Mumbai Court July 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.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ram Electricals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT149Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In its order passed on 11-5-2002, the Tribunal had noted that, despite number of adjournments being given, the applicant had not substantiated the contention raised by it that it had settled the matter under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. The Tribunal therefore proceeded to dismiss the appeal by passing a reasoned order.2. The application by the Commissioner now seeks to contend that this order cannot be maintained since the assessee had settled the issue under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. The copy of the certificate of the competent authority for full and final settlement of the dues under that scheme is produced.3. We are not able to perceive any mistake in the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal had specifically noted that evidence in the form of a certificate for full and final settlement of the dues under the scheme has not been produced. If the appellant before it failed to produce evidence despite having been given sufficient opportunity, the decision of the Tribunal in de...
Supreme Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT159Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the applicability to the exemption contained in Notification 68/92 with regard to the additional duty of customs payable by the importer. The notification exempts inter alia moulds of plastic manufactured in a factory and intended for use either within the factory of production or in any other factory of the same manufacturer.2. The goods were manufactured abroad/ not by the appellant but by some other person. Therefore, the condition that the goods must be manufactured by the person who intends to use them in the same factory or in some other factory of his cannot be fulfilled. The benefit of the exemption therefore will not be available....
Ashok Asramji Gabhane Vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR325; 2003(2)BomCR862; (2002)4BOMLR267; 2002(4)MhLj225
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Shri Mardikar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Haq, learned Counsel for the respondents Nos. 2A and 3 and Shri Agrawal, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents Nos. 4 and 5. Though respondent No. 2 is not noticed, however, since petitioner is not claiming any relief against him, petition is heard finally by consent of contesting respondents.2. The petition is directed against the order dated 23-3-2001 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 for setting aside order of termination came to be dismissed.3. Shri Mardikar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that petitioner was appointed by the respondent Management vide orders dated 20-6-1991, 16-12-1991 and 24-6-1993. The appointment was against the permanent post. The petitione...
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Agro Ag ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR80; 2003(1)BomCR244
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. This first appeal is directed against a judgment dated 26th June, 1985 of the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, in proceedings which arise out of the Arbitration Act, 1940.2. On 1st November, 1972, the respondents insured certain goods with the appellant for the purpose of covering the risk of fire under an insurance policy which was valid for a period of one year. The total sum assured was Rs. 1,00,000/-. The policy covered the risk of fire and riot. The goods insured were fertilizers, insecticides, poultry and cattle feed. On 24th November, 1972, another insurance policy, was issued by the appellant valid again for a period of one year with a sum assured of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The risk covered under the policy was that of fire and riot. The case of the appellant is that the goods were destroyed by fire on 24th April, 1973. Disputes arose between the parties since the insurance company, which is the appellant herein, did not accept the claim which ...
Sau. Ramatai Madhukarrao Tapre Vs. State of Maharashtra Through the Se ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR709; (2002)104BOMLR117
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Mr. Gilda, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. B. Patil, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2, Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.2. The Writ Petition is directed against the order, dated 3rd October, 2001, passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, whereby the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Koli Mahadeo, Scheduled Tribe, came to be invalidated.3. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order, apart from the other grounds, mainly on the ground that the Police Vigilance Cell, in violation of the direction given by the Apex Court in Madhuri Patil's case, : AIR1995SC94 submitted its report to the respondent No. 2 Committee. It is contended that the Research Officer did not accompany the Police Officer at the time of conducting enquiry into the caste claim of the petitioner. It is only the Police Officer, who had enquired into the matter and, therefore, the same is violative of the directions of the Apex Court. Similar...
Sk. Latif S/O Sk. Munnu Vs. State of Maharashtra Through P.S.O.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2002
Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR914
P.K. Batta, J.1. The Appellant was tried for the murder of his mistress Bismillabi under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court vide Judgment dtd. 10.1.1997 found the appellant guilty for the said charge and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, R. I. for two months. The undertrial period was set off in terms of Section 428 of the Cr. P. C. The Appellant challenges his conviction and sentence in this appeal.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that deceased Bismillabi was the mistress of the appellant and that at times he used to stay with her. On 12.9.1992 one Madhu alongwith his sister had come to the house of the deceased. At that time, the appellant was not present. When the appellant returned at about 5.00 p. m. and was told by the deceased that Madhu along with his sister had come and she had given her Rs. 20/- to go back, the appellant became angry and abused the deceased. The deceased told the appellant that for 8 years sh...
Dnyaneshwar S/O Anandrao Rahate Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)560; (2003)105BOMLR104
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 329/97 has been filed by the original accused No. 1 challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No. 140/96 dtd. 7.7.1997 whereby he has been convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and further to pay a fine of Rs. 2500/- in default to suffer R.I. for 6 months. Criminal Appeal No. 355/97 has been filed by the State of Maharashtra challenging the order of acquittal passed by the same Judge in Sessions Trial No. 140/96 whereby he acquitted the original accused No. 2 in the said trial. Since the Judgment delivered by the Trial Court, in both these appeals, is common, we propose to hear and dispose of both these appeals by a common Judgment.2. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 329/97 Dnyaneshwar Anandrao Rahate, the original accused No. 1 in Sessions Trial No. 140/96 and the respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 355/97 Sau. Anjanabai, original accuse...
Petrofils Co-operative Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT547Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to refund of that part of the duty paid by the appellant on polyester staple yarn that it manufactured which is exempted from duty under Entry 6 of the Table to Notification 225/86. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Assistant Collector dismissing the claim on the ground that the requirement contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 11B, that the incidence of duty must be shown not to have been passed on has not been complied with.2. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the case falls within the scope of Clause (c) of the proviso under Sub-section (2) of the Act. Sub-section (2) of the Act provides that where the Assistant Collector is satisfied that any part of the duty-paid by the claimant is refundable, he may so order and the amount so determined shall be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The provi...
Shree Ram Packaging Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT640Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. By its letter of 18-3-2002 it seeks adjournment on the ground that the matter is quite old. However, we find that the appellant has been seeking adjournments from 1999 onwards and were permitted to obtain a copy of the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, sufficient time was provided to the appellant. We therefore decline to adjourn. We have read the memorandum of appeal and heard the departmental representative.2. The appeal is against the order of the Collector (Appeals) confirming the rejection by the Assistant Collector of the claim for refund in terms of Rule 57F(3) of the duty paid on packaging materials used by the appellant to make retail pack of detergent which were exported.3. The reason advanced by the Assistant Collector and confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) for the denial of the claim is that the process that the appellant undertook does amount to manufacture. The appellant was engaged in repacking of bulk ...
Standard Garments Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT308Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal for failure to deposit the entire duty demanded from, and penalty imposed on the appellant. In the order impugned before him, the Joint Commissioner had held that the benefit of exemption contained in notification 4/97 would not be available to the goods polyester mono filament yarn manufactured by the appellant.3. The Counsel for the applicant accepts before us that even on the view that the benefit of the notification would not be available, the applicant would be entitled to the benefit of the duty paid on the inputs, polyester chips, used in the manufacture of the yarn. This duty amounts to Rs. 3.61 lakhs, broken up into duty paid on four consignments referred to in the statement of the partner of the firm, and sum of Rs. 1.04 lakhs which had been reversed when it decided to avail of the exemption. He offers to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 60,000/-.4. The contention of the departmental re...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »