Mumbai Court April 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.
Aglowmed Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT749Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The representative of the appellant stated that of the four expenses includibility in the assessable value of which is to be considered, he was not pressing the cost of the duty paid sales depots since the judgment of the Supreme Court in Government of India v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 is against him. Having heard his arguments and the departmental representative on the other issues, we decide them as follows.2. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that these charges are those incurred on account of loading and unloading of the goods on to the trucks or from the docks to the depot and that they are therefore part of the cost of transport, which has been allowed to be permissible deduction in the cost and they are depot sales, as the appellant does, in paragraphs 24 and 27 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Government of India v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. The departmental representative contends, that it is only those charges which are directly at...
Standard Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC37
1. On hearing Shri Parthasarathy, Ld. counsel for the applicants and Shri Gaitonde, DR for the department, it appeared that at this stage, the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. Both sides agreeing, this was done. The appellants manufactured yarn which is consumed captively in the manufacture of fabrics. Price list was filed in terms of Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975. As regards the inclusion of notional profit, it was claimed by the assessees that what should be taken into account was the profit, if any, earned by the textile division and not the profits of the company in its entirety as reflected in the balance sheet. The Asstt. Commissioner declined to accept this submission and confirmed differential duty on adding the margin of profit as reflected in the annual balance sheet. The assessees then filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and also an application for waiver of pre-deposit. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed orders on the...
Philips India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Acc)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT482Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal taken up for disposal, after waiving deposit, with the consent of both sides.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal filed before him against the demand for duty on the ground that stay application has not been filed and the duty has not been deposited.3. The appellant is absent and unrepresented. Request for adjournment on the ground that its senior manager is busy elsewhere is not being acceded to.4. The duty had been alleged to be short levied on the ground that the tungsten electrodes have to be fitted in the high pressure sodium vapour lamp manufactured by the appellant would be classifiable under Heading 8539.90 of the tariff as parts of such lamps and not articles of tungsten under Heading 8101.90, as claimed by the importer.5. The appellant's case appears to be supported by the decisions of the Tribunal in Mysore Lamp Works Ltd. v.CC-1984 (18) E.L.T. 639 and of the Madras High Court in Bengal Electric Lamp Works Ltd. v. CC -1981 (8) E.L.T. 233.6. I...
Eruch Merwan Irani and anr. Vs. Sardar Sorabji Ruttonji Patel and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR1
S. S. Parkar, J.1. These appeals arc filed by the original applicants against the common judgment and order delivered by the District Judge, Pune in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 200 of 1989 and Misc. Application Nos. 382, 383 and 384, all of 1989 preferred by these appellants before him whereby the said appeals were dismissed confirming the common Judgment and order dated 16.5-1989 delivered by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Region. Pune in Revision Application Nos. 12 of 1987, 21 of 1987 and 18 of 1988 and Application No. 11 of 1987.2. The brief background leading to the present appeals is as follows : One Sorabjee Ratanjee Patel, a resident of Pune, constructed a Fire Temple and community hall for the Parsees called as Patel Hall in his property situated at Nana Peth in Pune in the year 1824. He also constructed a tower of silence in his property away from the above property at Gultekadi. One Dastur Jamshedji Edulji of Bombay was appointed as high Priest for the performance of religi...
Eruch Merwan Irani and Another Vs. Sardar Sorabji Ruttonji Patel and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR438
ORDERS.S. Parkar, J. 1. These appeals are filed by the original applicants against the common judgment and order delivered by the District Judge, Pune in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 200 of 1989 and Misc. Application Nos. 3.82, 383 and 384, all of 1989 preferred by these appellants before him whereby the said appeals were dismissed confirming the common judgment and order dated 16-5-1989 delivered by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Region, Pune in Revision Application Nos. 12 of 1987, 21 of 1987 and 18 of 1988 and Application No. 11 of 1987. 2. The brief background leading to the present appeals is as follows:One Sorabjee Ratanjee Patel, a resident of Pune, constructed a firm temple and community hall for the Parsees called as Patel Hall in his property situated at Nana Peth in Pune in the year 1824. He also constructed a tower of silence in his property away from the above property at Gultekadi. One Dastur Jamshedji Edulji of Bombay was appointed as high Priest for the performance of r...
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Yeshwant S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR458; 2000(3)BomCR847; (2000)2BOMLR744; [2000(87)FLR868]; 2000(4)MhLj108
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioners are a statutory Corporation established under the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The petitioner No. 1 is engaged in the activity of carrying passengers through out the State of Maharashtra and outside. The Corporation has its own depots and divisions at two different places in the State for the purposes of providing transport facilities to the passengers. The Corporation has its own statutory rules and regulations and service conditions determined by various settlements with the unions functioning in the Corporation.2. The respondent No. 1 was employed by the petitioner No. 1 and was in class III category of the employees. He was employed in the year 1951. He held the post of Senior Foreman at Dapodi depot at the time of his superannuation i.e. 31-7-1987. According to him his birth date as recorded in the service record of the corporation was wrong an that the correct birth date, according to him, should have been 12-6-193...
Mahajan Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.V. Msc Elena, a Motor Ship Flying t ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR424; 2000(3)BomCR841; (2000)2BOMLR513
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. The defendants who have been served have not yet filed their written statement. However, by the present Notice of Motion they have prayed that the suit be dismissed as barred under the provisions of Article III Rule 6 of the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925, They have further prayed that consequent to dismissal, the Prothonotary and Senior Master be directed to return the original Bank Guarantee dated 3rd May, 1999. 2. Before considering the Notice of Motion, a few relevant facts may be adverted to. The Bill of Lading was issued at Mumbai on 23rd June, 1997. The ship arrived at the Port of Felixstowe on or about 19th July, 1997. The goods were delivered to the Consignees on 6th August, 1997. There are further averments that only a part of the goods were delivered by the Agents of the defendants through the Consignees and the balance of the consignment remained secured in a warehouse. The present suit is filed on 30th March, 1999. The suit is based on th...
Government Milk Scheme and Another Vs. Shri Dagadu Balbhim Kambale and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR55
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the Award dated 26-8-1992 given by the Labour Court, Kolhapur in Reference No. 30 of 1986 wherein the respondent workman had raised an Industrial dispute and prayed for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.2. The case of the respondent-workman before the Labour Court was that he was employed under the petitioners as a Driver from 22-11-1977. From 1-1-1984 he was not allowed to join employment. Inspite of several efforts he was not allowed to join his duties and therefore, he had raised an Industrial Dispute for reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits. In his statement of claim before the Labour Court he has given the details of his service and has also averred that he was required by the Regional Transport Officer, Kolhapur, to be examined by an Ophthalmologist for defect in eyes. The Civil Surgeon certified that his eye sight was defective and recommended that he should be given ...
Mahesh Pokardas Vs. Umashankar Mangal Prasad and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR754; 2000(4)BomCR63; (2000)2BOMLR815; [2000(87)FLR807]; 2000(4)MhLj80
ORDERR. J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the judgement and order dated 7th June, 1994 passed by the First Labour Court, Thane in Application IDA No. 172 of 1983 filed by an employee against one Shri Pokhardas, the Proprietor of Tekson Textiles, Bhivandi to claim the following benefits. 1.Notice Pay 30 daysRs. 4,800.002.Closure compensation 60 daysRs. 9,600.003.Leave Wages (2 yrs) 42 daysRs. 6,720. 004.Bonus (4 years)Rs. 16,000.005.Over time Wages (Rs 13 per hour)Rs. 64,896.00 TotalRs. 1,02,016.00.It was the case of the employee that he was working with the petitioner employer as wrapper for 4 years at Rs. 4000/- per month as his wages. The employee has alleged that he was working for 12 hours a day or more. It is further averred that the factory was closed with effect from 1-8-1992 without paying closure compensation, notice pay and other dues such as leave wages, bonus and over-time wages. This application filed on behalf of the employee is classically vague and it does n...
Anantrao Narayan Thopte Vs. Shri Kashinath Parvati Khutwad and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR382; 2000(4)BomCR254; (2000)2BOMLR818
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. This chamber summons is at the instance of returned candidate praying therein that election petition be dismissed summarily under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 86 of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (for short 'R.P. Act').2. In the affidavit in support of the chamber summons, the returned candidate has stated that dismissal of election petition is sought since the election petition does not satisfy the mandatory requirements prescribed in the R.P. Act. According to the returned candidate the pleadings in the election petition do not contain the statement of material facts nor the particulars with dates and details have been stated. It is thus, stated in the affidavit in support of chamber summons that the pleadings are not verified in accordance with the mandate of law; the election is sought to be challenged on the ground of corrupt practice solely on the ground of alleged speeches made by Shri Sharad Pawar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »