Mumbai Court October 2000 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.
Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-2000
Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT773Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to deduction from the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the appellant of various discounts. We shall discuss each of these discounts.2. (a) Annual incentive at 7% for suiting and 4% for shirting and dress material. This incentive provides for deduction from the price of the suiting and shirting depending upon the quantity purchased by the dealer in the course of the year a maximum of 7% for suiting and 4% for shirting and dress material. This has been denied on the ground that it is an incentive and not a discount, and that it is not quantified when the goods are sold. This incentive appears to us to be nothing other than annual turnover discount considered by the Supreme Court in its judgment in Government of India v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. -1995 (77) E.L.T. 433. In paragraphs 55 to 58 of its judgment, the Court allowed discount given to the dealer depending upon the volume of the purchases made by ea...
Baron International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC630
1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 5.48 crores approx.2. We have heard Mr. V. Sridharan, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. M.I. Sethna, learned Advocate for the department.3. The duty has been confirmed on the finding of the Commissioner that the assessable value of the television sets manufactured by M/s. JR Electronics (JRE for short) is to be based on the prices at which these television sets were sold by M/s. Baron International Limited (BIL for short) who purchased their goods through its dealers.4. The Commissioner has devoted a considerable portion of his order to examining the allegation in the show cause notice issued to both parties. He agrees, clearly that "the detailed analysis earlier in this order makes it clear that the facts and evidence on record do not make out a clear case against M/s. JRE on the basis of which it can be said that M/s. JRE were a dummy of M/s. BIL and therefore differential duty is not recoverable.'" Subsequently, ho...
Chandrakant Venkatesh Moholkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR119; 2001(1)BomCR667; (2001)1BOMLR508; 2000(4)MhLj793
B. P. Singh, C. J.1. The Petitioner herein, a member of the Maharashtra Judicial Service, was working as Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for Greater Bombay, when a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him, resulting in an Order of dismissal dated 28th October, 1985 passed by theGovernor of Maharashtra on the recommendation made by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, after an enquiry was held in which the Petitioner was found guilty of misconduct. The Petitioner has, apart from challenging the Order of the Governor of Maharashtra dated 28th October, 1985, dismissing the Petitioner from service, also challenged the disciplinary proceeding, its commencement and continuation, as also the enquiry report made by Respondent No. 3 as also the enquiry held by him. According to the Petitioner, the entire proceeding was conducted in breach of the constitutional provisions and in breach of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979, as also in breach o...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Raju Dadaba Borge
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-2000
Reported in: 2001BomCR(Cri)98; (2001)1BOMLR852; 2001CriLJ3638
Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. Since Confirmation Case No. 2 of 2000 and Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 2000 arise out of the same set of facts and arc directed against a common Judgment, we are disposing them off by one Judgment. Through his Judgment dated 2nd February. 2000 passed in Sessions Case No. 1327 of 1996, the IInd Additional Sessions Judge. Kalyan convicted and sentenced Raju Dadaba Borge in the manner stated hereinafter : -(i) Under section 302 of the I.P.C. to death penalty to be hanged by neck till dead (for the murder of his daughter Sangeeta aged 1 1/2 years) and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to suffer two years R. I. ; (ii) Under section 307 of the I.P.C. for attempting to commit the murder of his two daughters Sangeeta and Pooja, to ten years R. I. and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- on each count, in default to suffer R. I. for two years ; and (iii) Under section 201 of the I.P.C. to suffer five years R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default R.I. for six months. The...
Costa and Co. Private Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Margao and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR260; 2002(1)MhLj288
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J. 1. The petitioner is manufacturer, wholesaler and exporter of quality canned food products. It sells meat and fish in the form of sausages, salami, luncheon meat, frankfurters, pastrami, croquettes, ham, bacon, sorpotel and prawn curry. The petitioner is a registered Sales Tax dealer under the Goa Sales Tax Act, 1964 (hereinafter called 'the Sales Tax Act'). Under the Sales Tax Act all the tax free goods are contained in the Second Schedule. Item Nos. 4 and 5 of the Second Schedule contain Meat and Fish which read as follows :--'4. Meat (except when sold in sealed metallic or plastic containers). 5. Fish (except when sold in sealed metallic or plastic containers).' Therefore, under Item 4 of this Schedule, meat supplied and sold by a butcher without a sealed metallic or plastic container alone is exempted from tax. In other words if meat or meat products are supplied in metallic or plastic containers, then it is not exempted from tax. 2. By Assessment Ord...
Vasant Holiday Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Collector and District R ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Bom62; 2001(2)BomCR252; 2001(3)MhLj170
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J. 1. Petitioner challenges the Constitutional validity of the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Monies (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1986, (hereinafter called 'the Act'), particularly Section 3 thereof. The Section 3 of the said Act reads as follows :-- '3. Recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue.- (1) Where any person is a party:-- (a) to any agreement relating to a loan, advance or grant given to him or relating to credit in respect of, or relating to hire purchase of goods sold to him by the State Government, the Corporation or as the case maybe; the Government Company by way of financial assistance; or (b) to any agreement relating to a loan, advance or grant given to him relating to credit in respect of, or relating to hire purchase of goods sold to him by a Bank or Government Company, as the case may be under Government sponsored scheme; or (c) to any agreement relating to a guarantee given by the State Government or the Corporation in respect of a loan raised...
Vasanji Ramji Dharoda Alias Shah Vs. Harish Rajaram Rajeshwari and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR378
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Plaintiff-Vasanji Shah has filed this suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for putting him in possession of Room No. 34 of Jaya Terrace, Dadar, Mumbai, from the defendant No. 1. Plaintiff has also claimed damages at the rate of Rs. 200/- per day from 1-9-1997 and sought declaration that letter dated 1-9-1997 of the defendant No. 3 Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board (hereinafter referred to as 'MHADA') is illegal and against the provisions of law and liable to be quashed and set aside.Following are the facts of the plaintiff's case as alleged in the plaint.2. Prior to 1971 Jaya Terrace was owned by Bank of India, who were also the landlords. However, one Adi Rustomji Avari who was tenant of Room Nos. 30 and 34 acquired the said building from Bank of India by registered Deed of Assignment dated 7-10-1971 and became owner thereof. The building consisted of ground plus three floors where 18 shops were on the ground floor and 45 residential premis...
Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate Vs. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-2000
Reported in: II(2001)DMC64
Ranjana Desai, J.1. By the impugned judgment and order dated 7th April, 1994, the III Family Court at Bombay has allowed M.J. Petition No. 382 of 1993, filed by the respondent-wife for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and hence this appeal by the husband Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate (the original respondent).2. Facts which give rise to the present appeal will have to be shortly stated :The appellant and the respondent were engaged, to be married on or about 21st May, 1973. According to the respondent, after the engagement she visited the appellant at Pune, where he was serving. She learnt that the respondent was friendly with one Sushilabai Atwe. Thereafter the respondent received some anonymous letters asking her not to marry the appellant. However, the respondent and her parents did not believe the letters and the respondent was married to the appellant on 10th June, 1973, at Bombay, according to Hindu vedic rites.3. After the marriage, for abou...
Nichrotme Industries Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-2000
Reported in: (2001)(94)LC724Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this appeal, the importer challenges order-in-appeal No.O/A-545/99 AP Misc. (JCH) dated 21.5.1999 wherein order-in-original No.S/10-11/98 GR. IV dated 15.5.1998 was confirmed.2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows.Appellant imported 20.047 MT of Cadmium Metal Ingots having 99.95% purity valued at the rate of 30 cents per lb. On inspection by the Customs authorities, it was found that 10.030 MTs were of cadmium plates of different sizes. The assessing authority held that the goods were mis-declared in the bill of entry as cadmium metal ingots resulting in violation of the provisions contained in Section 111(m) of the Act subjecting the importer to penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act. Consequently, the assessing authority enhanced the value of 10.03 MTs of the cadmium plates by 20%. The plates were thus assessed to the duty of Rs. 29,420/-. That quantity, namely of cadmium plates, was confiscated with option to redeem it on payment of redemption...
Hind Rectifiers Limited Vs. Presiding Officer, Ist Labour Court, Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR543; (2001)1BOMLR78; [2001(89)FLR55]; (2000)IIILLJ300Bom; 2000(4)MhLj622
ORDERS. K. Shah, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Union.2. The writ petition has been filed by the employer challenging the order of reinstatement of the employee passed by the Labour Court.3. In this writ petition, by order passed by this Court on April 5, 1999, rule is issued and interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) subject to the provisions of Section 17-B of the I. D. Act, 1947 is also granted.4. It is undisputed that the petitioner employer has superannuated the workman on attaining the age of 60 years on 14.4.2000. It is also undisputed that, in view of the provisions of Section 17-B the employer has paid to the employer the wages as per the provisions of Section 17-B.5. By this notice of motion which is taken out by the employee - respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 2 has prayed for the relief that the employer shall continue to pay the wages to the employee as per the provisions of Section 17-B of...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »