Mumbai Court July 2000 Judgments
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Jai Corp. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT478Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an application filed by the Commissioner under Section 35G (1) of the Central Excise Act for making a reference referring the following question regarding whether the Modvat credit on lubricating oil is admissible or not as mentioned in Column 8 of EA6 form.2. By the impugned order dated 1-9-1999, the Tribunal has held that the input was eligible to Modvat credit in terms of certain earlier decisions of the Tribunal one of which is reported in 99 E.L.T 553. By an amendment of Finance Act (Act 27 of 1999) Section 35H has been enshrined in Central Excise Act whereby the Commissioner of other party to file Reference Application directly to jurisdictional High Court.The order has been passed subsequent to 1-7-1999. Hence, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction. The Reference Application is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!A.M. Kulkarni and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC576
1. Duty of Rs. 38.38 lakhs approx. and penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs is required to be deposited by India Containers Ltd.; penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs, Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 50,000 are required by Alex Rodrigues, Director (Application E/Stay-995/2000) A.M. Kulkarni, Commercial Manager (Application E/Stay-992/2000) and by V.B. Bindoo, Plant Manager (Application E/Stay-993/2000).2. The assessee imported second/defective waste tin plate and sent it to job worker for manufacture of oval tins to be used for packing tooth powder. It is not in dispute that the tins are made out of plates of thickness 0.24 mm or less. Bill of entry described in consignment sent to the job worker as of thickness greater than this or less e.g. 0.45 mm and less. It is on this basis the Commissioner has held that these could not have been used for the manufacture of this tin and the additional duty of customs paid on them was wrongly taken as Modvat credit. Since the tin were manufactured and cleared he has said that some othe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Fibre Foils Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT640Tri(Mum.)bai
This appeal from Revenue claims that the limitation provided in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would apply not only to the refund of duty but also refund of penalty. The wording and the title of the said Section do not support this claim. The Commissioner in his order has clearly brought out that this penalty was deposited in terms of the direction of the Appellate Authority in terms of Section 35F of the Act. The Revenue have not cited any case law in support of their claim. The appeal does not have merit and is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Evershine Metachem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT479Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant was at the relevant time manufacturer of aluminium and copper wire. It availed of Modvat credit procedure. In the declaration filed by it Rule 57G, it had included as an input kraft insulating paper classifiable under Heading 4811.31 of the Tariff. The department found that appellant took credit of the duty paid on insulating kraft formers received by it between July, 1988 and July, 1989. The classification shown of the goods in the gate-pass was Heading 85.48 of the Tariff. The department therefore concluded that the goods were not included in Rule 57G declaration and issued notice proposing to deny credit. The notice which was issued dated 10-9-1991 invoked the extended period contained in the proviso under Rule 57-I(1) by alleging suppression of facts. The Addl. Collector in the due course confirmed the demand. Hence this appeal.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented. We have read the memorandum of appeal and heard the departmental representative.3. The findi...
Tag this Judgment!C.i.T. Mumbai City Xiv, Mumbai Vs. the Income Tax Settlement Commissio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR604; 2001(1)BomCR167; [2000]246ITR63(Bom)
Vijay Daga, J.1. This petition is preferred by Revenue against the order of the Settlement Commissioner in the case of M/s. Ajmera Housing Corporation, Bombay, relating to Assessment Years 1989-90 to 1993-94.In order to appreciate the grievance of the Revenue against the said order relevant Introductory facts needs to be noticed at the outset.BACKGROUND FACTS2. M/s. Ajmera Housing Corporation. Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the 'Assessee' for short) along with 19 individuals and 7 Hindu Undivided Families belonging to Ajmera family, had filed 31 settlement applications under section 245-C of the Income Tax Act, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in the month of October, 1993 for the Assessment Years 1989-90 to 1993-94. The applications in the case of 4 firms including the present assessee were admitted by the orders of the Commissioner passed under section 245-D(l) of the Act dated 17.11.1997. M/s. Ajmera Housing Corporation along with its other group establishments are engaged...
Tag this Judgment!Sunita @ Kavita Vivekanand More (Sou.) Vs. Vivekanand Shripati More an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: 2001(5)BomCR232; II(2001)DMC693
Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This criminal writ petition is filed by the petitioner/original applicant/wife Sunita @ Kavita Vivekanand More, being aggrieved by the judgment and Order dated 27th October, 1994 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Criminal Revision Application No. 118 of 1992. By the impugned judgment and Order, the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, allowed the revision filed by the original non-applicant husband Vivekanand, set-aside the order of maintenance dated 30th June, 1992 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akkalkot, and dismissed the Application No. 101 of 1990 filed by the wife under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cri.P.C.).2. The case of the petitioner can be briefly stated as follows:The petitioner herein, Sunita filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 101 of 1990 for maintenance under section 125 Cri.P.C. She claimed to be the legally wedded wife of the opponent Vivekanand More. According to her...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Gulab Karim Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1283; 2001(5)BomCR57
Pratibha Upasani, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Articles 21 and 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence dated 9th January, 1995, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Dadar, Bombay. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused under section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 750/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks.2. Heard Mr. Mundargi for the petitioner. Also perused the proceedings. It appears that the accused pleaded guilty of the charge, when his plea was recorded. He was arrested on the previous day i.e. on 8th January, 1995 at 6.45 p.m. near Wadala Station Road, as he was driving B.E.S.T. Bus No. MRR/1894, allegedly after consuming alcohol. He was examined in J.J. Hospital. Doctor opined that accused had consumed alcohol and was under the influence of alcohol whe...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhakar S/O Domaji Sonule Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: 2001(5)BomCR59
R.K. Batta, J.1. The appellant was tried for the murder of one Arvind s/o Nathu Bhimte, aged about 22 years, under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution had in all examined six witnesses in support of the charge. By impugned judgment dated 9th March 1994 which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal, the appellant was held guilty under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 6-2-1992 at about 9.30 p.m., there was altercation and scuffle between the deceased Arvind and the appellant. P.W. 3 Dadaji, one Jiya, Prakash and Tarachand intervened on account of which the quarrel subsided. Tarachand took the appellant towards his house and the deceased Arvind went near video parlour. Later, the appellant also went towards video parlour. Subsequently, at about 2.30 a.m., the body of Arvind was found near hospital gate which is stated to be at a distance of more than two kms. from ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. S.R. Ambedkar Samiti and anr. Vs. Ku. M.L. Lonkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR503; [2001(89)FLR829]
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment passed by the School Tribunal, Nagpur Region, Nagpur, dated 13th November, 1990 in Appeal No. 117/1989.2. Briefly stated, the respondent No. 1 was appointed on purely temporary basis for one academic session 1985-86. At the relevant time the respondent No. 1 was an untrained teacher. However, the services of the respondent No. 1 were continued on year to year basis upto the academic year 1988-89. In the meantime with the permission of the petitioner the respondent No. 1 joined the D.Ed. Course for acquiring the requisite qualification. The petitioner had permitted the respondent No. 1 to pursue the said course during the vacation and also for requisite training. However, it appears that the respondent No. 1 was on medical leave from 6-10-88 to 6-5-89. There is no dispute that this medical leave was sanctioned by the petitioners. Before the medical leave was to the expire the respondent No. 1 sent a letter request...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod S/O Hariramaji Deshmukh Vs. the Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR327; 2001(1)BomCR500
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order passed by the College Tribunal for Marathwada, Nagpur and Amravati Universities, dated August 18, 1989 in Appeal No. A-1/88.2. The petitioner was appointed as Peon on temporary basis on 1st July, 1981. He was later on promoted as Junior Clerk vide order dated 10th December, 1984 with effect from 1st December, 1984. He worked in this capacity upto 14th February, 1987. While he was in service, it came to the notice of the Management that the petitioner had produced false Caste Certificate for getting service in the respondent-institution and also had filed false certificate and affidavit to get the promotion to the post of Junior Clerk. Immediately after receipt of the said information, the Management took remedial action and in the first place reverted the petitioner to the post of Peon from 11th February, 1987. This was followed by the show cause notice issued by the r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »