the Two years' Diploma in Teaching (Dip. T.) course offered by Sagar (M.P.) University and passed the same. The first petitioner passed Dip.T. on 30-4-1993 and the second petitioner passed it on 30-4-1994. On 31-5-1993, the said Dip.T. Course offered by Saugar (M.P.) University was derecognized by the Government of Maharashtra. On 27th July, 1997, the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers in the respondent No. 2 school and joined the respective posts on 1-8-1997. A proposal for grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioners was submit...
Tarvindarsingh Mahendrasingh Dhillon Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Bom223; 2000(2)ALLMR155; 2000(1)MhLj264
Barde, J.1. Writ Petition No. 2162 of 1999 is filed for challenging the election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') held on 20-4-1999; while the other two writ petitions are filed for challenging the election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the Corporation separately by the petitioner-Shri Oberoi, one of the Corporators. As these three writ petitions raise common issues, those are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The grounds raised for challenging the election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor-respondents Nos. 4 and 5 respectively in Writ Petition No. 2162 of 1999 -- are as follows:3. The petitioner-Shri Dhillon had contested the election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor both on 20-4-1999 against respondent Nos. 4 and 5 respectively; and he lost both the elections.4. The contention of the petitioner-Shri Dhillon is that, at the time of voting, 16 voters were given assistance to vote for the election of the Mayor; and 8...
Vasant Baburao Korde Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR169; 2000BomCR(Cri)169
ORDER1. Heard the Advocates.2. Petitioner - original complainant has filed this revision application challenging the order of the Special Judge, Satara dated 30-1-1988 in Special Case No. 6 of 1983 wherein the learned Special Judge has after examining the evidence has acquitted the respondent Nos. 2 and 3-accused from the offence under sections 161, 165 and 165-A of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5(1)(d) r.w. section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is to be noted that against the said order of acquittal the State has not challenged the order of acquittal and accordingly in absence of any acquittal appeal and on considering the fact about the scope of revision, we are not inclined to entertain this revision application. Accordingly, criminal revision application is dismissed. Rule discharged.3. Appeal dismissed....
Victoria Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1999
Reported in: (2000)(89)LC409Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants manufactured textiles. Annual stock taking was being conducted in their premises in terms of Rule 223A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Seven show cause notices were issued for recovery of duty and imposition of penalty on the shortage noticed in such stock takings conducted in 1977, 1978, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986. The Additional Collector held that six show cause notices for the period 1977 to 1985 are barred by limitation. In the seventh case the percentage of shortage was 0.76. He observed that loss of 1% was condonable and condoned the loss. However he imposed penalty of Rs. 30,000/- in terms of the said rule. The assessees went in appeal before the Collector (Appeals). They submitted that the rule permits imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. Therefore the maximum penalty leviable could be Rs. 2,000/- in each case and sought remission in the penalty imposed of Rs. 30,000/-. The Collector (Appeals) however found fault with the Additional Collector's find...
Prakash Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT675Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants in this case filed six shipping bills for export of textiles totally weighing 20794.20 kgs. totally valued at Rs. 55,26,545 (FOB). Examination of the goods resulted in the finding that there was an excess weight of fabrics to the extent of 4833.58 kgs. The excess goods were valued at Rs.13,00,020/-. Show cause notice was issued alleging liability of the excess goods to confiscation under provisions of Section 113(d) since these goods were not covered under the CTEPC quota for exports. Allegations as to penalty were also made. Before the Collector the exporters claimed that they had sufficient balance available in the export quota granted to them and that the excess could be debited against that licence. It was also submitted that the excess made would not result in excess remittances because contract was for the value and not for quantity. Request was made for amendment of these shipping bills. The Collector in his order did not take these submissions into account bu...
Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT822Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants are Steamer Agent. 7 containers containing a total of 146 packages belonging to two exporters were shipped by them to Houston in USA under cover of 7 bills of lading. These seven containers were rejected and re-iinported under cover of Service bill of lading dt.12-8-1995. Although the same number of containers was shown, the number of packages were shown as 106. IGM was filed on 17-1-1996 showing 106 packages. On 9-2-1996, an amendment was filed on shipper's advice. The Collector held that in this situation 40 packages which were unmanifested were liable to confiscation under provisions of Section 111(f) and 111(g) of the Customs Act, 1962. He did not order confiscation of the goods but imposed the penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the appellants. Hence the present appeal.2. I have heard Shri N.P. Jagasia for the assessees and Shri. K.L.Ramteke for the Revenue.3. Shri Jagasia placed on record bills of entry whereby these containers were cleared on nil rate of duty in terms o...
JaIn Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1999
Reported in: (2000)(90)LC113Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Jain Packaging Pvt.Ltd. is whether proviso to Section 11A(1) is invokable for demanding the duty for the extended period.2. When the matter was called no one was present en behalf of the appellants and the notice issued to them has been returned by the postal authorities with the remark "Company closed". We, therefore, heard Shri Jagdish Singh, learned DR and perused the record.3. We observe that in the present matter the appellants were availing of the benefit of Notification No. 175/86. The operation of this notification was suspended during the period from 25.3.1986 to 31.3.1986 vide notification No. 202/86 dated 25.3.1986. The appellants continued to pay duty by availing the benefit of notification No.175/86. The department, therefore, issued a show cause notice on 21.3.1991 for demanding differential duty during the period from 25.3.1986 to 31.3.1986 which was confirmed by the Additional Collector in the impugned order holding th...
Purthviraj Chandrakant Shinde and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR889
ORDERV.K. Barde, J.1. Heard Shri C.R. Deshpande, Counsel for the petitioners, and Shri P.B. Varale, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondents.2. It is the contention of the petitioners, that the offences under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, are bailable offences because the amendment which was carried out in the Act, by Act 18 of 1981 was for a fixed period. That period has expired and, therefore, now the specially inserted word 'non-bailable' in section 10-A is not there in the Act and, therefore, offence becomes bailable offence.3. Here it is necessary to note the changes which have taken place in section 10-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In the beginning, section 10-A was providing that the offences under the Act to be cognizable and bailable. However, by the Act 30 of 1974, amendment was effected. The words 'and bailable' were deleted. So, there remained the provision that the offences under the Act to be cognizable.4. Obviously, when no provision is made u...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »