Mumbai Court February 1997 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.
Commissioner of Cus. Vs. Binaykia Synthetics Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1997
Reported in: (1998)LC655Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The exporter, respondent in this appeal, filed two shipping bills for export of goods which were described as dyed printed polyester viscose blended fabrics. The warp and Weft were declared to consist of polyester filament yarn of 75 denier and polyester sample blended yarn of 1.4 denier. Analysis of a sample of the goods tendered for export showed that the yarn was of higher denier and hence lower in quality than that declared. Polyester viscose blended yarn was also found to be absent in one case, and not conforming to the quality declared in the other. Hence following issue of notice, and after hearing the importer, Deputy Commissioner ordered confiscation of the goods and imposed penalty on the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the confiscation and penalty on two grounds. The first was that the goods sought to be exported were neither prohibited nor dutiable and therefore, were not liable to confiscation under Section 113, and therefore, the exporter also not lia...
Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Vira Construction Co.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1997
Reported in: (1997)61ITD33(Mum.)
1. This appeal arises from the order dated 29-9-1992 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-X, Bombay (Mrs. Sushma Trivedi).2. The first ground is against non-acceptance by the CIT(A) of the paperbook claimed to have been presented at the time of appeal hearing.This ground was not pressed and, therefore, the same is rejected.3. The second ground is in connection with addition on account of brokerage of Rs. 1,12,852 and discount of Rs. 2,72,353. It was the common contention of both the parties that on this aspect the decision taken in assessee's own case for assessment year 1988-89 in I.T.A. No.6240 (Bom.) of 1993 be applied to the facts of the case. For the reasons recorded in our order disposing of the aforesaid appeal, we set aside the appellate order on this ground and restore the issue to the file of the first appellate authority with a direction to reconsider the claim of the assessee after considering full facts of the case and after bringing on record appropriate ma...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. M/S. Simplex Woollen Mills and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2079
1. All these five appeals are filed by the State for enhancement of sentence awarded to the respondents-accused by the Vth Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thane under the provisions of the Provident Funds Act in five complaint cases filed at the instance of the Provident Fund Inspector by his different orders. I heard Mr. S. R. Borulkar for the State in all those five appeals also Mr. M. Janardan, learned Advocate for the respondents in all these appeals. 2. In fact, there were six appeals filed by the State for enhancement including the present five appeals hereinbefore mentioned. The sixth appeal was Criminal Appeal No. 209 of 1985 in which I have passed order on merits on 6th Jan. 1997 after hearing Mr. Borulkar. In that appeal nobody appeared for the respondents and therefore after hearing Mr. Borulkar and after going through the record, the order on merits was passed allowing the appeal of the State. 3. On the same day i.e. 6th Jan. 1997 Mr....
Laxman Jijaba Musmade and Others Vs. Rahuri Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1997
Reported in: 1997(4)BomCR452; (1998)ILLJ457Bom; 1997(3)MhLj145
1. The present Contempt Petition No. 6/97 is filed by one of the members of the original complainant Union in Complaint (ULP) No. 111/91 filed before the learned Member of the Industrial Court at Ahmednagar. The original complaint was for unfair labour practice under Sec. 28(1) read with items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The said complaint was decided by the learned Member of the Industrial Court vide his order dated November 24, 1995, whereby it was declared that the present respondents had been engaged in unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9. The respondents were directed to desist from engaging in such unfair labour practice and to make the petitioners permanent as Labourer with effect from the date of passing this order and provide them status, privileges and consequential benefits and shall make the petitioners permanent and were further directed to implement the above menti...
Harish S/O Mahadeo Pimpalkhute and anr. Vs. Bal Thackeray and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR455
A.A. Desai, J.1. The newspapers referred to in these proceedings and which are represented by printers, publishers and Editors, and impleaded as respondents, reported that respondent No. 1 Shri Bal Thackeray on 21st October 1996 at a Dasera rally at Shivaji Park, Mumbai made a statement, which precisely contains that he (Shri Bal Thackeray) was reported by someone that a Judge demanded rupees thirty-five lakhs for delivering a judgment in his favour. The petitioners, therefore, prayed for action against respondent No. 1 and newspapers for committing contempt of Court.2. Appearing for respondent No. 1 and 4, Shri Bobde, the learned Counsel, began to question the tenability of these proceedings. According to him High Court is a Court of Record and has inherent powers as recognised by Article 215 of the Constitution. These powers are not subjected to any control. However, in Criminal Contempt Petition No. 12/96, the petitioner has applied for consent as envisaged by Sub-section (1) of Sec...
Mulji Umershi Shah and Etc. Vs. Paradisia Builders Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Bom87; 1997(1)ALLMR36; 1997(4)BomCR97; 1997(3)MhLj532
R.M. Lodha, J. 1. This group of six appeals arises out of the order passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay on 2nd November, 1996 in Notice of Motion No. 2608 of 1996 in Suit No. 2784 of 1996.2. The facts have been stated in details in theimpugned order and, therefore, I would recapitulate briefly the essential and necessary facts for disposal of these appeals only.3. The disputed property comprises of gala Nos. 1, 48, 68, 15, 16, 17, 18, 26 on the ground floor, all galas on the entire first floor and gala Nos. 201, 216 to 226 on the 2nd floor of Bezzola Commercial Complex, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai. Mulji Umershi Shah, the plaintiff and appellant in Appeal No. 39 of 1997 filed a suit before the City Civil Court on 24th May, 1996 initially impleading the State of Maharashtra, Paradesia Builders Private Limited and the Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay as defendants Nos. 1 to 3 respectively. Thereafter the defendants Nos. 4 to 24 have been impleaded in the suit. The crux ...
Shahista Sayed Haji Baitullah Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR732
A.V. Savant, J.1. Heard all the learned Counsel; Shri M.G. Karmali for the petitioner, Shri Agrawal for respondents No. 1, 2 and 5 and Shri Rajiv Patil for respondents No. 3 and 4.2. This Petition is by Smt. Shahista Sayed Haji Baitullah, wife of the detenu Sayed Haji Baitullah son of Sayed Haji Abdul Aziz. Under Order dated 11th August 1995 (Exh '4'/pg. 34) passed by the second respondent - specially empowered officer, the detenu has been detained under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short, the PITNDPS Act) with a view to preventing him from engaging in the procurement, storage and abetting in the export from India of Narcotic Drugs. The said order of detention has been served on the detenu on 23rd August 1995 along with the grounds of detention which are at Exhibit 'B'/pg. 35. The incriminating instances which led to the passing of the order of detention are two. The first incident is of 19th February 199...
Yogi Texturisers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1997
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT363Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This application is for dispensing with the pre-deposit of an amount of Rs. 11,48,923/- and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). The Department's case against the applicants is that they have availed of modvat credit on the basis of the Original Customer's copy of Invoice issued by the manufacturers instead of taking modvat credit on transporter's copy issued under Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Shri S.D. Gohil, the Ld. Consultant for the applicant's submitted that the invoice in question had been issued by the supplier, who was in the Jurisdiction of Collector of Central Excise, Surat. The Supplier had acted in accordance with the Trade Notice issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat, and therefore modvat credit has been correctly taken as per law. The Ld. Consultant also submitted that the applicant have received the material input from suppliers who are dealers and not manufacturers, and hence the amended Rule 52A relating to duplicate co...
Asian Paints (i) Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1997
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT411Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants herein manufacture Paints and Varnishes falling under Chapter 32 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are availing of Modvat credit on inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. The Department initiated proceedings against them as it was observed that the appellants have availed Modvat credit of duty used in the manufacture of Alkyd Resins which is cleared at nil rate of duty to their sister concerns and other factories as per exemption under Notification No. 132/86. Since alkyd resin were cleared at nil rate of duty the Department invoked Rule 57C which bars Modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of final product if the final product is exempted from duty. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise Division V Vadodara confirmed the demand and his order was upheld by the Collector (Appeals) Mumbai in the impugned order.2. None was present for the appellants when the matter was called. They have asked for adjournment of as their records are not...
Fluid Air (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1997
Reported in: (1997)63ITD182(Mum.)
"II. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of an amount of Rs. 4,23,567 as deemed income under section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(va) (being Employees' Contribution towards Provident Fund) and that too without assigning any proper reasons. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) ought to have directed the allowance of the amount of Rs. 4,23,567 as deduction under section 36(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Hon'ble ITAT may order accordingly. III. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance under section 43B of an amount of Rs. 5,98,578 and that too without assigning proper reasons. He ought to have decided the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble ITAT may order accordingly." 4. We have heard the ld. assessee's counsel as well as the ld. D.R. The assessee's counsel addition to reitera...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »