Mumbai Court July 2000 Judgments
Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Commr. of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC192
1. This appeal was argued by Shri Nitin Vatkar Ld. Advocate Revenue was represented by Shri K.M. Patwari Ld. DR.2. M/s. ONGC, the appellants produced crude oil and paid cess in terms of the Oil Industry Development Act, 1974. This crude is supplied by them to various refineries. The crude may contain water and sediments.The quantity of such impurities is assessed by the refinery at the point of receipt of the crude by using an autosampler. The documentation consisted of a report showing receipt of crude oil by the refinery. The reports would show gross volume and weight of the crude the volume and weight of the impurities and the net volume and weight of the crude. On receipt of the fortnightly report ONGC paid vide TR6 Challans the leviable cess. This was so done for the crude produced during the months of June and July 1988. Subsequently, on 11.9.99 the recipient refinery issued a final certificate of receipt of the crude for these two month. The certificate showed less receipt of c...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Videocon International Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT637Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal questions the finding of the Collector (Appeals) holding that the duty paid on the battery cells which are supplied by the respondent fitted in the remote control units of the television sets manufactured and cleared is eligible to be taken as Modvat credit.2. The grounds in the appeal, that remote control is not an essential component of a television set but an accessory of a television set which can function without the remote control is answered by the finding of the decision of the Tribunal in CCE v. Videocon VCR Ltd., 1996 (83) E.L.T. 436. Whether the remote control is supplied with the television set or not it is a dutiable excisable product and can be cleared on discharge of the duty levied thereof. Considerations as to whether the television set is complete or not without the remote control are not relevant for deciding the eligibility of credit on the duty paid on it, although we would be failing in our duty, if we did not record our view that the department's ...
Tag this Judgment!Dyna Hitech Power Systems Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT121Tri(Mum.)bai
This is the party's appeal against the impugned order, captioned above, dated 22-9-95 /5-10-95 for quashing the same (setting aside) and to hold, Modvat credit is correctly taken, and admissible, and no proper investigation is made, and glaring omission are not explained, and impugned order proceeds on presumption against the evidence, ignoring normal practice in manufacturing industry and for such other relief deemed fit.1. Facts of the case in brief are that appellant manufactures Switch Mode Power Supply falling under chapter heading 85 of Tariff Act, 1985, under Registration No. CEX/RII/KIII/D 1/33/92 (ECC No. 0210020456) and avail Modvat facility under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules and filed declaration of raw materials under Rule 57G on intelligence gathered that appellant is adopting some fraudulent malpractices in that regard, and investigations were carried out by preventive staff of Div. K III.The statement of Purchase Manager Shri Raju Kishandas Bhatia, under Section 14 ...
Tag this Judgment!Pimpri-chinchwad Municipal Corporation and ors. Vs. Tata Engineering a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: (2001)3BOMLR265; 2001(1)MhLj188
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondent waives service. By consent, petition is taken for final hearing. 2. The Court of Small Causes at Pune felt that "this case seems to be uncommon arising out of common incidents". From the record, the facts before us are not within the realm of controversy. Therefore, the exercise involved in the present petition is to apply the law relating to octroi duty as settled by the Supreme Court to the facts as they have emerged. In this petition, the 1st Petitioner, which is a Municipal Corporation established under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 ("the Act") challenges the decision of the learned Additional District Judge. Pune in a statutory Appeal arising out of the provisions of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge by his impugned order dated 7.12.1999 confirmed the view which was taken, in the first instance, on 30.9.1996 by the Court of Small Causes at Pune to which the hearing of statutory appeals in tax matters u...
Tag this Judgment!YasmIn Rao Karkaria Vs. Cyrus Edul Karkaria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR627; 2001(1)BomCR571; (2001)3BOMLR279
ORDERD. G. Deshpande, J.1. The suit is filed by both wife - plaintiff No. 1 and husband - plaintiff No. 2 for divorce by mutual consent under Section 32B of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936. The matter was on board today under caption 'Mutual consent matters'. Both the plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiff No. 2 are residing in United States and the plaint which was filed in this Court on 13th July, 2000 has been signed by both the plaintiffs and it was presented by the Constituted Attorney, who is an Advocate. The original Power of Attorney duly signed and attested by both the parties is filed on record. It is notarised by Notary Public in U.S.A.2. Counsel representing both tlie plaintiffs also tendered today affidavit of the wife-plaintiff No. 1 and the husband-plaintiff No. 2. Both these affidavits are also notarised before the Notary Public in U.S.A., and each of the affidavit is accompanied by letter written by the plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiff No. 2 explaining difficulty in comin...
Tag this Judgment!indo Shares and Fintrade Ltd. Vs. the Stock Exchange and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR217; 2001(1)BomCR186
S.S. Nijjar, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for a declaration to the effect that the action of the first defendant in calling upon the plaintiff to make an early pay in of 2,90,764 shares of Vakarangee Software Ltd., hereinafter referred to as VSL, withholding plaintiff's margin money of Rs. 43,11,662/-, withholding of the BASE capital of Rs. 25 lakhs, not paying out the shares and securities for which the plaintiff has already made payments on behalf of its clients in Vallan Nos. 13 and 12 of 2000-2001, is totally bad and illegal. A further declaration is sought that the action of the first defendant of auctioning the aforesaid shares is totally bad and illegal. A declaration is also sought to the effect that the decision of the first defendant declaring the plaintiff a defaulter through letter dated 6th July, 2000 is bad and illegal. Directions are sought for refund of the amounts illegally detained by the first defendant.2. This Notice of Motion has been taken out for interi...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Bharat Sharad Kulkarni Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Bom7; 2000(4)ALLMR633; 2001(2)BomCR187; 2000(4)MhLj684
Vijay Daga, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent petition is taken up for hearing. 2. This petition is directed against the action of respondent No. 3 seeking to deduct 5% marks of the petitioner, while determining inter se merit for admission to the postgraduate medical course on the ground that the petitioner has taken more than one attempt to pass the third Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery ('M.B.B.S.') examination. 3. The facts leading to the present petition, in nut shell, are as under : The petitioner in the month of July, 1993. after having passed the requisite examination was admitted in Bharati Vidya pith Medical College affiliated to the University of Pune in the free seat (open category). The petitioner has passed first and second M.B.B.S. examinations in all subjects in the month of October, 1994 and May, 1996 respectively. He appeared in the examination held in the month of May, 1997 for third M.B.B.S. Part I (ne...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ravi Ratna Exports (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2000
Reported in: [2000]246ITR443(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. By our order dated July 25, 2000, the appeal of the Department was allowed in the following terms.'This appeal concerns the assessment year 1989-90. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has held that interest income is business income. In view of the judgment of this court in Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. (No. 2) v. CIT : [1991]191ITR359(Bom) , such income cannot be business income. It is income from other sources. Therefore, it will not form part of profits from business under Section 80HHC. Hence, appeal is allowed. No costs.'2. We now seek to give detailed reasons which are mentioned hereinbelow.3. This appeal relates to the assessment year 1989-90. In the said assessment year, the assessee received Rs. 35,000 as interest on fixed deposits.4. The assessee claimed interest income and included the same in business profits in the following formula, viz., Business profits X Export turnover Total turnoverto arrive at export profits on which the assessee claimed deduction unde...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Shankar Salvi Vs. Special Steels Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR769; 2001(1)BomCR22; [2000(87)FLR1008]; (2001)IIILLJ659Bom
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. Misconduct not proved, can reinstatement be denied to the workman? This is the significant question of law which arises in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Relevant facts 2. The Petitioner was appointed as a Helper with the first Respondent Company on January 7, 1991. After successfully completing the probationary period he was confirmed as a permanent employee. The Petitioner claims that throughout his service record was good. On June 12, 1995 the management signed a settlement with the Trade Union known as Shramik Utkarsha Sabha. According to the Petitioner, this settlement was not liked by majority of the workmen. Majority of employees left Shramik Utkarsha Sabha and joined another union viz. Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Mahasangh'). Petitioner was one of the founder members of the said Mahasangh in the first Respondent's establishment. According to the Petitioner, the formation of the S...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Kumar Arora (Dr.) and ors. Vs. N. Balachandra Kurup (Mr.) and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2000
Reported in: 2001(5)BomCR210
Pratibha Upasani, J.1. The petitioners herein have approached this Court by way of filing this Criminal Writ Petition, being aggrieved by the order of issuance of process in Criminal Complaint No. 321/S/94 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Bombay, for offences punishable under sections 420 and 406 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.2. I have heard Mr. Malpathak, appearing for the petitioners/original accused, so also, Mr. Salvi, the learned A.P.P. for respondent No. 2/State. Respondent No. 1/original complainant is absent though served. I have also perused the complaint dated 29th July, 1994, which is the foundation of these proceedings.3. After perusing the complaint, it is revealed that the complaint is with respect to the alleged unpaid amount of the Advocate's fee, namely, respondent No. 1 advocate Mr. Kurup, allegedly by the petitioners, for whom, according to the complaint, some legal professional work was done by respondent No. 1. Origi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »