Mumbai Court March 2002 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.
United India Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC389Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants herein imported "stamping foils" and cleared the same on payment of duty. Subsequently they filed a claim for refund of Rs. 1,26,053/- claiming the benefit of serial No. 3 of the Table to the Notification 29/79 as pigment finishes for leather. The refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector and his order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals); hence this appeal by the importers.2. The appellants have relied upon the order of the Tribunal in the case of CC, Bombay v. Nesha Plast Industries -1999 (113) E.L.T. 93 (T) in which the benefit of the notification has been extended to stamping foil imported for the use of finishing of leather with pigment. They also relied upon the letter dated 15-10-1990 of the Central Leather Research Institute, Madras addressed to M/s. Nesha Plast Industries to the effect that the stamping foils are used as pigment finishing for leather articles and also upon the test report of the Dy. Chief Chemist in the case of Arav Enterprise...
Colt Cables Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)(104)LC814Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We waive pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 2,77,503/- and penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs, and proceed to decide the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein filed CL.No. 9/89-90 w.e.f. 10.1.1990, CL. No. 10/89-90 w.e.f. 20.3.1990, CL.No. 1/90-91 w.e.f. 1.4.1990 for their product Thermocouple Compensating Extension Cable' under Chapter Heading 90.33 chargeable to duty @ 15% ad valorem of basic duty and 5% special duty. These classification lists were provisionally approved.3. However, show cause notice dated 10.12.1991 was issued calling upon them to show cause as to why the product in question should not be classified under Chapter Heading 85.44 attracting duty @ 25% ad valorem basic duty and 5/10% special duty according to the relevant period. The Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 24.2.1997 con-firmed the classification under Heading 85.44 and ordered recovery of the differential duty. The Range Superintendent therefore ...
Seth Textiles Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: (2003)80TTJ(Mum.)329
1. This appeal by the assessee pertains to the asst. yr. 1986-87. It is directed against the order, dt. 22nd Jan., 1993, passed by the CIT(A).2. It would be apposite to relate here, briefly, the factual material leading to the filing of the present appeal.3. The assessee is a resident unregistered firm. The major part of its business is related to doing labour job work, weaving blankets for its sister concern, viz., M/s Seth Industries, Prop. M/s Simplex Woollen Mills. Return of income declaring a net loss of Rs. 3,60,269 was filed on 9th Feb., 1987. P&L a/c, balance sheet and other relevant statements of accounts were also filed with the return. Notices under Section 143(2)/142(1) were issued. Appearance was put in before the AO, on behalf of the assessee. The books of accounts produced were verified on a test check basis.4. The assessee had taken loans amounting to Rs. 3,76,000 from 30 parties. The AO treated this loan amount of Rs. 3,76,000 and interest thereon, amounting to Rs...
Babamiya S/O Ahmed Shah Inamdar, Residing at Musafir Khana of Dargah H ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR619; (2002)1BOMLR310
D.G. Karnik, J.1. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner challengesthe Notice dated 9th August 1987 issued by theTahsildar, Beed, on the ground that the notice is issuedwithout authority of law.2. In the impugned Notice dated 9th August 1987(which is signed on 10th August 1987), it is mentionedthat the land bearing S.No.4, admeasuring 7 acres and 7gunthas is held as Inam by Dargah Hurmen Shah, Beed. Itis further mentioned that the land is presently underthe supervision of the Government. It is alleged in theNotice that the petitioner has made encroachment on oneacre ten gunthas in a portion of this land bearingS.No.4. The Notice, therefore, directs the petitionerto remove the encroachment, failing which, it is statedthat the encroachment would be removed by theGovernment. 3. Section 50 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Codeconfers power on the Collector to abate or remove anyencroachment made on any land or property vested in theState Government. Thus, the necessary condition forexercisin...
Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation Vs. General Secretary, Best Worker ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR444; [2002(95)FLR660]; 2002(2)MhLj785
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J. 1. The petitioner corporation is aggrieved by the order passed by the Industrial Court on 4th March, 1999 in appeal I.C. No. 98 of 1993 filed by the General Manager of the BEST Undertaking, of the Corporation who was aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court dated 27th August, 1993 granting the relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service to the respondent No. 2, the bus driver, who was dismissed by the petitioner's undertaking after holding a domestic enquiry in the charge of misconduct levelled against the said driver under the Standing Order No. 20(J) i.e. for gross negligence.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are summarized in the synopsis given by the petitioner. On 20th June, 1989, the bus driver (respondent No. 2) while on duty driving the bus rashly and negligently knocked down to death a 7 year old girl. A charge sheet was served by the petitioner on 6th July, 1989 charging the driver for the misconduct under Stand...
Vaidya Kuldip Raj Kohil Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)247; (2002)2BOMLR418; 2002(2)MhLj830
A.B. Palkar, J. 1. Petitioner is professor and head of the department in the department of Kaya Chikitsa in R. A. Podar Ayurvedic College, Mumbai while respondent No. 2 is Reader in the same department. Respondent No. 2 had challenged the appointment of petitioner as Reader in Kaya Chikitsa before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) in original application No. 843 of 1996 which came to be dismissed on 12-9-1996. Thereafter respondent No. 2 filed Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 1602 of 1998 through Maharashtra Under Privileged Teachers Association of which respondent No. 2 is member, before the High Court for the same reliefs. The said Writ Petition was disposed of as withdrawn vide order dated 20-8-1998 and thereafter respondent No. 2 filed another application being application No. 555 of 1998 before MAT challenging selection and appointment of petitioner. During the pendency of that matter respondent No. 2 filed present complaint suppressing the above stated material facts...
Abdul Dadamiya Shaikh Vs. Jagannath Murlidhar Rathi Since Deceased, Th ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom413; 2003(1)BomCR537
J.G. Chitre, J.1. This appeal has been admitted on thefollowing substantial questions of law :-(1) 'Whether having held that the Appellant-Plaintiff had become purchaser undersection 32 of the Tenancy Act, thecourts below ought to have held thatproceedings under section 32-G and 32-Pof the Bombay Tenancy Act were void abinitio when the findings recordedclearly indicate that Dadamiya thefather of the plaintiff did not holdland above the ceiling limits?' (2) 'Whether the Courts below wrongly reliedupon Section 56 of the Indian ContractAct to hold that was an impossibility ofperformance of contract as the land wasin excess of the ceiling limit, thespecific performance of which was askedfor. It is not open to the Respondentsto deny the specific performance ofvalid Agreement and if on suchperformance the plaintiff held land inexcess of ceiling, it is for theGovernment to take excess land and theRespondents will have no authority inthat behalf.' While admitting the appeal for final hearing o...
Ankush Balaji Lad Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR201
D.G. Karnik, J.1. The caste certificate of the petitioner showing him to belong to Rajput Bhamta caste was invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee by an order dated 25-1-2002. This order is challenged in this writ petition. The Caste Scrutiny Committee scrutinized the evidence produced by the petitioner and came to the conclusion that all the evidence was of recent origin and the documents relate to the period much after the Rajput Bhamta caste was declared as V.J.N.T. in the year 1961. The Caste Scrutiny Committee, therefore, declined to place much reliance on the said evidence of recent origin. 2. The Caste Scrutiny Committee had called for the report of the Vigilence Committee. As per the judgment of Supreme Court of India in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, reported in : AIR1995SC94 . Since the report of the Vigilence Committee was against the petitioner, a notice was issued and an opportunity of hearing was given to th...
Rajaram Govind Shelgikar Vs. Alka Rajaram Shelgikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR232
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The appellant has challenged the order of the Family Court, Pune, dismissing his petition against his wife, the respondent, for divorce, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.2. The appellant and the respondent were married on 20th June, 1967. They have three children two daughters Aparna and Archana and a son Amit, born on 17-2-1969, 27-1-1971 and 16-7-1974 respectively. For about twelve years, apart from the normal wear and tear of a marriage, the marriage was satisfactory. There is some dispute about this but the same is not relevant. The respondent left the appellant on 23rd September, 1980. The facts leading to this event as well as an incident subsequent thereto require to be considered in the present appeal.3. The appellant filed the petition on 21st November, 1983. The trial Court accepted the case of the respondent and her testimony, as well as that of her witnesses, disbelieved the appell...
Western Coal Field Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC129Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Western Coal Mines, the appellant in these two appeals, entered into a contract with Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, Ranchi, for fabrication and erection of two "walking dragline machines" at a total price of around Rs. 39.80 crores. Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, in turn entered into a contract with Coromondal Steel Limited, Chennai for fabrication, erection and commissioning of one machine in the coal mine of the appellant at Ghugus Colliery, near Chandrapur in Maharashtra, and fabrication and erection of the second machine at another coal mine of the appellant at Sasti Ballarpur in Maharashtra.The machines were erected at site and made operational in 1992.2. Two notices (one in respect of each machine) were issued by the department on 4-9-1994, to Coromondal Steel Ltd., Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, and the appellant. The notices demanded duty from Coromondal Steel Limited on the two machines that it had manufactured.It proposed penalty on the manufacture...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »