Mumbai Court September 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.
Emmes Metals Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: (2000)(90)LC579Tri(Mum.)bai
1. While hearing the stay application, it appeared that the main appeal could be taken up for disposal. This was done after granting waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.2. I have heard Shri D.D. Gwalani, advocate for the appellants and Shri Patwari, JDR for the revenue.3. The appellants received a consignment of 516 ingots of zinc totally weighing 12.186 M/T under challan No. 024 dated 30.9.1992. Earlier, 520 pieces totally weighing 12.280 MT under Gate pass 000633 dated 19.9.1992 were transferred from the factory of M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. to their depot which Gate pass was also endorsed to the present appellants. In this endorsement there was an error. While the endorsed quantity was less than the quantity covered under the gate pass, the endorsement certified that the entire quantity stood transferred. On a perusal of the gate pass, it was obvious that this was a clerical error. The Addl. Commissioner held that the gate pass was defective and on this count he denied t...
KaThe Steel Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT145Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Application No. E/Stay-1376-R/99-Bom (in Appeal E/1974/99) is for waiver of deposit of differential duty amounting to Rs. 1,471/- per month. After hearing both sides the position seems to be this : 2. In the order dated 14-7-1998 the Commissioner determined under Rule 96ZP the installed capacity of applicant's furnace, duty payable by the applicant calculated on its installed capacity in accordance with the rules, to be Rs. 2,04,402/-. By a corrigendum dated 5-11-1998 this was revised to Rs. 2,77,300/-. By a further corrigendum dated 10-3-1999 the figure was again changed to Rs. 2,05,879/-. We find considerable merit, prima facie, in the contention of the representative of the applicant that the corrigendum, which had the effect of increasing the applicants duty liability, could not have been issued without giving an appropriate opportunity. Corrigendum does not cite any arithmetical error or any such factor for the change. Accordingly we waive deposit of the amount of differential...
Sagar Twisters Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: (2000)(89)LC509Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 19.90 lakhs and penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Act. The duty has been demanded and penalty imposed, because the applicant took credit under Rule 57Q of Rs. 21,000/- approximately on 09/08/1997, while it had declared its intention to avail of the benefit of notification 4/97 as amended. One of the conditions for the availing of this notification is that no credit under Rule 57A or Rule 57Q "has been availed".2. The contention of the advocate for the applicant is that while the credit was taken it was not utilised towards payment of duty and the credit taken was reversed in September, 1998, and that, therefore credit has not been availed of. He cited the judgement of Madras High Court in Mani P.S. v. A. Palani Muthupillai and Anr. AIR 1996 Madras 60 to say that one avails of something if one benefits from it.3. The departmental representative says that acceptance of this argument would lead to a situation that the...
Mahesh Kantilal Shah and Others Vs. Shishir Chhotalal Shah and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Bom157; 1999(4)ALLMR584; 2000(1)BomCR442; (2000)2BOMLR220; 2000(2)MhLj136
ORDERDr. B.P. SARAF, J.1. By this appeal the appellants seek to challenge the order dated 30th June, 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Arbitration petition of the appellants by which the award of the arbitrator was sought to be challenged on the ground of misconduct.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants who submits that in the instant case the award is vitiated because of non-compliance of the provisions of section 48 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The learned Counsel submits that the umpire failed to take into consideration section 48 of the Indian Partnership Act and effect of non-compliance of the same.3. We have carefully considered the above submissions. We have perused the award as also the judgment of the learned Single Judge rejecting thearbitration petition. The learned Single Judge has considered the above submission of the appellants. He however, found that there was no non-compliance of section 48 of the Indian Partnership Act be...
Shri Efigenio Dias and Another Vs. Shri Malaquias D'Costa and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR533; 2000(2)BomCR713; 2000(2)MhLj209
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioners challenge order dated 21st January 1999 of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao, whereby Court Commissioner was ordered to be appointed under Order XXXIX, Rule 7 C.P.C. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties it is necessary to state the background in which this application was filed. The petitioners (plaintiffs) had filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the respondents (defendants) from in any manner entering and interfering in the suit property under Survey No. 39/40. An application for temporary injunction was filed in the said suit seeking to restrain the respondents from taking forcible possession of portion of property to make an access leading to their property. The defendants made a counter-claim claiming the suit access through the property of the plaintiffs and sought restrain on the plaintiffs from obstruction of the suit access. The Civil Judge had dismissed the plaintiffs' application and respo...
Bhupendra Villa Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. and Another Vs. Cha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR199; 2001(2)MhLj834
ORDERH.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Mr. Shah for the petitioners, Mr. Deogirikar for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. Utangale for respondent No. 6.2. A short question reused in this matter is as to whether second revision would lie under section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 after an earlier decision by the Divisional Joint Registrar in revision under the same section against the order of the Assistant Registrar. The petitioners are aggrieved by such order and Mr. Shah submits that such a second revision is not contemplated under section 154 of the M.C.S. Act and the order of the State Government is without jurisdiction. Mr. Deogirikar on the other hand draws my attention to quite a few judgments and states that such a revision is maintainable. Having considered those judgments and two other judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad, : [1980]3SCR32 and Aumdal Animal v. Sadasivam Pillai, : [1987]1SCR485 in my view the position is clear t...
Miss Kamla Khushaldas Teckchandani Vs. O.D. Mohindra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR588; (2000)160CTR(Bom)112; [1999]240ITR796(Bom)
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner takes exception to the order dated August 29, 1989, passed by the Appropriate Authority (Income-tax Department), Bombay, under Sub-section (1) of Section 269UD of the Income-taxAct, 1961. By that order the appropriate authority in exercise of its power under Sub-section (1) of Section 269UD of the Income-tax Act ordered the purchase of the immovable property of the petitioner by the Central Government.2. At the outset, it may be pointed out that in this petition, the entire order dated August 29, 1989, has not been challenged, but challenge has been restricted only to that part of the order whereby the amount of apparent consideration has been fixed at Rs. 21,14,684.3. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding the present petition are that on June 14, 1989, the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell the immovable property to Trambak Holdings Private Limited, a com...
Jaya Hind Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)(90)LC85Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These four appeals have the same facts and points of law involved.The appellants are the same. These are therefore being disposed of vide this common order.2. We have heard Shri C.S. Lodha, advocate for the appellants and Shri Deepak Kumar for the Revenue.3. The appellants made aluminium castings. In the making of these castings specialized dies were required which dies were manufactured by the appellants themselves. In some cases advances were taken by the appellants for development of such dies from the customers of their castings. In identically worded show cause notices the allegation was made that the assessees had not declared the fact of their having received advances from their customers. It was claimed that the notional interest accrued on these advances should have been added to the valuation of the dies and the added value should have been apportioned over the castings manufactured using such dies. It was alleged that this receipt was additional consideration flowing fro...
Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC344
2. The issue is the classification, from March, 1999 onwards of the product "Dant Manjan Lal" manufactured by the applicant. The product is manufactured in two of its factory, one at Bahadur with which we are concerned, and the other at Nagpur.3. The product of the appellant was the subject matter in the judgment of the Supreme Court on the assessee's appeal . In that judgment the Supreme Court did not accept the contention of the assessee that the product was a drug, medicine or pharmaceutical, exempted from duty by notification 62/78. Subsequent to that judgment, the tariff was amended to March, 1996 by introducing a new sub-heading 3003.30. This was for "Medicaments, including those used in Ayurvedic, Unani, Sidha, Homoeopathic and biochemic system manufactured exclusively in accordance with the formulae described in the authoritative books specified in the First Schedule to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940) or Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of India or the United States o...
Shri Humberto Luis and Another Vs. Shri Floriano Armando Luis and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR648; 2000(2)BomCR754; 2000(1)MhLj690
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This Revision Application arises from order dated 6th April, 1999 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 153 of 1993 by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has held that the recognised agents cannot step into the shoes of the plaintiff on the basis of Power of Attorney and secondly has directed the plaintiff in the suit to step into the witness box in order to prove their case. 2. The facts relevant for the decision are that the petitioners have filed a suit against the respondents for cancellation of a gift deed in relation to and for partition of the suit property. The suit is contested by the respondents. When the matter came up for hearing, the plaintiffs in the suit were sought to be represented by their Power of Attorney as the witness on their behalf by virtue of a deed of Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiffs in favour of such person. After the examination-in-chief of such person being recorded partly, the...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »