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.
Mehtachem Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT793Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In these two applications, prayer is made for waiver of pre-deposit of duty confirmed amounting to Rs. 2,50,318/- & Rs. 1,002/- and penalty of Rs. 52,000/- & Rs. 200/-. We have heard Shri Deven Parikh, Advocate for the applicants and Shri K.M. Patwari, J.D.R. for the revenue.2. The applicants operated under the benefit of Notification 140/83 which provided concessional rates of duty for cosmetics and toilet preparations falling under Chapter 33 of the CETA. They were also availing of the benefit of Notification 1/93 for the other products manufactured by them. Notification 140/83 provides for duty free clearances of cosmetics etc. up to the aggregate value of Rs. 15 lakhs and prescribes a concessional rate of subsequent clearances of such products of the further aggregate value of Rs. 15 lakhs. The explanation II to the notification reads as under :- "Explanation II. - For the purposes of computing the aggregate value of clearances under this notification, (the clearances o...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Plasticolor Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT688Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Certain defects we noticed in the appeal filed by the revenue. These defects were not cured 1 the appellant Commissioner even in spite of notice. The authorisation und Section 35B is not filed in original. The photocopy of the authorisation initialled by a Superintendent. In similar circumstances we have dismiss the departmental appeals holding that this does not only amount negligence and lack of application of mind but it would amount to contem of the Tribunal. This appeal is dismissed in terms of Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982....
Rajendra Narayan Nalawade Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)51; 2001BomCR(Cri)279; (2001)2BOMLR608; 2001(1)MhLj478
J. A, Patil, J.1. Heard Shri Naveen Chomal, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Bharat Mehta, A.P.P. for the Respondent State.2. By this revision application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.5.2000 passed in Misc. Application No. 179 of 2000 in Sessions Case No. 161 of 1998 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai. The learned Judge rejected the petitioner's application for remand of the case to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate for his trial for the offence under Section 506 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code. The relevant facts necessary for disposing of this application are, in brief, as under :3. The petitioner is the accused in Sessions Case No. 161 of 1998 and a charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is filed against him. The allegation against the petitioner is that on the evening of 27.10.1997, the petitioner was seen running away from a lane and he was being chas...
Goa Salaried Tax Payers Association and ors. Vs. Union of India and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR704; [2001]249ITR195(Bom)
T.K. Chandrashekara Das, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is an association of salaried taxpayers which is registered under the provisions of the Registration of Societies Act. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are members of the association and they are salaried persons. The petitioners in the writ petition challenge the constitutional validity of Section 5A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was introduced by way of an amendment under the Finance Act, 1994, which came into force on April 1, 1994. Retrospectivity is given to that section from April 1, 1963. Section 5A reads as follows :'5A. Apportionment of income between spouses governed by Portuguese Civil Code.--(I) Where the husband and wife are governed by the system of community of property (known under the Portuguese Civil Code of 1860 as 'Communion Dos Bens') in force in the State of Goa and in the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, the income of the husband arid of the wife under any head of income shall not be assess...
Kapus Kamgar Sena Vs. Rashtriya Cotton Kamgar General Union and 25 ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2000
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ450Bom
S.K. Shah, J. 1. Both these writ petitions are disposed of by a common judgment as the order impugned in both the writ petitions is one and the same i. e. the one passed by the Member, Industrial Court Maharashtra, Mumbai, on February 19, 1998, partly allowing Complaint (ULP) No. 445 of 1991 declaring original respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 to 26 have been engaged into unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as MRTU & PULP Act) and restraining them from engaging into unfair labour practice by way of refusing to allot the work of Number Marking to the members of the complainant-union in violation of the term of the settlement dated June 16, 1988 and directing them to implement the said settlement.2. Respondent No. 1 i.e. Rashtriya Cotton Kamgar General Union is the union of the workers doing 11 categories of work described in Annexure 'A' on page 65, includi...
Prakriya and Krishipurak Sanstha Limited and ors. Vs. State of Maharas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR427; 2001(2)BomCR219
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Both the petitions are inter-linked and therefore, we have heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Rule.3. Respective respondents waive service. Respondent Nos. 5 to 27 are the Managing Committee members of the respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 4335 of 2000 and the said society is represented by Shri Dhorde. Respondent No. 21 in Writ Petition No. 4335 of 2000 is one of the petitioners in Writ Petition 4334 of 2000. The Writ Petition No. 4334 of 2000 has been filed on the basis of resolution passed by the Managing Committee of the respondent No. 4 society in Writ Petition No. 4335 of 2000 and, therefore, notice to the private respondents is dispensed with in Writ Petition No. 4335 of 2000.4. Amendment in Writ Petition No. 4335 of 2000 is allowed.5. The Pravara Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Prakriya and Krishipurak Sanstha Ltd., Babhaleshwar, Taluka Rahata, District Ahmednagar (the said society, for short) has been granted registration certific...
Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Hodak Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT720Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondent to this appeal manufactures vibration dampers, a component of motor vehicles and sold them at two prices to Kirloskar Cummins Ltd. The department did not accept the contention in support of sale at two prices simultaneously to the same buyer advanced by the assessee. This contention was that one of the prices was for supply to the buyer as a dealer, the other was for supply to it as a manufacturer of original equipment. The Asst. Collector (whose order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) in an appeal filed by the department) found nothing illegal or irregular in the assessee's action and dropped the proposal in the notice to adopt the higher value of the goods supplied as original equipment. Hence this appeal by the department.2. The ground in the department's appeal is that the same buyer cannot be in more than one class of buyers at the same time. We see nothing in Section 4 of the Act which militate against this view. The reason advanced for the two pric...
Special Prints Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2000
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT289Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These seven applications relate to seven appeals against the same order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I. These are therefore being decided in this common order.2. M/s. Special Prints Ltd. processed fabrics for M/s. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. as well as for other persons. In a show cause notice it was alleged that relationship between these two Companies was not that of a Trader and the Processor but that these two Companies were related persons and therefore in terms of Section 4 (1)(a)(iii) of the Central Excise Act. The value of the processed fabrics cleared by M/s. Special Prints Ltd. should be determined in terms of the price at which the goods were sold by M/s. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. A number of grounds were enumerated in the show cause notice bringing out the relationship between these two companies. It was alleged that during the period April 1993 to March 1998, on this ground, duty amount to Rs. 21,37,51,202/- had been evaded. A separate transaction of Tex...
Dushyant D. Anjaria Vs. M/S. Wall Street Finance Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)62; 2001BomCR(Cri)180; (2001)1BOMLR387; [2001]105CompCas655(Bom); 2001(1)MhLj701; AIR2001Bom655
R. M. Lodha, J.1. Rule, Returnable forthwith.2. Mrs. Shakuntala Joshi, advocate waives service for first respondent. Mrs. U. V. Kejriwal, A.P.P., waives service for respondent No. 2.3. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the criminal writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage.4. The first respondent M/s. Wall Street Finance Ltd. filed a complaint under sections 138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as amended by Act 66/88 and section 420 of I.P.C. against (1) M/s. Integra Funds Management Ltd.; (2) Mr. Sumir Nagar; (3) Mr. D. D. Anjaria; and (4) Ms. Shakuntala Nagar in the Court of 4th Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Girgaum, Mumbai. According to the complainant, the accused No. 1 is the company and accused Nos. 2 to 4 are directors of the said company who are responsible for day-to-day conduct of the business of the company. The accused company approached the complainant for finance for purchase of the machineries and accordingly, lease agreeme...
Mathulla Verghese and anr. Vs. Mrs. Vijaya Rajaratnam and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR205; (2001)1BOMLR405
ORDERD. G. Deshpande, J.1. This notice of motion has been taken out by the plaintiffs under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to record that the Suit No. 987 of 1996 i.e. the present suit has been settled between the Plaintiffs and the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 on one hand and defendant Nos. 1 and 5 on the other hand by lawful compromise/agreement in writing and signed by the parties as corrected in the presence of the advocates for the parties by Justice Gokhale, and as per prayer (b) to pass a decree in terms of theconsent terms after recording the said agreement. This notice of motion was vehemently and strongly opposed by defendant No. 1 - Mrs. Vijaya Rajaratnam and defendant No. 5 Juhu Triton Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. In order to appreciate the submissions made by both the advocates and particularly by Mr. Irani for defendant No. 1. It is necessary to note the background of the notice of motion. 2. The Suit No. 987 of 1996 i.e. the present suit is in respec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »