Mumbai Court April 2006 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.
Sanghi Organisation, Geldhof Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC165
1. The appellants are a Division of M/s Sanghi Motors (Bombay) Pvt.Ltd. They are inter alia engaged in the manufacture of Dissolved Acetylene Gas at its factory which was set up by the appellants out of their own investments and sources of finance. The Directors of the company of which the appellants are a division are as under: 2. On 01.04.1991, the appellants entered into an agreement with M/s Geldhof Ltd. for sale of the entire production of their goods to M/s Geldhof Ltd. at the price to be determined by the parties under the said agreement. The excise duty at that time when the agreement was entered into was at a specific rate and not on ad-valorem basis. Excise duty on dissolved acetylene gas became ad-valorem w.e.f 01.04.1994, only.3. During August 1997 an intelligence were gathered by the department that the assessee was not discharging duty liability correctly on their product dissolved acetylene gas in as much as they were clearing the entire quantity of the said product to ...
Madhuri Prabhakar Patole Vs. Aruna Satishchandra Gaikwad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR238
ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Revision Application takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune dated 5th December 2005 rejecting the preliminary issue raised at the instance of the Applicant about the jurisdiction of the Court to try and decide the Suit as instituted before that Court. In other words, the issue of jurisdiction of the Court was decided as preliminary issue in terms of Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). In the present Revision, the said order is challenged before this Court. 2. In the interregnum, however, this Court in an unreported decision, copy whereof is produced before me, decided on 14th March 2006 in Writ Petition No.10602 of 2004 in the case of The Solapur Social Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sou. Nigam A. Manna Beskar and Ors., has taken the view that Section 9A of the Code, as applicable to State of Maharashtra, stands repealed by Section 32 of the Code of ...
Kelkar Trading Corporation and Shri Chintamani Shridhar Kelkar Vs. Com ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)BomCR515; [2006]131CompCas690(Bom); 2008(223)ELT382(Bom)
R.M. Lodha, J.1. We heard Mr.V. Sreedharan, the counsel for the appellants and Mr.K.R. Chaudhari, the counsel for the revenue. 2. The following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal : 1) In view of the difference of opinion amongst two members of the bench, to the specific question referred to the third member, whether the third member could go beyond the question and take a view different from both the members of the bench who referred the question 2) Whether on the basis of the opinion of the third member, upon the matter being referred to the bench, the order of remand passed by the bench is ambiguous and equivocal 3. We thought it fit to dispose of the appeal itself at this stage and we considered the matter accordingly. 4. The show cause notice dated 30th September, 2001 was issued alleging therein that the appellants manufactured stators of sub-heading 8503.00 by the process of riveting and clearing of chapter sub-heading 8312.00 and had removed the said goods as seco...
General Instruments Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi),
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR249
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. In this case the petitioner is running from pillar to post since last 20 years seeking justice as the petitioner is being penalised for the lapses committed by the licensing authorities. In fact, Mr. Rana, learned senior counsel for the respondents fairly admitted that in the present case the petitioner is not the sinner but sinned against. 2. Mr.Manohar M.Kulkarni, a partner of the petitioner firm sought permission to argue the case on behalf of the petitioner inter alia on the ground that in the last 20 years the firm had to face several rounds of litigation on account of erroneous licence granted by the licensing authorities, as a result the firm has closed down its business and has no financial capacity to engage the services of a lawyer. Mr.Kulkarni has furnished a power of attorney executed by all the partners of the firm dated 24/3/2006 wherein all the partners have authorised Mr.Manohar Kulkarni to appear on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, we have per...
Nirmaldas S/O Ratan Alhat Vs. Sunita W/O Nirmaldas Alhat and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2635; 2006(3)MhLj549
S.P. Kukday, J.1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 23rd April, 1998 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Maintenance Petition No. E. 1180/1997, awarding maintenance to the respondents 1 to 3.2. Briefly stated, petitioner and respondents are inter-related. Respondent No. 1 is the daughter of maternal uncle of the petitioner. Their marriage was solemnized in the month of May 1991. Respondent No. 2 Sonali and respondent No. 3 Nitin are born within the wedlock. Respondent No. 1 was subjected to ill-treatment as demand for Rs. 10,000/- for development of the agricultural land, was not met by her parents. About 2 months prior to filing of the petition on 5th October, 1997, respondent No. 1 was subjected to severe beating and was driven out from the house. Furthermore, she was threatened not to return. The petitioner did not make any provision for the maintenance of the respondents. Therefore, respondent No. 1 filed a petition in the Family Court for mainte...
Babli Krishna Vaigankara and anr. Vs. Laxman Sagun Vaigankar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR199; 2006(5)BomCR277
Britto N.A., J.1. This is defendants' second appeal filed under Section 100, CPC2.The parties to this appeal shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the said civil Suit3. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose off the substantial questions of law framed whilst admitting the appeal on 21-3-2002.4. Laxman Vaingankar had a house built in the property of the family belonging to Mrs. Bertha Noronha e Souza surveyed under No. 228/35. The said Laxman Vaingankar had two sons namely, Sagun Vaingankar and Krishna Vaingankar and consequently two Divisions of the said house were made one having house No. 228/35 which belonged to the said Sagun Vaigankar and 228/34 which belonged to Krishna Vaingankar. The said Sagun Vaingankar had three sons namely, Laxman (plaintiff No. 1), Sitaram (deceased husband of plaintiff No. 2) and Anant as a result of which the northern portion having house No. 228/35 has come to be enjoyed in three separate Divisions though they h...
T.T.K. Biomed Ltd. Vs. Ccex
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC163
1. Heard both sides. The learned Advocate for the appellants states that the impugned goods namely - sulphur paste, zinc paste and composite paste are used as intermediate product in the manufacture of sheath contraceptives, which are exempted from duty. It is his contention that these intermediate goods are produced by physically mixing various inputs. According to him, these goods are neither marketed nor are marketable and are purely used within the factory. Ho, further, states that the orders passed by the lower authorities do not substantiate marketability of the impugned goods.2. The learned SDR appearing for the department supports the order passed by the lower appellate authority and he cites the following two decisions in support of his arguments:Dharampal Satyapal v. CCE, New Delhi (ii) A.P. State Electricity Board v. CCE, Hyderabad He, further, states that the impugned goods have a shelf life of about 7 days and therefore, these can be marketed. He also states that in view ...
Noble Asset Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC457
1 These appeals are emanating out of a common Order in original No.CCP/KPM/ADJN/R&I/2/2005 dated 23rd March 2005 of the Commissioner of Customs preventive), New Custom House, Mumbai, in relation to an offshore second hand rig named 'Essar Noble Jimmy Puckett', in which the following liabilities have been arrived on various appellants, before us: (i) Rig Noble Jimmy Puckett/Essar Explorer confiscated under Section 111(d), (f),(g),(h) and (o) and under Section 113(d), (f), (g) and (h) of the Customs Act,1962 and was allowed to be released on a fine of Rs. 15 Crores under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.(ii) Customs duty of Rs. 75,54,22,673/- under Section 12 read with Section 125(2) of Customs Act, 1962 confirmed along with interest for import in December, 1997.(iii) Customs duty of Rs. 86,14,64,958/- under Section 12 read with Section 28, read with Section 125(2) of the Customs Act,1962 confirmed along with interest, for import in April,1999 this duty was to be paid if duty...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Dhirendrasingh C. Zala
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC335
1. The appeal in this case was dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions contained in Proviso 2 of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The Learned S.D.R. submitted that the Sub-section (2) requiring the authorisation from the Committee of the Commissioner, came into existence with effect from 13-5-2005 vide Notification No.25/2005-Central Excise (N.T.) dated 13th May 2005 and since the appeal was filed before 13th May 2005, there is no infirmity in the appeal.The counsel for the respondents does not oppose the application.3. In view of what has stated above, the appeal is restored. The same should be put up for admission on 17-4-2006....
Ashok Shankarrao Ghatage Vs. Mahipati Yashwant Khutale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Bom347; 2006(4)ALLMR364; 2006(3)BomCR517; 2006(3)MhLj797
K.J. Rohee, J.1. The appellant has challenged the order of the 4th Additional District Judge, Kolhapur in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.129 of 1999 dated 2.11.2000 rejecting his application for the custody of his minor son Tushar under section 8 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. 2. The facts about which there is no dispute is that the marriage of the appellant was solemnized with Suvarna, the daughter of the respondent, on 15.5.1996. Out of the said wedlock Tushar was born on 27.8.1997. Suvarna died on 18.11.1998 in mysterious circumstances when Tushar was only 15 months old. 3. On 27.11.1998 the respondent moved Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.119 of 1998 under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and obtained search warrant for Tushar from the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panhala. The custody of Tushar was given to the respondent. The present appellant preferred Criminal Revision No.271 of 1998 against the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panh...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »