Mumbai Court October 1996 Judgments
Purna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1996
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT513Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant is a manufacturer of sugar. Molasses, one of the by products, arising in such manufacture was stored open in pits dug into earth. This was necessitated by the fact that owing to unusually high production of sugar the existing storage tanks in the appellant's factory were insufficient to hold the entire stock of molasses which had been produced and was pending clearance. Molasses were stored in the earthen pits after getting permission from the department which made a condition that the appellant would not claim remission of duty on molasses stored in katcha pits. When subsequent testing of the molasses proved it to be unfit for consumption, the appellant asked for remission of duty payable on such molasses. This was refused by the Assistant Collector. The Collector (Appeals) directed the matter to be placed before the Collector. The Collector also refused remission and confirmed the eligibility to duty of the molasses. Hence this appeal.2. The reasons which the Collec...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1996
Reported in: (1997)60ITD621(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 1986-87.2. The first dispute in this appeal is regarding the method of accounting being followed by the assessee and addition of Rs. 41,060 which was made by rejecting the assessee's method of accounting, viz., 'Project Completion Method'.3. The assessee entered into an agreement with M/s. Unique Estates Development Company Limited for construction of three of its buildings for weaker sections in terms of section 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The assessee was to get actual cost of the construction plus 5% thereon as its profit. The assessee treated the construction of each building as a separate project and offered income for one of such buildings. The other two buildings were though completed but no income thereof was offered on the ground that sale of the flats had not taken place and that the assessee had to wait for securing contract...
Tag this Judgment!S. Pal and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1996
Reported in: (1997)61ITD15(Mum.)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-X, Calcutta and it relates to the assessment year 1988-89.2. First appellate authority has decided the matter ex parte and the reasons for the same are mentioned in pages 1 and 2 of his order. The ld. counsel for the assessee though contended that the first appellate authority has not given proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard, the matter was not seriously pressed as he has submitted his case on merits of the issues in dispute before us. Therefore, Ground No. 1 is disposed of accordingly.3. Ground No. 2 relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer by rejecting the claim of the assessee with regard to the sale of lottery tickets at a lesser price than the normal sale price. Though the Assessing Officer as well as the first appellate authority has discussed the matter in detail, but the basis upon which the matter was considered was that the assessee has shown a loss of Rs. 8,32,934 in the tr...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Esmeralda Rosario and Others Vs. Shri Cornelio Pereira and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR328; 1998(2)BomCR324
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The respondent No. 1 had filed an application for registration as mundkar under section 29(4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 (hereinafter called 'the said Act'). The application of the respondent No. 1 was allowed and appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed. In revision filed before the Administrative Tribunal, the said findings of the courts below were reversed. The respondent No. 1 challenged the said Order of the Administrative Tribunal in Writ Petition No. 93 of 1991. The learned Single Judge upheld the orders passed by the Mamlatdar and the Additional Collector and found that the order of theAdministrative Tribunal could not be sustained. Accordingly, the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal was set aside and the orders of Mamlatdar and Additional Collector allowing the application of the respondent for registration as mundkar were upheld. The order of the learned Single Judge is challenged before us in thi...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Jhunjhunwala and Another Vs. Tayebhai Mohammedbhai Bagasapwalla a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR584; 1997CriLJ1953; 1997(1)MhLj37
1. The question involved in this Appeal from Order is whether the appellant No. 1 should be convicted and punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in the facts and circumstances of the case 2. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court passed the order dated 2-12-1991 convicting the appellant No. 1 in civil prison of one month for breach of the order passed in the suit, dated 15-2-1991. The same is challenged in this Appeal. 3. I am not traversing the whole field of facts, but only giving a few. 4. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are plaintiffs. The suit came to be filed against the appellant No. 2, its Managing Director and Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. The appellant No. 1 came to be added as respondent No. 1 in the Notice of Motion as he was found to be carrying on the construction work. It was averred in the plaint that they were owners in respect of the property being City Survey No. 730(B) admeasuring about 12090 sq. mtrs. and structure standing thereon. Part of the stru...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Sampat Balvant Magar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR42
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Since both these matters arise out of same set of facts and a common impugned judgment, we are disposing them of by one judgment.2. A perverse judgment of acquittal dated 18-4-1983 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malshiras, District Solapur, in Criminal Case No. 159/1978 acquitting the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 6 to 13 for offences punishable under section 147, 148, 325, r/w 149 and 504 of I.P.C. and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for the said offences (but, in place of section 325 I.P.C., convicting each of them under section 324 I.P.C.) has prompted the State of Maharashtra to prefer the Criminal Appeal No. 517 of 1983.Some consideration has prompted the original complainant Prabhakar Tulshiram Magar to file Criminal Revision Application No. 321 of 1983.3. Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as under :---The informant Prabhakar Tulshiram Magar P.W. 2 and 13 respondents namely, 1) Sampat Balvant Magar, 2) Gulab Bhagwan Magar, 3) Krishna Damu Magar 4) Nan...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh S/O Shrikrishna Dhore and ors. Vs. the Commissioner of State Ex ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1996
Reported in: (1996)98BOMLR837
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The petitioner herein challenge the concurrent orders passed by the Collector, Chandrapur and the appellate order passed by the respondent No. 1 Commissioner of State Excise. By the instant orders firstly the Collector allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 3 and deleted the names of the present petitioners from the licence and ordered the renewal of the said licence in the name of the respondent No. 3 alone. This order was confirmed in an appeal necessitating the present petition.2. Following facts will highlight the controversy:Respondent No. 3 Chaitram Domaji Mashakhatri was granted licence under Form C.L. III for running a retail country liquor shop under the provisions of Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules 1973. He probably found himself unable to fulfil the conditions and, therefore, later on his licence came to be cancelled. This non grant of licence was informed to him by letter dated 28.3.1974. The respondent No. 3 did not do anything for a cons...
Tag this Judgment!Puransingh Fattesingh Osahan and ors. Vs. Murlilal Chandiram Pinjani a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1996
Reported in: I(1997)ACC490; 1997ACJ1335
L. Manoharan, J.1. Both these appeals arise from the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, in Special Civil Suit No. 47 of 1976. The plaintiffs in the said suit are the appellants in First Appeal No. 174 of 1983 whereas the third defendant in the aforesaid suit is the appellant in First Appeal No. 207 of 1983. These appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The suit was instituted for realisation of compensation on account of the death of Bhupendrasingh, son of plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2. Plaintiff Nos. 3 to 5 are the sisters of the deceased and plaintiff No. 6 is the brother of the deceased. The said suit was instituted under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (Act No. 13 of 1855). On 22.3.1975, while Bhupendrasingh was travelling in an autorickshaw, truck No. MHV 1232, which was driven by the defendant No. 2, knocked against the autorickshaw by which Bhupendrasingh was thrown out and the truck ran over him; ultimately Bhupendrasingh succumbed t...
Tag this Judgment!Finolex Cables Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1996
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT517Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 27-3-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune. Facts, briefly, are that the appellants manufacture a type of wires and cables called jelly-filled telecommunication wires. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Division I by his order dated 28-3-1995 held that waste and scrap of these wires is classifiable under sub-heading 8544.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as wires and cables and confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 1,41,05,507.37.The Assistant Commissioner held that the waste and scrap are bought and sold, they have emerged as a result of a manufacturing process and are classifiable under Chapter 85 of CETA along with full JFTC cables or on the basis of the predominant metal contained in the cable (copper or aluminium) under Chapter 74 or 76. The Assistant Commissioner in his order adopted classification under sub-heading 8544.00 of the CETA. The Commissioner (Appeals) howe...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Maria Eduaria Apolonia Gonsalves e Mesquita, (deceased by L.R.'s) ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1996
Reported in: 1997(4)ALLMR36
Batta, J. 1. The controversy in all these appeals centers around the agreement for sale entered into between the parties on 9th March, 1977 in respect of urban property described in Conservatories of the Land Registration of II has under No 1701 in which there exists a house. Thesaid agreement was executed between the parties in the chamber of Advocate Shri Rui Gomes Pereira. 2. The undisputed facts are that Inventory proceedings were pending in the Court of Civil Judge, S.D. Panaji, wherein Maria Eduarda Apolonia Gonsalves Mesquita was one of the parties. The said Inventory proceedings were fixed on 9th March, 1977 and on that day auction between the parties to the said Inventory proceedings was to be held. Advocate, Shri Rui Gomes Pereira, who was appearing for the said Maria, had informed her that the sale price in the auction may go up to Rs. 4 lakhs and that she should arrange the said amount in order to bid for the auction. It is not disputed that auction money is not required to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »