Mumbai Court April 2005 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.
J.K. Cement Works Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT44Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The short point involved in the present appeal is as regards the refund of interest in respect of the warehoused goods. The goods were cleared by the appellants from the warehouse beyond the period specified in Section 61(2) and, as such, interest was payable at the time of clearance of the goods. The same was paid but subsequently a claim for refund of the same was lodged on the ground that the appellant has sought waiver of the same from the Chief Commissioner of Customs in terms of the Section 61(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order has observed that the application for waiver of interest was made to the Chief Commissioner of Customs and no waiver order was obtained by them from the competent authority i.e. Board, as specified in Section 61(2) of the Act. The appellants have now shown to me that the board has delegated the powers to the Chief Commissioners and, as such, they had approached the Chief Commissioner of Customs vide their le...
Indian Petrochemical Corpn. and Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT181Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both the appeals are directed against the same order. The issues are also interlinked. Therefore, they were heard together on 17.11.2004 and are disposed of under this common order.2. The appellants M/s Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) and M/s Indian Petrochemical Corpn. Ltd. (IPCL) are neighbouring industrial unit at Vadodara. IOC supplies raw naphtha to IPCL for manufacture of petro chemicals by thermal cracking. The bulk of the Naphtha so supplied gets consumed in the process of manufacture at IPCL, while some quantity remains unused. That quantity is returned to IOC, and IOC disposes it of as motor spirit after blending. Both the supply of Naphtha to IPCL and return of the unconsumed quantity to IOC are by pipeline. The return is called "Naphtha Return Stream". The payment for Naphtha by IPCL is on net quantity basis i.e. quantity originally supplied -minus - quantity returned. Naphtha is excisable. Therefore, IOC pays duty when it supplies Naphtha to IPCL. Similarly, when IPCL ret...
Danke Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT215Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing both sides and considering the issue involved, it is found":- a) The appellant are aggrieved by the denial of benefit of notification on the supply made of transformer vide purchase order dated 6.7.2000 to Institution For Plasma Research Gandhinagar. The institute to whom the goods were supplied had sent a certificate issued by the Deputy Secretary Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, to the effect, that said institute is an autonomous research institute under the administrative control of Department of Atomic Energy and is eligible for excise duty exemption under Department of Revenue notification No. 10/97 (CEX) dated 1.3.97 The goods were supplied as per the certificate issued by the Deputy Secretary (Adm.) of Department of Atomic Energy dated 27.3.2000. Similarly, goods were supplied on three other such certificates dated 19.12.2001, 25.2.2002 & 20.3.2002 upto 5.7.2002; no objection regarding this clearance were raised by Revenue. b) A Show Cause ...
J.K. Processors Vs. the Commissioner of Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT354Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Vide his impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai, has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants as time barred.2. The impugned order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise on 30.09.99. However, as per the appellants, they came to know about the said order only when their jurisdictional Central Excise authorities approached them for recovery. They accordingly applied for obtaining a photocopy of the order. Attested copy of the order-in-original was given to them on 01.10.2001, wherein the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed on 26.03.2002.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) called upon the appellants to explain as to why their appeal should not be dismissed as barred by limitation.The appellants contended that though the attested copy was given to them on 01.10.2001, but since the same was not signed by the adjudicating authority, they took up the matter with the concerned authorities for supply of signed copy of the order. The signed an...
B.N. Nadhamuni Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: (2006)(91)SLJ295CAT
(a) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for the records of the case and after going through the same, be pleased to declare that the applicant is entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. On the Provident Fund amounting to Rs. 2,58,359 from 1.6.1993 to August 2003. and be pleased to order and direct the respondents to forthwith pay the same to applicant. (b) The Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to declare that the applicant is also entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. on the commuted value of pension, amounting to Rs. 67,907 from 1.6.1993 till its actual date of payment in August 2003, and be pleased to order and direct the respondents to forthwith pay the same to the applicant. (c) The Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to declare that the applicant is also entitled to interest @ 12% p.a, on the arrears of regular pension due to the applicant from June 1993 to August 2003 and be pleased to order and direct the respondents to calculate and forthwith pay the same to the applicant...
Ashok Chandrashekar Rao Vs. University of Mumbai, Through the Registra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR583; 2005(3)MhLj788
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The Petitioner is presently holding the post of Reader in Mechanical Engineering. It was earlier known as the University Institute of Chemical Technology (UDCT) University of Mumbai. It is now the University Institute of Chemical Techonology. When the Petitioner was appointed UDCT was the Department of Respondent No.1. It is the case of the Petitioner that the post of Reader in Mechanical Engineering with Respondent No.2 is an isolated post being the only post of its kind. The Respondents have been unlawfully treating the said post as a reserved post. It is further set out that the post of Reader is incapable of being reserved as it is a post superior to the last post to the post of which reservation can be made, namely that of Lecturer. 3. It is not necessary to refer various other pleadings except to the extent they are required. When the Petitioner was first appointed it was pursuant to the advertisement dated 30th August, 1990 which appea...
National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., Being a Company Registered ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: 2008(223)ELT570(Bom); 2009[16]STR107
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The short point raised in this petition is, whether the demand and collection of central excise duty in the absence of any adjudication order and without issuing a show cause notice under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 can be sustained in law.2. The facts having a bearing on the subject matter of the present petition are as follows:-The petitioners manufacture PVC compounds and PVC Master Batches, etc. The PVC Master Batches are predominantly PVC compounds with 7% to 10% of pigment. These PVC Master Batches are used for imparting colour to the PVC compound. Prior to May, 1979, the PVC Master Batches manufactured by the petitioners were classified as PVC compounds under TI-15A-1(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff and were cleared at Nil rate of duty under the Exemption Notification No. 206/77 dated 29th June, 1977.3. On 7th May, 1979 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners alleging that the PVC Master Batches manufactured by the petitioners we...
Yadu Dagadu Amrale (Since Deceased by His Legal Heirs and Legal Repres ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR224; 2006(2)BomCR877
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Phaltan Sub Division, Phaltan on 27.12.1989, in case No. TNC/Appln/888/1/87, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the cultivator who claims to be a protected tenant over the suit land. By the impugned order, the assistant Collector directed the issuance of exemption certificate under Section 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity).2. The suit land admeasures three hector and 10 Ores from Gut No. 601 (old survey No. 169/5 and 166/1) Gut No. 605 (old Gut No, 166/5) of village Kanheri, Tq. Khandala, Dist, Satara. The petitioner claims to be a lawful tenant of the said land and under the provisions of the Act. As per him, one Abaji Balwant Gosavi, the original landlord and owner of the suit land had created tenancy in favour of the petitioner prior to 1948 and since then the petitioner rema...
Hasmukhrai and Co. Vs. Raj Tea and Co. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(31)PTC451(Bom)
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. This motion is taken out by the plaintiff in a suit filed by it for various reliefs including relief of injunctions restraining the defendants from infringing its trade marks 'Society' and 'Society Tea' and passing of its goods as that of plaintiff and in particular for preventing the defendant from using the word mark 'Soyalty' or 'Soyalty Tea' and also for restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiffs copyright in the design of the packagings under which it markets its product 'Society Tea'.3. The plaintiff is the registered owner of the trademarks 'Society' and 'Society Tea' which are registered s word marks in relation to class of goods falling under Class 30 of the Trade Marks Rules. Copies of the registration certificates are annexed to the plaint as Exhibit-B and Bl. The plaintiff markets it's product viz. tea leaves in a distinct tricolour packaging which has different shades of black and grey with disti...
Leela Enterprises Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR368
Oka A.S., J.1. This appeal from order was fully heard yesterday at admission stage and today it is kept for dictation of the Judgment.2. The appellant in this appeal high handedly and illegally constructed a building consisting ground plus seven upper floors when permission granted was for construction of only a ground floor. Without there being any occupation or completion certificate, he has inducted the flat purchasers in the flats in the building, The question before me is whether such a builder is entitled to grant of discretionary and equitable relief of temporary injunction.3. It is necessary to refer the facts of the case. The appellant is the original Plaintiff. The appellant applied for permission to construct a building. Plans were approved by the Respondent No. 1-Corporation for construction of only a ground floor for residential use. Intimation of disapproval was issued on 9th December, 1999. The Commencement certificate was issued on 3rd February, 2000. On 27th August, 20...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »