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.
Hemnil Metal Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT679Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants/applicants was operating under the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001, which extend the facility of payment of duty on fortnightly basis. Under the scheme the accumulated duty for the first fortnight of the month has to be paid by the 20th of that month and the duty for the 2nd fortnight has to be paid by the 5th of the following month. The Rule has the following provision :- "For removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the duty liability shall be deemed to have been discharged only if the amount payable is credited to the account of the Central Government by the specified date." 2. Sub-rule (4) of the Rules prescribed punitive measures for the defaulters whose first failure is not redeemed within 30 days or those who cannot 3 successive failure the defaults result in forfeiture of this facility for 2 months.3. The applicants here have been punished for 3 successive lapses. The table below provides the details.4. The appellants plea...
T.U. Khatri, Residing at 2/5 Yeshwant Nagar, Goregaon (West) Bombay-40 ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom268; 2002(3)ALLMR27; 2002(4)BomCR733; (2002)3BOMLR847
R.M. Lodha, J.1 .Whether there is anything wrong in thedecision dated 24th April, 1990 taken by theInstitute of Company Secretaries of India not toallow the Advocates to practise as CompanySecretaries is the principal question in these twoWrit Petitions and,therefore, these Writ Petitionswere heard together and are disposed of by thiscommon judgment.2. In Writ Petition No.398 of 1990Shri T.U.Khatri is the Petitioner. According toShri Khatri he was granted certificate to practiselaw by the Bar Council of Maharashtra on 30thJune, 1973. Shri Khatri claims to have passedfinal examination conducted by the Institute ofCompany Secretaries of India( for short theInstitute) and was admitted as an AssociateMember of the Institute w.e.f. 30th October,1970. Subsequently Shri Khatri was made FellowMember of the Institute w.e.f. 23rd August, 1976.Upon application made by Shri Khatri to theInstitute and upon fulfilment of requisiteconditions including the No Objection from the BarCouncil of Maharasht...
Tryambak Lilaji Binnar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)661; (2002)2BOMLR798; 2002CriLJ3059; 2002(3)MhLj293
A.B. Palkar, J.1. The appellant original accused No. 1 in Special Case No. 10/88 on the file of Special Judge, Nasik, has challenged his conviction and consequent sentence of RI for one year and fine of Rs. 600/-, in default of payment of fine further SI for two months under Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 or alternatively under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. The prosecution case in brief is as under :-- Appellant was working as Forester, whereas the 2nd accused was working as a Forest Guard.Complainant Bapu Gavit (PW 1) resident of village Sambarpada had constructed a hut in his land. It was in dilapidated condition and he wanted to repair and practically re-construct the same. He therefore, approached the appellant for permission to reconstruct the hut. The appellant declined to give permission and thereafter complainant again approached him with the same request. Appellant did not grant permission but expressed that if...
Parbatabai Wd/O Khelkan Thakre and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR510; 2002(4)BomCR448; 2002(3)MhLj806
S.G. Mahajan, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith by consent of parties. 2. The order impugned in this revision was passed by Collector, Gondia, on 30/31-10-2001, whereby he refused to make a reference to the Civil Court under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and rejected the application of the present revision-petitioners for making a reference in that behalf. 3. The land owned by the present revision-petitioners bearing Gat No. 196/1 admeasuring 0.41 hectares was acquired by the State and an award was passed on 12-3-2001. Being dissatisfied by the inadequate compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the revision-petitioners filed a reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation, before the Collector, Gondia. The revision-petitioners challenged the award on various grounds. The Collector, Gondia, rejected the application and refused to make a reference by the order, which is under challenge in this revision. 4. The g...
Jayshree Rajendra Chavan and ors. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR249; 2002(3)MhLj843
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the advocates for the parties. Rule made returnable forthwith by the consent. This is an application for dismissal of the appeal filed by the respondent on the ground that the Insurance company is not entitled to file the appeal on merits of the claim which was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In view of the provisions contained in Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as 'the said Act') placing reliance in the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Shankarayya and Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in : AIR1998SC2968 the learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the respondent being the Insurance company and there being no appeal filed either by the owner or the driver of the vehicle, considering the provisions contained in Section 170 of the said Act and the said ruling of the Apex Court, the appeal is clearly not maintainable and, therefore, should be dismissed in limine. On the ...
Rpg Cables Limited Vs. Roshan A. Sujan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR418; 2002(3)BomCR765; [2002(94)FLR548]
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner company is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the 7th Labour Court on 1st November, 1999 in an application filed by the respondent workman under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), claiming certain money due from the petitioner company.2. It appears that the respondent workman was terminated from employment with effect from 26th May, 1989. A complaint challenging the aforesaid order of termination as unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & PULP Act, 1971 is still pending. It appears that the Industrial Court had passed an ad interim order on 4th May 1989 before the termination order could take effect, restraining the petitioner company from terminating the service of the respondent. It appears that the said complaint was dismissed on 29th September 1995 before the Industrial Court. It further appears that the respondent challenged the order of termination before...
T.U. Khatri Vs. Institute of Company Secretaries of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: [2002]122TAXMAN532(Bom)
R.M. Lodha, J.Whether there is anything wrong in the decision dated 24-4-1990 taken by the Institute of Company Secretaries of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institute') not to allow the advocates to practise as company secretaries is the principal question in these two writ petitions and, therefore, these writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In Writ Petition No. 398 of 1990 Shri T.U. Khatri is the petitioner. According to Shri Khatri, he was granted certificate to practise law by the Bar Council of Maharashtra on 30-6-1973. Shri Khatri claims to have passed final examination conducted by the Institute and was admitted as an associate member of the Institute with effect from 30-10-1970. Subsequently, Shri Khatri was made fellow member of the Institute with effect from 23-8-1976. Upon application made by Shri Khatri to the Institute and upon fulfilment of requisite conditions including the no objection from the Bar Council of Maharash...
Indian Farmers Fertilisers Vs. Commr. of Cus. Acc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT659Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to the benefit of the exemption contained in Notification No. 172/89 of the parts of compressor that the appellant imported. The notification grants, in entry 12 of the Table to it, partial exemption from duty to "goods falling under Heading 8414.90 excluding parts of machinery and equipment for use in air-conditioning," Heading 8413.92 includes air or other gas compressors and fans. Sub-heading 30 is for compressors of a kind used in refrigerating equipment. Sub-heading 90 is for parts of goods classifiable under Heading 8414. The benefit of the exemption therefore would be available on parts of compressors other than parts of compressors of a kind used in refrigeration equipment.2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has concluded that the benefit of the exemption has rightly been denied for the reason that they were "parts of air compressors and refrigeration compressor as per their tech...
Neel Controls Vs. Commissioner of Customs and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT429Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of goods manufactured by the appellant described as servo controlled voltage stabilizer. The assessee had claimed classification of these goods and spare parts therefor under Heading 90.32 of the tariff.Notice issued to it proposed their classification under Heading 85.04 The Assistant Commissioner concluded that the stabilizer functioned "by way of stepping down or setting up input voltage as per the requirement, to maintain fairly constant output voltage." He concluded that the product is essentially a transformer and correctly classifiable under Heading 85.04, as for its parts. On appeal from this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that this order was correct and confirmed it. Hence this appeal.2. Heading 85.04 is for "electrical transformers, static converters (for example rectifiers) and inductors." Heading 90.32 reads "automatic regulating or controlling instruments and apparatus." We have already in...
Golden Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT377Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification in the central excise tariff of chromium sulphate, anhydrous chromium oxide and hydrous chromium oxide that the appellant manufactured. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has confirmed the classification arrived at by the Assistant Collector of chromium sulphate under Heading 28.33 and of the two oxides under Heading 28.19.The heading first referred to is for sulphates and the second heading is specifically for chromium oxide and chromium hydroxide.2. The appellant's contention throughout has been that the chromium sulphate should be classified under Heading 32.02 as an inorganic tanning substance and the two oxides under Heading 32.06 as pigments.3. After hearing both the parties, we are unable to accept the manufacturer's claim for the classification. Note 1 to Chapter 32 excludes, in Clause (a), "separate chemically defined elements and compounds except those falling within Heading 32.03 or 3...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »