Mumbai Court February 2002 Judgments
Jindal Aromatics Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT363Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeal taken up tor disposal, with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. The order of the Commissioner impugned in this appeal, demands duty on goods imported by the appellant on the ground that the benefit of Notification 203/92 would not be available to it for the reason that Modvat credit was availed of in the manufacture of exported products.He has also imposed a penalty.3. The representative of the appellant submits that, subsequent to the proceedings before the Commissioner, it has received evidence in the form of a certificate from the jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities to the effect that Modvat credit was not availed of in the manufacture of the exported products.4. We note that the appellant did not raise this contention in the reply to the notice or appeared before the Commissioner, for reasons that are not clear. We are therefore of the view that the evidence that is now produced should be considered by the Commissioner.5. The appeal is accordingly a...
Tag this Judgment!inox Air Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC539Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The question for consideration in these appeal is the includibility in the assessable value of liquid oxygen and liquid nitrogen that the appellant manufactured and sold of the charges for hire of the specially fabricated storage tank that it made available to some of the buyers. In the order impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner has held that the charges are includible and has also imposed a penalty on the appellant.3. This Tribunal, dealing with an appeal by the same appellant, which was earlier known as Industrial Oxygen Company Ltd, had, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CCE v. Indian Oxygen Ltd. - 1988 (36) E.L.T. 730, held that these charges were not includible in the assessable value of the excisable goods manufactured by the appellant, on its view that this activity was distinguishable from the manufacture that the appellant undertook of the gases. This decision was cited before the Commissioner. He has however refused to follow it, on his finding that...
Tag this Judgment!Ratnakar Bank Limited Vs. Star Conduit (India) and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2002
Reported in: IV(2005)BC151
1. The Ratnakar Bank Limited had advanced certain facilities to the respondent M/s. Star Conduit (India) and others, partnership firm of which the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 were the partners. Since there were defaults in repayment of the loan, the appellant Bank filed suit for recovery of Rs. 45,20,725.94 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangli where it was numbered as Special Civil Suit No. 116/93. The defendants/respondents filed their written statement in the Civil Court at Sangli and further raised counter claim. When the evidence in that suit on behalf of the appellant Bank was over, the matter came to be transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai, in the first instance where it was numbered as O.A. No. 277/99 and thereafter to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad, camping at Pune, where it was numbered as O.A. No. 420/P/2001. After hearing both the sides, the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad camping at Pune recorded his findings on the issues frame...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Prabhawati Tokersi Chheda Vs. Maharashtra Housing and Area Develo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR579
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This Writ Petition invoking Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India is filed by a tenant of aa building which became dilapidated and wastherefore demolished and reconstructed, but thetenant has not been provided with an accommodationin the reconstructed building, although thereconstruction was under a statutory scheme torehouse and protect the tenants of the dilapidatedbuildings. The petition seeks implementation ofthe agreement executed by the landlord of thebuilding with the petitioner-tenant under thestatutory scheme and also the implementation of asupplemental agreement in that behalf between thetwo. In this process, the petition raisesimportant questions of law and with respect to theimplementation of such welfare schemes and theirlikely misuse, and also with respect to the actionsand inactions by public officers in-charge of suchstatutory schemes.2. Respondent No.1 to the petition isMaharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority(shortly known as 'MHADA'), w...
Tag this Judgment!Rishiroop Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2002
Reported in: 2002(143)ELT516(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.1. In this petition, the petitioners are seeking directions against the respondent No. 3, directing him to give reasoned speaking order, setting out detailed reasons in final imposition of anti dumping duty on the subject goods.2. The facts, giving rise to the present petition, in nutshell, are as under :-(i) The petitioner is a company who are engaged in the business of trading, selling and supplying Rubber and for the purpose of their business, are the importers of the product called 'Styrene Butadiene Rubber' (hereinafter referred to as the subject goods, for short) of 1500,1700 and 1900 series, classified under Customs sub-heading No. 4002.19 of Customs Tariff Act.(ii) The respondent No. 1 is the Designated Authority. Respondent No. 2 is supposed to be one of the largest manufacturers of the subject goods in India. The respondent No. 3 is the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), who are entitled and have to issue the final Notification to finally impose the ant...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Raghuvir Jaiswal Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR439; 2002(3)BomCR461; 2002(3)MhLj420
P.S. Patankar, J.1. The petitioner by this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is praying for a declaration that he came to be confirmed with effect from 5-6-1996 and is entitled for continuity as well as for consequential benefits from that date. He further prays for quashing the Notification issued by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on 28th March, 2000 by which his service as a probationer Judge of the City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, came to be terminated.2. The petitioner came to be appointed as a Judge in the Bombay City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay with effect from 5th June, 1995. The Order dated 29th April, 1995 shows that it was on probation for one year. On 7-7-1997 by passing a Resolution it came to be extended for a period of one year from 5-6-1998 to 4-6-1999. Notification/Order dated 28th March, 2000 came to be issued. The said Notification/Order inter alia says :--'But since, he did not comp...
Tag this Judgment!Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, Bombay Vs. International Trad ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR147; (2002)4BOMLR134; 2002(3)MhLj449
J.G. Chitre, J. 1. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, a statutory corporation incorporated under Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner for convenience) are hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the order which has been passed by the Additional Chief Judge of Small Causes Court, Bombay, in context with F.C.A. No. 22 of 1988 which can be quoted as under : 'This application for rule nisi presented by the Appellant (Org. Plaintiff) on the grounds mentioned therein and coming on for admission on this 21st day of March 1988, before Shri V. B. Mhasde, Addl. Chief Judge and Shri J. D. Kulkarni, Judge in the presence of Shri J. J. Jadeja Advocate for the applicant (Orig. Plaintiffs) it is ordered that there be no rule. No, Rule.' The petitioners contend that the Bench of Small Causes Court passing the said order in F.C.A. No. 22 of 1988 dealing with Regular Suit No. 1545 of 1988 should have admitted it for final hearing and should...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Sanjay Sampatrao Gaikwad Etc.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ434; AIR2002Bom436; 2002(6)BomCR391
1. The appellants are the original respondents aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of the Railway Claims Tribunal at v passed on 25-7-2001 and 26-7-2001 respectively in the above two separate claim applications filed by the present Respondents in the above First Appeals. The parties will be referred to as the Appellants-Railways and the Applicant-passenger for the sake of convenience.2. In view of the public importance of the issue involved in these matters instead of hearing the applications for interim orders and keeping the appeals in the cold storage of this Court I thought it proper and better to hear the Appeals finally and dispose of the same by consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. As the issue Involved is common in both the appeals they are being disposed of by the present common judgment.3. I have heard both the learned Advocates. Shri Samant for the Appellants-Railways and Shri C.M. Jha and Shri Mohan Rao for Respondents in the above matters respectivel...
Tag this Judgment!Baburaya Naik S. Vs. Vijaya Bank and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2002
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ796Bom
P.S. Patankak, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the orders dated January 21, 1986 and March 3, 1987. By the order dated November 21, 1986 the disciplinary authority found the petitioner guilty under Regulation3(1) read with Regulation 24 of the Vijaya Bank Officers Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations of 1981') and imposed the punishment of withholding one increment permanently which will have effect of postponing his future increment (as next increment which falls due shall be stopped permanently). This came to bechallenged by the petitioner and the appellate authority confirmed it by the order dated March 3, 1987.2. The petitioner was employed as an officer in the Respondent No. 1 bank's branch at Secunderabad. By the order dated February 13, 1985 issued by the Divisional Manager, he came to be transferred to Adoni branch and by the order of the same date he was relieved from...
Tag this Judgment!Snehal Vijaysingh Thoke Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR570
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.2.By this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 20-10-2000 passed by the respondent No. 2 Scrutiny Committee for verification of the caste certificates issued in favour of the persons belonging to the Vimukta Jati. By the impugned order, the committee has declared invalid, the certificate No. 95/MISC/W/1213 dated 22-4-1993 issued by the Executive Magistrate, Georai, in favour of the petitioner, certifying that she belongs to V.J. (Rajput Bhamta).2.The petitioner is a first year student of Medical College. According to her she belongs to Rajput Bhamta Caste. At the time of her admission in Yogeshwari Nutan Vidayalaya, Ambajogai, District Beed, her caste was recorded as Rajput Bhamta in the school record. While she was studying in XI standard her caste claim was sent for verification to the Scrutiny Committee. Earlier the Scrut...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »