Mumbai Court April 1997 Judgments
Mukund Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1997
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT316Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These appeals have been filed by the appellants against the captioned order wherein the Commissioner of Central Excise had confirmed the demand of Rs. 75,23,185/- as duty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. He has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 11,11,202/- under Section 11AC of the Act. He has also imposed, by the said impugned order, a penalty of Rs. 30.00 lacs under Rule 173Q of the Rules.2. The ld. Counsel Shri P.V. Patankar, arguing the appeals, stated that the appellants are a public limited company producing iron and steel machinery etc. falling under Chapters 72, 73, 84 and 86. In respect of such goods, the appellants got certain advances towards the products.It is contended by the appellants that these are advance towards the contract price is normally charged for these goods. They also stated that part payment of such price is taken before delivery of goods with a view to compensate for cost incurred and ensure fulfilment of the contract by the buyer. They also emp...
Tag this Judgment!Shrikumar Poddar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1997
Reported in: (1998)65ITD48(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT for asst. yr. 1987-88.2. The short question in this appeal is regarding the allowability of interest paid on the foreign borrowing, which was disallowed by the AO on the ground that the tax thereon was not deducted by the assessee as provided under s. 58(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. The assessee's contention is that the interest payable by the assessee is not taxable under the Act, in the hands of the non-resident either under s. 5 or s. 9 of the Act, and that the payment was not made in India and, therefore, the question of deduction of tax and payment of tax thereon under s. 195 does not arise. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of C. G. Krishnaswami Naidu vs. CIT (1966) 62 ITR 686 (Mad); decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Public Utilities Investment Trust Ltd. (1983) 143 ITR 236 (Bom) and in the case of CIT vs. Cooper Engineering Ltd. (1968) 68 ITR 457 (Bom), and t...
Tag this Judgment!Parwatibai W/O Madhavrao Molddewad Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR541; 1998(1)BomCR31
ORDERA.P. Shah, J.1. The short question which falls for our determination in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether the respondent No. 4, who was elected from the ward reserved for general woman category, is entitled to contest the election to the post of President of the Municipal Council which is reserved for the category of Other Backward Class women.2. The elections to the Municipal Council of Mukhed were held on 19th January, 1997. The Municipal Council of Mukhed consists of 17 councillors elected at the ward elections. Out of the 17 seats, only one seat is reserved for the category of Other Backward Class woman. The petitioner had contested the election from Ward No. 1, which was reserved for Other Backward Class woman and declared elected. The respondent No. 4 contested the election of Ward No. 13 which was reserved for general women and she was also declared elected.3. Article 243-T of the Constitution provides for reservation of seats in s...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Cynthia MartIn Wd/O A.V. MartIn Vs. Prembehari S/O Makhanlal Yadu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR289; 1998(1)BomCR631; 1997(3)MhLj389
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. The Civil Revision was admitted and heard on 30th April, 1997. On that day, the civil revision was rejected. Following are the reasons for the rejection. It will be better to see the factual panorama: The applicant original defendant/ judgment debtor challenges the order passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Nagpur, confirming the order passed by the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur. The learned Judge of the Small Causes Court rejected the objections raised by the judgment debtor and directed the issuance of warrant of possession under Order XXI, Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That order was confirmed by the Appellate Court, necessitating the present revision. 2. It is an admitted position that a decree has been passed against the judgmentdebtor for possession of the suit house as also for recovery of Rs. 11,365.75 in CivilSuit No. 358 of 1990. An appeal came to be filed against the decree, being RegularCivil Appeal No. 1 of 1992. ...
Tag this Judgment!Digamber S/O Eknath Survase Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)398; 1998(2)MhLj539
ORDERN.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. In the early hours of 31-12-1990, the door of the house of Police Patil Miyasaheb (P.W. 1) was knocked by the present accused-appellant, who informed the Police Patil that he has committed the murder of his wife Pathrabai. Police Patil went to the house of accused, saw the dead body of Pathrabai and took the accused to the Police Station. First Information Report was lodged by the accused himself and an offence at CRI No. 103/90 was registered under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Murud. When the accused--appellant was arrested, blood-stains were found on the pant which was on his person. Panchanama of arrest is af Exhibit 19. First Information Report lodged by accused is at Exhibit 23. Panchanama of the scene of offence is at Exhibit 26 and the inquest panchanama is at Exhibit 27. It is also alleged that a sharp cutting kitchen instrument used for vegetable foYyh2. Samples of the earth where the dead body was lying and the sample o...
Tag this Judgment!Shrikumar Poddar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1997
Reported in: (1997)59TTJ(Mumbai)304
ORDERR. P. GARG, A.M. :This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT for asst. yr. 1987-88.2. The short question in this appeal is regarding the allowability of interest paid on the foreign borrowing, which was disallowed by the AO on the ground that the tax thereon was not deducted by the assessee as provided under s. 58(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. The assessees contention is that the interest payable by the assessee is not taxable under the Act, in the hands of the non-resident either under s. 5 or s. 9 of the Act, and that the payment was not made in India and, therefore, the question of deduction of tax and payment of tax thereon under s. 195 does not arise. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of C. G. Krishnaswami Naidu vs . CIT : [1966]62ITR686(Mad) ; decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs . Public Utilities Investment Trust Ltd. : [1983]143ITR236(Bom) and in the case of CIT vs . Cooper Engineering Ltd. : [1968]68IT...
Tag this Judgment!indofil Chemical Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1997
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT440Tri(Mum.)bai
2. Appellant imported a consignment of packaging machinery and filed a bill of entry in which it claimed clearance of the goods in terms of Para 22 of the Import Policy. This paragraph permits import of goods not specified in the negative list. It claimed assessment of the goods at the rates specified in the Tariff. The goods were assessed to duty.The appellant did not clear the goods, and they are still pending clearance. Appellant was issued a licence dated 1-7-1996, which is stated to be for the goods under import from the Director General Foreign Trade. The licence is a EPCG licence. Where goods specified to the table to the notification are imported in terms of such a licence, they are entitled to concessional rate of duty as provided in Notification 110/75. Appellant after receipt of the licence, approached the Customs for re-assessment of the goods, claiming benefit of the notification. Reassessment has been refused by orders of the Commissioner communicated in the letter of th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hegal Capsule Industries Pvt.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1997
Reported in: (1997)(71)LC596Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri V.K. Puri, the Id. SDR addressed arguments on the reference application. He submitted that in this case, the respondents have availed modvat credit under Rule 57A on inputs received under cover of a Gate Pass which has been endorsed three times, whereas, according to the circular No. 14/89 dated 17.4.1989 of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, only two endorsements on the gate pass is allowed for availing modvat credit. The Tribunal in this case, has allowed the appeal of the assessee by following the precedent Tribunal decision in the case of SBS Organics v. Collector , wherein the Tribunal held that having regard to the scheme of modvat credit and also the relaxation granted by the Board itself, the modvat credit cannot be denied only because inputs had been received under cover of Gate pass having more than two endorsements. The Id. SDR points out that there is another decision of the Southern Zonal Bench of the Tribunal reported in 1996 (14) RLT 489 in the case of Com...
Tag this Judgment!Kisan Bahuddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Another Vs. Rajendra P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)BomCR39
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard advocates for the parties. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioner society has challenged the order dated 10.11.1995 and 7-1-1997 passed by the School Tribunal, Nashik. The respondent Shri Rajendra Pandharinath Patil was working as a teacher at Nutan Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Waini Sendhi, Malkheda, Taluka-Chopda, District-Dhule. As the strength of students in VIII and IX standard of the same school was reduced, the authorities directed the closure of those two classes. Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 came to be declared as a surplus teacher and by order dated 6-2-1995 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, he was called upon to report at L.N. Sarvajanik Vidyalaya, Jalgaon, as a teacher. A separate order came to be passed on 10-2-1995 that the respondent No. 1 was declared as a surplus teacher. By order dated 17-2-1995, the Head Master of the petitioner-so...
Tag this Judgment!Harischandra S/O Ratanchandra Aryamanav Vs. the State of Maharashtra a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR76; 1998(2)BomCR328
ORDERB.H. Marlaralle, J.1. Heard advocates for the parties. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties. Rule made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioner was working as a Secondary School Teacher and he retired on reaching the age of super-annuation on 26-5-1975. On his retirement he applied for pension but the same has not been received by him as yet. The petitioner has brought on record, a letter dated 26-10-987 addressed by the Accountant General, Nagpur to the respondents No. 3 and 4, and it is the grievance of the petitioner that no steps were taken by the said respondents in compliance of the said letter. However, by order dated 25-7-1995, the Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad has called upon the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad to take further steps to prepare the service book of the petitioner so as to settle his claim for pension as there was no response from the respondents in settling his pension, till 1995, the petitioner has approached th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »