Mumbai Court February 2004 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. H and R Johnson (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT157Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Heard both sides. The issue relates to assessment of ceramic tiles, in terms of provisions contained in Section 4A of the Central Excise Act based on the Maximum Retail Price (MRP). The show cause notice proposed recovery of differential duty on the various quantities of tiles cleared by the appellants indicating the following details.Sr.No.*Diffcrence in MR1'(Col 4 Col 5) Differential value Cartons bearing MRP higher than shown on Excise Invoice 30 Cartons bearing MRP marked with rubber stamp 166 Cartons not bearing any MRP 184 Cartons bearing t o MRP one printed other with rubber stamp 170 256.00 prinled 288.00 stamped 288.00 Total Differential Duty * as all the goods are of same class as is clear from the excise invoice and delivery challan. the maximum MRP of Rs. 3287- has been taken for arriving at differential duty.2. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, and also ordered confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 158,400 with an option to redeem the same on payment of re...
State Bank of India Vs. Vivek Textile Mills and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC211
2. The appellants/State Bank of India are aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai on Exhibit No. 92 in Original Application No. 1028 of 1999. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed application made by the defendants for cross-examination of the applicant Bank's witness on the ground that there was ambiguity in the pleadings and directed the Bank to keep its Assistant Manager, Mr.Abhijit G. Pangarekar present on the next date. Hence, the appeal.3. I have heard Mr. Satish Shetye for the appellants and Mr. Rishabh Shah for the respondents. I have also gone through the proceedings including the impugned order and in my opinion, no fault can be found with the impugned order.4. Grievance of the appellants is that the impugned order is erroneous because actually no case was made out by the defendants in their application for seeking permission to cross-examine the Bank's witness.Oral grievanc...
Desai Brothers Limited, a Company Incorporated Under the Provisions of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR699; (2004)188CTR(Bom)375; [2005]272ITR335(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.THE FACTS1. Petitioners are engaged in the business of manufacturing of bidis and sale thereof. The petitioners are challenging three notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act dated 14.3.1977 and 27/3/1997 in Writ Petition No. 2624 of 1997 seeking to reopen assessment for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1988-89; whereas in Writ Petition No. 3399 of 1997 petitioners are challenging the notices both dated 10/6/1997 directing the reopening of the petitioners assessment for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1991-92 respectively in exercise of powers under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for snort). The petitioners in pursuant to the said notices filed their returns for the respective years without prejudice to their right to challenge the said notices seeking to reopening of the concluded assessment for assessment years 1986-87 to 1989-90 and 1991-92.2. On being noticed, the respondents appeared and riled their returns and disclosed the reasons re...
Ranjit Dugal Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Bom)422; [2004]270ITR520(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.1. These two petitions are directed against the common order passed by the Appropriate Authority, Ahmedabad, under Section 269UD(1) of the IT Act ('the Act' for short) for compulsorily purchasing the piece and parcel of land at Mouje Aund, District Pune, bearing old plot No. 374/375 and new No. 228 and bearing old survey number and sub-division Nos. 3 to 55, 57, 58, 61 to 78, 135, 136 and new survey No. 74 admeasuring 1,000 sq. mtrs. in Sindh Co-op. Soc. Ltd. Aund, Pune (hereinafter referred to as suit property for short).2. The basic ground of the challenge raised in both these petitions relates to the validity of the show-cause notices dt. 31st Jan., 1994 issued by the Appropriate Authority to both the petitioners calling upon them to show cause as to why their properties in question should not be purchased under Chapter XX-C of the Act. The show-cause notices referred to herein are incorporated at Exhibit 'H' annexed to the petitions, the contents of which are identical...
Rajnarayan S. Pathak Vs. Deputy Director of Education and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR337; 2004(5)BomCR183; [2004(102)FLR327]; 2004(3)MhLj927
1. The petitioner challenges an order dated 16thFebruary 2002 passed by respondent No. 2, The petitioner also seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to absorb him either as an Assistant Teacheror as a Head Master in other aided Secondary School in Mumbai under theirjurisdiction, as also to pay to him unpaid salary for the period commencing fromJune 2000 till the derecognition of Swami Dayananda Saraswati High School(hereinafter referred to as 'the said School' for short) administered and managedby respondent No. 4 trust.2. The petitioner is a qualified teacher. Prior to his joining the said School he worked in different schools in Mumbai as an Assistant Teacher in Hindi and English medium. From December 1970 to April 1994 the petitioner worked at the said school initially as a Teacher and subsequently as a Head Master. He was made permanent in the said post w.e.f. 13th June 1987. The said school became hundred percent aided school w.e.f. 25th march 1996. Petitioner's appoin...
Laxman Jairam Jadhav Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: II(2004)DMC74
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed on 20th January 2000 by the Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri in Sessions case No. 59/1999 convicting the accused under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for life, the appellant has filed this appeal on the ground mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally canvassed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of theaccused/appellant.2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the defence and the learned Prosecutor we have scrutinised the evidence and have reappreciated the evidence on record.3. The prosecution story as emerges from our reappreciation of the evidence stated briefly is that the accused was married to the deceased and there were quarrels between the two. In the evening of 25-12-1998 dead body of deceased Laxmibai, wife of the appellant was located. Investigation was carried out and suspecting the accused he was prosecuted for murdering his wife.4. The prosecution has ...
Bajirao Maruti Dale Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1638
V.G. Palshikar, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed on 29-4-1999 by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sess. Case No. 10/97 the appellant named above has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal and as verbally canvassed by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant before us.2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the defence and the prosecution we have scrutinized the record and reappreciated the evidence.3. The prosecution story as emerges from reappreciation of evidence on record stated briefly is that on 3-7-1996 the appellant and the deceased along with their friends Shisal and Namdeo Ishwar Hargunde were drinking liquor in one cycle shop. Some quarrel took place between the appellant and the deceased. The appellant took out a knife and stabbed the deceased. The deceased chased the appellant and Namdeo however due to injuries fell down near the smuttier of one Manik Shisal. The...
Joseph BaIn D'Souza Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR283; 2004(5)BomCR696; 2005(1)MhLj61
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Rule.2. Mr. P. Janardhan, Addl. Advocate General, appears and waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5.3. Mr. S. G. Aney, learned Counsel, appears and waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 3.4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Rule made returnable and is taken up for final hearing forthwith.5. This petition is filed by the petitioner, former Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra making complaint against an action taken by the respondent Authorities of revoking an order of suspension and reinstating respondent No. 3 in service.6. The case of the petitioner is that he came across an article dated 14th September, 2002 in Indian Express (Daily) with the heading 'C. M. BRUSHES ASIDE ACB REPORT, REINSTATES SUSPENDED ENGINEER'. It is alleged in the petition that respondent No. 3 demanded and accepted an amount of Rs. 54,000/- from one Mr. Abu Memon, Contractor. A complaint was, therefore, filed with the Anti-Corru...
S. and H. Gears Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-2004
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT538Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The facts are that the appellants imported 2 Nos. of Used Bevel Gear Generators and sought clearance under B/E No. 2866 dated 9.5.95 declaring the value as Rs. 13,78,289/- on the basis of suppliers' invoice. The department did not accept the value declared. The appellant submitted a Chartered Engineers Certificate which indicated that the value of the generator in the year of manufacture was US $ 114,000/-. After allowing permissible deductions value is determined to be Rs. 34,32,967/-. The Assistant Commissioner thereupon passed an Order-in-Original determining the value as stated above. The Bill of Entry was assessed accordingly. The importer paid the duty and cleared the goods. The date of payment of duty is 30.3.95.2. The Commissioner (A) before whom the appellants filed an appeal remanded the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner with certain directions while reassessing the Bill of Entry as per the direction of Commissioner (A), the Assistant Commissioner determined the v...
Rotomatic Containers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-2004
Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT328Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue relates to demand of duty on the plastic scraps cleared by the appellants to their job workers under Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules 1944. The appellants manufacture plastic containers out of plastic granules. Input credit is taken in respect of duty paid on plastic granules. During the process of manufacture of final goods (plastic containers) "plastic cuttings of various types emerged". These cuttings are sent to job workers, who convert the same into plastic granules by grinding and return the same to the appellants. The departmental authorities held that cuttings are waste and scrap and duty ought to have been paid on such waste and scrap, whereas the appellants contend that these waste and scrap re-useable plastic material which can be sent for job work under Rule 57F(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The show cause notice alleges that the said waste material is neither input nor partially processed input and hence, cannot be cleared under Rule 57F(2). The lo...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »