Mumbai Court January 2000 Judgments
Cce Vs. Hagel Capsule Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2000
Reported in: (2000)(92)LC748Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is the department's appeal against the above captioned order dated 6.7.1995 praying for setting aside the same and to restore the order-in-original of the Assistant Commissioner.1.1. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent company manufactures pharmaceutical products under chapter 30 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and avails Modvat facility. It was noticed that the quantity of bottles in the actual production of the pharma goods was less than that on which Modvat credit was availed.Show cause notice was issued for the recovery of total credit of Rs. 57,257.60 being the excess credit availed pertaining to the quantity of bottles not actually used in the manufacture of final products. After the receipt of the reply and hearing the respondent the duty demand was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner on 26.8.1994. In the appeal preferred against the respondent it was set aside by the Commissioner.Hence this appeal.2. The learned JDR has con...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2000
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT446Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under the following circumstances.2. The assessee's unit was closed. During the closure the assessee has filed an appeal against the order-in-original passed by the Asstt.Commissioner, Rajkot. By the order-in-original they were required to pay Rs. 27,211.80. An appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), Ahemedabad who directed the assessee to pay the sum of Rs. 14,000/- by way of pre-deposit. The said order was sent to the appellant whose factory was closed. The Collector (Appeals) by the impugned order after noting the fact that the appellant's factory was closed, dismissed the appeal on the ground that there is non-compliance of provision of Section 35F. This order was passed by the Collector (Appeals) sometime in February 1999 but seems to have been received by the appellant in March 1999. The appellant did not file the appeal before the Tribunal within 3 months thereafter. But they have filed the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Zoher Taherali Dalal Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2000
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC335
1. This application seeks directions to be made to the appropriate authority to ensure compliance of the orders made by this Tribunal. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) vide his Order dated 17.12.1996, ordered confiscation of US $40,0000 seized from the possession of the applicant Shri Z.T. Dalal. A penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs was also imposed upon him. Against this order, the applicant filed an appeal. The Tribunal vide their order dated 28.4.1997 directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 20,000 as a pre-condition to hearing of the appeal and on compliance being reported passed Order No.173 and 174/98/WZB/C.II dated 16.1.1998 finally disposing of the matter after hearing both sides. The appeal filed by the applicant was allowed. The impugned order was set aside and consequential relief was directed. The Commissioner of Customs (P) proposed an application to be filed for reference to the jurisdictional High Court, from the points of law arising out of the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal dis...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Datta Anant Ghadi Vs. Guilhermina Silveria and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR626; 2000(2)BomCR862; 2000(4)MhLj117
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This petition arises from the judgment and order dated 22-11-90 passed in Eviction Appeal No. 13/88 by the Administrative Tribunal. By the said order, the appeal of the petitioner against order dated 26-4-88 of the Additional Rent Controller, Ponda, Sub-Division, Ponda was dismissed. The Rent Controller on his part had allowed the application filed by the respondent under section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the said Act) for stopping all proceedings in eviction proceedings and to direct the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent.2. The undisputed facts in brief are that the petitioner is the tenant in respect of the premises bearing house No. 267 situated in the property known as 'Tank alias Pissem' situated in the village of Candola belonging to the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 herein filed an application for eviction of ...
Tag this Judgment!Sow Gangabai W/O Nilkantrao Jadhav Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR238; 2000(4)BomCR480; 2000(4)MhLj69
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard all the learned Counsel, Shri Salunke for the petitioner, Shri Savant, Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Shri Bhavathankar for respondent No. 8, who is the only contesting respondent.2. Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. Counsel for the respondents waive service.3. The petitioner seeks to challenge the right of the 8th respondent Smt. Nirmala Patil to contest the election to the Managing Committee of the 5th respondent-specified society.4. The 8th respondent is contesting the said election from the reserved constituency under section 73-BBB of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 dealing with 'reservation of seats on committees of societies for women members and elections thereto'.5. This matter was initially heard on 11th January, 2000 and having regard to the urgency, (namely the fact that voting is to take place on 25th January, 2000) notice before admission was issued to respondent No. 5 society and the contesti...
Tag this Judgment!Apparao Bapurao Mane Vs. Shivaji Bapurao Mane and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR105; 2000(4)BomCR470
ORDERV.K. Barde, J.1. This is a petition against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kandhar; in Regular Darkhast No. 22 of 1986. The present respondents Nos. 1 & 2 had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 8 of 1976 in the Court of the Civil Judge. Junior Division, Kandhar, for partition and separate possession. Respondent No. 2 is the mother of respondent No. 1; while respondent No. 3 is the husband of respondent No. 2. The present petitioner and respondent No. 4 are the sons of respondents Nos. 2 and 3. An appeal was filed against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, being Regular Civil Appeal No. 160 of 1989, but the same was dismissed. The decree declared that each of the parties was having undivided one-fifth share in the property, which included agricultural lands, assessable to land revenue, and the house property. Thus, both Shivaji and Rukminibai, the plaintiffs in the said suit, each got one-fifth share in these properties.2. Shivaji and Rukmin...
Tag this Judgment!Vardhaman Dyeing and Printing Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2000
Reported in: (2000)(92)LC217Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is the party's appeal against the above captioned impugned order dated 6.2.1992 praying for setting aside the same, and for relief that 11729.40 man made fabrics was not processed clandestinely and removed without payment of duty and to set aside the penalty and order of confiscation, and for such other relief as deemed fit.2. The appellants partnership firm is engaged in the processing of man made fabrics falling under chapters 54 & 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and under the show cause notice dated 11.6.1991 a demand was made for Rs. 5,88,283.60 of additional duty of excise and Handloom Cess for Rs. 5,042.98 and why the goods should not be confiscated and why penalty should not be imposed on the appellants. After filing the reply by the appellants, and holding personal hearing, the impugned order was passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai-II confirming the demand of the additional excise duty, and penalty of Rs. 1.5 lakhs was imposed under Rule 173Q and ...
Tag this Judgment!Sylvia Leo Carvgalho Vs. the Collector of Mumbai and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR4; 2000(3)BomCR158; (2000)2BOMLR9; 2000(2)MhLj781
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Mr. R.M. Sawant, Government Pleader waives service for respondents. 2. By consent, rule is heard forthwith. 3. Brief facts as set out by the petitioner in the writ petition are: One Leo J. Carvalho was the licensee and carrying on business of running the country liquor bar in the name and style of M/s. Leo's Bar at Achanak Niwas, Opp. Darpan Cinema, A.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai. The said Leo J. Carvalho expired on 1-6-99 leaving behind the petitioner and her minor son as his only legal heirs. On the death of Leo J. Carvalho, the petitioner made an application for transfer, of the licence for country liquor bar viz. Licence No. CL III 50 in her name since the licensee (her husband) had died. The said application made by the petitioner to the Collector of Bombay on 4-6-99 for transfer of the licence in her name is still pending. The petitioner was allowed to carry on the business on the strength of the licence granted to her husband ...
Tag this Judgment!Rakhma S/O Sawalaram Shelke, Deceased Per L.Rs. and Others Vs. Shri De ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR256; 2000(4)BomCR473; (2000)3BOMLR197; 2001(4)MhLj249
ORDERV.K. Barde, J.1. The petitioner had purchased land, Survey No. 494 of Village Limba Ganesh, Taluka and District Beed, in an auction held for recovery of dues of the Municipal Council, Beed, payable by respondent No. 1, Devidas. The auction was held in the year 1964. Respondent No. 1 thereafter filed an application for setting aside the auction. However, the Collector, Beed, as well as the Revenue Commissioner and the State Government rejected the applications and the sale was confirmed. However, respondent No. 1 then filed Special Civil Application No. 1675 of 1968 in this Court. The said writ petition was decided on 28-2-1972. The sale was set aside and respondent No. 1 was directed to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent, on Rs. 4,200/- being the price paid by the petitioner for the land Survey No. 494 in the auction for the period from the date of auction till the date the petitioner obtained possession of the land. Respondent No. 1 did riot pay the amount as directed by the...
Tag this Judgment!Siddharth S/O Atchutrao Sawant Vs. State (Through Public Prosecutor)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR673; 2000BomCR(Cri)673; 2000(3)MhLj46
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. This criminal appeal arises from the judgment and order convicting the appellant-accused under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years imprisonment. It was further ordered that if the fine amount is paid, the same shall be paid to the prosecutrix (P.W. 1) as the compensation.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, the prosecutrix of below sixteen years of age, while she was returning from the house of one Ramrao, after attending to her household duties on June 12, 1996 during the afternoon at about 16.15 hrs., on her way to her residence and when she had reached in a cashew garden, the appellant-accused caught her from the back and lifted her and took her to the bushes and committed an offence of rape by overpowering her. Thereafter the accused threatened the prosecutrix that if she were to disclose the said fact to her parents or any one else, she would be killed. After getting he...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »