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.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mukand Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT981Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The following two questions are posed for reference to the High Court in the department's application : (1) Whether Modvat credit can be allowed on the inputs, if the process carried out on the inputs do not amounts to manufacture; (2) Whether the declaration filed under Rule 57G for "availing Modvat" even though the process carried are not manufacturing process under Section 2(f), if so, the said declaration would amounts to mis-declaration? 3. The Tribunal was concerned with whether Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs used by the appellants in its processes of annealing and pickling of wire rods would be recoverable within the extended period specified in the proviso to Rule 57-I(1). The Tribunal did not accept the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the processes of annealing and pick ling amounted to manufacture. It noted that pickling was nothing more than cleaning the surface of the rods and did not impart any additional qualities to the goods that they...
Krishna Dattatraya Patil and Others Vs. Tukaram Sidu Nalawade and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR535; 2000BomCR(Cri)535
ORDERS.S. Parkar, J.1. These three petitions are based on common set of facts and raise common question of law and, therefore, are being disposed of together by this judgment. 2. These petitions are filed for quashing the complaints and the charge-sheet filed in the Special Court, Sangli under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. Petitioners are sought to be prosecuted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and for contravening the order made under section 3 of the Act on the allegation of the contravention of the order passed by the Government of Maharashtra being Maharashtra Sugar Factories (Reservation of Area of Regulation of Crushing for Sugarcane Supply) Order, 1984. Under the said order about 150 villages had been reserved for the respondent No. 2-Karkhana who had obtained a licence from the Commissioner of Sugar, Maharashtra State, Pune. By virtue of the said order, respondent No. 2 Karkhana was entitled to harvest sugarcane of members as well as non-membe...
Association of Engineering Workers Vs. S.A. Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ415Bom
ORDERPratibaha Upasani, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated July 27, 1984, passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay, dismissing complaint (ULP) No. 417 of 1984 filed by the complainants/present petitioners against Respondent No. 2.2. The case of the petitioners is that they are the Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act. They represent all the employees of Respondent No. 2/Company. Respondent No. 2/Company manufactures automobile ancillaries. The case of the petitioners is that their Union demanded bonus at the rate of 20% and ex-gratia payment at the rate of 15% for the year 1982-83. The Company/Respondent No. 2 offered payment at the rate of 8.33% and an ad hoc payment of Rs. 500/- per workman. There was no settlement reached between respondent No. 2/Company and the workmen.3. On December 21, 1983, the Company simultaneously displayed two notices, one for closure and the other for lock-out without prejudice to ...
Smt. Chandrakanta Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: I(2000)DMC614
J.N. Patel, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for parties and the learned A.P.P. for the State.The petitioner moves this Court seeking directions to reopen the investigation in Crime No. 287 of 1999 of Police Station, Sadar, and direct the respondent No. 1 to register offence under Sections 201, 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. against the respondent Nos. 2 to 8. They have also sought directions that investigation may been trusted to an independent agency like State C.I.D. or C.B.I, as the petitioner was not satisfied with the investigation done by the local police.3. It is the case of the petitioner that her daughter-deceased Ranjana was married to the respondent No. 2 on 19.4.1998. It is also her contention that the respondent Nos. 2 to 8 treated her with cruelty in order to extract dowry and that on the day of the incident, her daughter Ranjana died of burn injuries, at about 8.30 a.m. At about 8.45 a.m., the respondent No. 5 informed her that Ranjana had ...
Vishnu B. Mayekar Vs. Smt. Laxmi V. Mayekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR211; II(2000)DMC727
ORDER1. The appellant is the husband who had filed M.J. Petition No. 327 of 1996 initially in the City Civil Court at Bombay which later on came to be transferred to the Family Court at Bandra. He had sought divorce on 2 grounds, one was that his consent to the marriage was obtained by fraud and second was that of cruelty. The learned trial Judge by judgment dated 7th December, 1993 had disbelieved the ground of fraud completely and so far as the ground of cruelty is concerned, the decision was against the husband. As a result, the petition came to be dismissed.2. We have referred to the aforesaid two grounds with a view to emphasis that in the appeal, the ground of fraud is not pressed. The appeal is argued only on the ground of cruelty.3. We are taken through the position of the petitioner husband at page 48, and the letter of respondent wife at page 55 and her witnesses.4. The husband has tried to make out a case of cruelty on 3 instances:(i) that the wife had taken pills and thus h...
Saira Bano Vs. Mohd. Aslam Ghulam Mustafa Khan Sherwani and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: I(2001)DMC457
A.B. Palkar, J.1. These two criminal revision applications have been placed before us by the order of the Honourable the Chief Justice as the learned Single Judge (D.D. Sinha, J.) hearing these petitions found that conflicting views were taken by different Single Judges of this Court in respect of requirement of proving divorce as contemplated by the provisions of Mahomedan Law and the matter is required to be decided by larger Bench.2. Criminal Revision Application No. 164 of 1995 arises out of Misc.. Criminal Case No. 64 of 1993 decided by the 2nd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akot who allowed the application under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code directing the respondent-husband to pay Rs. 150/- to the applicant-wife and Rs. 75/- each per month to the two children. The order having been challenged before the Sessions Judge, Akola in Criminal Revision No. 211 of 1994, was reversed and the maintenance claim of the wife came to be rejected.3. While resisting the claim of wife, ...
Garware Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT858Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants filed a price list in Part 1. At the same time they had also filed a price list in Form II. It was held by the Assistant Collector that where Part I price lists were prevalent, Part II price lists could not be filed for the same goods. Before the Collector (Appeals) the plea made was that a price was separately negotiated with the buyer on account of the large quantity being purchased by him. The Collector (Appeals) observed that price lists in Part I also would suffice where the provision existed for quantity discounts being shown.On this count he upheld the lower order, resulting in the present appeal being filed before us.2. We find this issued to be settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Metal Box India Ltd. v. C.C.E., Madras - 1995 (75) E.L.T. 449. In paragraph 12 of this order the Court observed that a buyer who purchased small quantities of goods would stand in different class as compared to a buyer who purchased 90% of the manufactured go...
Cadbury India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT1026Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants were using malted barley and malt extract in the manufacture of bournvita availing of proforma credit of the duty paid on the inputs in terms of Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.On 29-7-1986, these two inputs were exempted from payment of duty. On this date, there was a credit balance in the assessees' account to the extent of Rs. 3,32,342/-. On 1-3-1987, the final product viz. bournvita was covered under Modvat credit scheme. The assessees, thereafter, requested the jurisdictional officer to transfer the credit balance lying in their proforma credit account to their Modvat credit account.The Asstt. Commissioner denied this request. In doing so, he held that the proforma credit was not in operation from 29-7-1986 to the date of application. He observed that Rule 57H of the Rules permitted such transfer to be made where proforma credit account was "operative immediately prior to 28-2-1987." He, therefore, held that the request for transfer of credit balance ...
Amartara Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC79
1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 4.67 crores and penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs.2. The applicant utilized in the manufacture of its final product, cleared for home consumption on payment of duty, inputs which had been received by it under a Customs exemption notification relating to DEEC scheme without payment of the basic and additional duty of customs. The impugned order of the Commissioner is issued on his view that such a procedure is impermissible according to law.3. The Advocate for the appellant contends that the circular of the Ministry No. 261/72/16/87-CX 8, dated 8-8-1998, reproduced in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 317 specifically permits such a procedure. The Commissioner's view that he is not bound by this circular cannot be supported in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.C.E. v. Kores (I) Ltd. - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 441. He has also said that this same conclusion has been independently arrived at by the Tribunal in Sawottam Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v.C.C.E.Pratap S...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Bombay Plastic Udyog
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT985Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal filed by the Revenue was argued by Shri K.M. Patwari.None was present for the Respondents.2. M/s. Bombay Plastic Udyog imported 454.54 kg. of Acetal Plastic raw material (Polyacetal). The value declared was US $ 550 PMT. CIF Bombay, Customs contested the valuation. The Assistant Collector enhanced the value to US $ 1100 PMT FOB Bombay. The Commissioner reviewed the order and caused an application to be filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), in the belief that the importer deserved to be penalised and that the goods deserved to be confiscated for misdeclaration. The Commissioner (Appeals) found no merit in the application and dismissed the appeal before him. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) the present appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai in terms of Section 129A(2) of the Act.3. When matter came up for hearing on 5-5-1999, we observed that the Statement of Facts related to a totally different case namely that relating to M/ s. Rajiv ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »