Mumbai Court November 1996 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.
Swajan Pariwar Trust Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax (Exemption).
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1996
Reported in: (1997)57TTJ(Mumbai)77
ORDERV. DONGZATHANG, VICE PRESIDENT :This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Dy. CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1990-91.2. The assessee filed the return of income without the audit report in Form No. 10B. Since the return was to be accompanied by the audit report in Form No. 10B, the Assessing Officer (AO) while processing the case under s. 143(1)(a) of the Act denied the benefits of exemption under s. 11 of the Act to the assessee-trust. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee filed an application for rectification under s. 154 of the Act and submitted that the exemption should be allowed as Form No. 10B was submitted along with the application. The AO, however, rejected the explanation as the statutory requirement of filing Form No. 10B of the Act was not complied with by the assessee at the time of filing the return.3. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee took up the matter in appeal before the Dy. CIT(A) and it was submitted that the AO was not justified in ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1996
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT338Tri(Mum.)bai
1. By this application, the department seeks to set aside the conclusion of the Collector (Appeals) that steel shots which are used in the process known as "shot blasting" which is performed to remove rust, soil etc. from steel sheets are inputs within the meaning of Rule 57A and that therefore Modvat credit can be taken.2. The Departmental Representative contends that shot blast are nothing but tools which are essential item and that they are repeatedly used.3. In its decision in Union Carbide India Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta-I - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613 (Tribunal) the Larger Bench of this Tribunal had occasion to consider the meaning of the expression "tools" occurring in the Explanation to Rule 57A. Following definition of 'tool' has been reproduced from the dictionaries : "Any device, instrument or machine for the performance of an operation" (McGraw Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, IV Edition) "A portable and usually hard-held instrument that is used to increase the effi...
Lokhandwala Construction Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1996
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT703Tri(Mum.)bai
1. With the consent of both the sides appeal taken up for disposal after granting waiver of pre-deposit.2. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of flush doors. Such doors were utilised for the purpose of its main activity that is construction of buildings. For the manufacture of these doors from 1991 to 1994 it did not comply with any of the Central Excise formalities which a [manufacturer] is required to comply with such as licensing or registration, filing of classification list and price list etc. It also did not pay duty on the goods cleared by it. On the Department coming to know of the fact of manufacture and clearance, notice was issued proposing recovery of duty on the doors manufactured and cleared by the appellant. After considering the cause shown and hearing the appellant, the Commissioner has passed orders impugned in the appeal.3. The advocate for the appellant contends that it was entitled to the benefit of Small Scale exemption contained in Notification No. 175...
Mehta Pharmaceutical Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1996
Reported in: (1997)(72)LC711Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the decision of the Collector of Customs made in Order No. S/10-39 & 40/88 dt. 2.6.1988 where under he confiscated goods imported by the appellants, levied fine of Rs. 6,50,000/- and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 1,60,000 /- in lieu of confiscation and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act. (i) The Appellants are Actual Users (Industrial) engaged in the manufacture of Medicines. The instant case relates to the import of THEOPHYLLINES. On 11.8.1986 and Additional Import Licence was issued to an Export House by the name of Metropolitan Trading Company. On 29.8.1986 another Additional Import Licence issued to an another Export House by the name of Americal Dry Fruit Stores. Each of the said two licences carried an endorsement that the license was valid for import of items appearing in Appendix 6, List 8, Part II of the Policy relating to the years 1985-1988 as provided in para 265(4) of the ...
Shankarprasad Vs. Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR58; [1997(75)FLR869]; (1997)IILLJ195Bom
S.B. Mhase, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises from the dismissal in limine of Writ Petition No. 70 of 1991 filed by the appellant before the Single Bench of this Court, on April 25, 1991. This appeal arises in the backdrop of the facts stated below. 2. The appellant is an employee of the respondent since November 14, 1971 and at the relevant time, was working as Foreman in the Composing Department of the respondent-Newspaper Establishment. Prior to January, 1981, the composing work of the respondent-Establishment was being carried out by hand composing. However, in January, 1981, the respondent installed photo composing machine, thereby introducing a new technique of without giving a notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('I.D. Act', for short). The respondent completely switched over their work of composing of newspaper on photo composing machine in October, 1981. On November 4, 1981, the respondent transferred appellant along with other 24 employees to Ja...
Jayant Vegoils and Chemicals (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. the City and Indust ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR600
N.D. Vyas, J.1. By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging the validity and legality of the action on the part of the Respondents in demanding and recovering a sum of Rs. 9,42,000- from the Petitioners. The Petitioners have further prayed for a suitable order directing the respondents to withdraw and/or cancel their letters dated 19th January 1988 and 11th May, 1988 impugned in the petition and to refund the amount of Rs. 9,42,000/- with interest. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows.2. By an application dated 17th January 1981, the Petitioner No. 1 requested the Respondents to grant a lease to them of a plot of land in Sector 17 in Vashi, New Bombay, admeasuring about 1,850 sq. mtrs. The Respondents is a Government Company, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and have been designated as the New Town Development Authority of the new town of New Bombay under the provisi...
Shri Mohan Narayan Naik and anr. Vs. Smt. Amalia Fernandes and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1996
Reported in: 1997(4)BomCR288
F.I. Rebello, J. 1. This petition has been filed against the judgment dated 18th August, 1992, passed in Eviction Appeal No. 2/90 by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa, Daman and Diu. By the said judgment, the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 6th October, 1989, passed in BLDG. Case No. 102/78. 2. The respondent No. 1 Shri Joao Vincent Fernandes moved an application under section 22(2) (a) (b) (ii) of Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968, for eviction of the petitioner Shri Mohan Narayan Naik and his brother Shri Vishnu Narayan Naik from Room No. 4 of a building belonging to the applicant Joao Vincent Fernandes. The case of the original applicant in the application was that Shri Mohan Narayan Naik was his tenant paying monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. It was the case of the applicant that Shri Mohan Narayan Naik had been allotted premises by the Mormugao Port Trust and had shifted but had sub-let the premises to Shri Vis...
Kantilal Manilal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1996
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT116Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue for decision in this appeal is whether Glyoxal 40% is a synthetic organic tanning agent, and therefore eligible to be imported under REP Licence produced by the appellant. In the order impugned in the appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the finding of the Deputy Collector has held that it was not synthetic organic tanning agent.2. The Advocate for the appellant relied upon the decision of this Tribunal Asean Trading Agency v. Collector of Customs - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 253 (Tribunal). Paragraph 17 of this order reads as below : "The licences produced by the appellants for clearance of the goods were not considered valid by the Additional Collector on the ground that the shopping list attached with the licences covered synthetic organic tanning agent and not Glyoxal. We have already noted how the evidence on record shows that Glyoxal 40% is used as a tanning agent in leather industry. The Additional Collector's stand that the licences were not valid on the ground stat...
Harijan Lay out Sudhar Samiti and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR434
B.U. Wahane, J.1. This writ petition is an apt example as to how the statutory object secure preservation of Environment and Development of the residential colonies shown in the Master Plan, sought to be achieved by the State of Maharashtra under the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936. The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, is defeated by the Authorities who lack dynamism, aestheticism and enthusiasm for development and alienate the land/ open space meant for Public utility.2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners 1 and 3 being Societies and petitioner No. 2 a Corporator, thus, the public spirited citizens, have questioned the legality, propriety and justifiability of the impugned Resolution dated 13th June, 1980, (Annex. Vat page No. 58) and the impugned order of allotment dated 21st May, 1985 (Annex, XXIII, at page 116).3. The Petitioner specified in para 2 of the Petition that the...
Premlata Digambar Rao Deo Vs. Principal, St. Philomine's Convent High ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1996
Reported in: 1997(4)ALLMR377; 1997(2)BomCR591; [1997(75)FLR897]; (1997)IILLJ1050Bom
N.D. VYAS, J. 1. By the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a declaration to the effect that she is entitled to get gratuity 'In the Ist Respondent School under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (the Gratuity Act for short) and prays for certiorari for quashing and setting aside the judgment and Order dated September 10 11, 1987 passed by the Controlling Authority under the said Act and the Judgment and Order 10dated November 23, 1987 passed by the appellate authority under the said Act. The petitioner has also prayed for an appropriate order directing the Sth Respondent to issue necessary Notification as per the provisions of Section 1(3)(c) and 1(4) of the Gratuity Act covering Private Schools under the provisions of the said Act. However, at the time of arguments, this last prayer mentioned hereinabove was not 10 pressed. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the in, present petition are as under : The pet...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »