Mumbai Court December 1993 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.
AshwIn Vanaspati Inds. (Pvt.) Vs. Collr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1993
Reported in: (1997)LC509Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The CEGAT, West Regional Bench, has, vide Order No. 730/92-WRB, dated 28-4-1992, referred this appeal to the Larger Bench, observing that there is a conflict in the views expressed by the South Regional Bench in Ponds (India) Ltd. v. Collector -1988 (38) E.L.T. 351 (Tribunal) and Collector of Central Excise v. Indo Swing Ltd. - 1992 (57) E.L.T. 606 (Tribunal), on one hand, and the views expressed by the East Regional Bench in Rasoi Ltd. v. Collector, 1990 (49) E.L.T. 522 (Tribunal) and the West Regional Bench in F.D.C. Ltd. v. Collector - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 601 (Tribunal) and Parle Products (P) Ltd. v.Collector - 1992 (57) E.L.T. 152, on the other, on the major issue as to what is the "packaging material" as contemplated in Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether the benefit of MODVAT facility is available, only if the packaging material is used as such, or whether the benefit is available, also if the packaging material received has to undergo some conversion as also...
William Rosario Vs. Malcom Francis Anthony Pereira and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ1537
ORDER1. This petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenges the order dated 15-4-1988 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, by which Case No. 136/I&R; of 1987 filed by the applicant came to be dismissed under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The complaint came to be dismissed on the ground that the provision of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is attracted and hence the Court was having no jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint filed by the private party. 2. It will be necessary to note a few facts and the proceedings involved. On 10-2-1964, one Caroline, a spinster, executed a Will. By the said Will, she willed away immovable property for charitable purposes i.e. Church, etc. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as one of the trustees and executors of the said Will. Caroline died on 7-4-1965. She was having a brother by name Valentine. He also executed a Will on 22nd...
India Tyre and Rubber Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1993
Reported in: [1994]210ITR409(Bom)
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question to this court for its opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-company was not mainly engaged in the manufacture of goods and as such it was not an industrial company as defined in the Finance Act, 1974 ?' 2. Section 2(8) (c) of the Finance Act, 1974, defines the expression 'industrial company' for the purposes of the said Act as under : c) 'industrial company' means a company which is mainly engaged in the business of generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power or in the construction of ships or in the manufacture or processing of goods or in mining; planation. - For the purposes of this clause, a company shall be deemed to be mainly engaged in the business of generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power or in the const...
Collector of C. Excise Vs. Supreme Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1993
Reported in: (1995)(75)ELT289Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal from the Collector against the Order-in-Appeal No.A-111/90, dated 27-5-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune. In the aforesaid order, the Collector (A) has allowed the appeal of the respondents with consequential relief.2. The facts of the case are that the respondents cleared a consignment of Plastic sheets totally 1980 Nos. under G.P. No. 111, dated 31-10-1988 to M/s. Kelvinators (I) Ltd. On receipt of the goods, M/s.Kelvinators took Modvat credit of duty paid on these goods; but they found 1768 sheets to be defective and returned back those sheets to the respondents, after debiting the duty payable on these sheets returned in their RG 23A Part II account and issuing a G.P.. 1 No. 184, dated 12-5-1989. When the respondents received the goods, they filed D-3 declaration and after verification, they were taken into their stock.They were reprocessed to remove the defects. Thereafter they were cleared on payment of duty under G.P. No. 114, d...
Mohd. HussaIn Babamiyan Ramzan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ1020
Shah, J.1. These two appeals are filed by the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 against their conviction of the offence punishable under S. 21 read with 8(c) and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months each. 2. Briefly stated, facts giving rise to the present appeals are as under : Constable Bhosale (P.W. 1), S.I. Singh (P.W. 3) and P.I. Ghuge (P.W. 4), at the relevant time, were attached to the M.I.D.C. Unit at Andheri of Narcotic Cell of C.B., C.I.D. Prosecution alleged that on 31-7-1990, while constable Bhosale (P.W. 1), was present in the Unit office at about 10.30 a.m. he received information from an informant that one person was doing business of brown-sugar in a rickshaw at the eastern side of the B.E.S.T. Bus Depot, Bandra (West), Bombay. He immediately conveyed the said information to S.I. Singh (P.W. 3), who, in turn, conveyed the said information to P.I. Ghuge (P.W. 4). S.I. Si...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indulal C. Kamdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1993
Reported in: (1994)116CTR(Bom)523; [1995]214ITR143(Bom)
D.R. Dhanuka J.1. This reference involves consideration of the interesting and important question of law as to the interpretation of section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 1982. There is a sharp difference of opinion between the view taken by the High Courts of Madras and Gujarat on the one hand and the Karnataka High Court on the other hand as indicated in the later part of the judgment. The Delhi High Court has dissented from the Madras High Court view and has taken an altogether a different view on some of the facts concerning interpretation of the above referred provision as would be discussed in the later part of this judgment. The High Courts of Madras and Gujarat have taken the view that the assessee or his parents must have used the residential house for an unbroken and continuous period of two years prior to the date of the transfer thereof in order to be entitled to claim exemption from levy of capital gains tax under se...
Ajay Woollen Mills Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1993
Reported in: 1994(69)ELT647(Bom)
S.P. Kurdukar, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus against the Respondents, their officers, subordinates, servants and agents to forthwith release the imported goods of the petitioners viz. synthetic soft waste as mentioned in the Bill of Entry without charging countervailing duty on all the consignments mentioned in the said Bill of Entry and further to release in the same manner i.e. without charging countervailing duty the goods mentioned in the contract (Ex. Bl to B4) which are expected to arrive shortly as well as future consignments of the same goods expected to arrive from time to time. Petitioners also seek a declaration that the synthetic soft waste being imported by the petitioners from time to time are not liable to the levy of additional duty of customs i.e. countervailing duty as these goods do not fall within any of the tariff items specified in the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›