Mumbai Court June 1997 Judgments
Shripatrao Dajiso Ghatage and Another Vs. Usman Abdul Shaikh and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR510; 1998(2)BomCR235
ORDERV.R. Datar, J.1. In this Revision Application under section 115, CPC orders passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kagal, below applications, Exhibits-137, 139 and 144 in Regular Civil Suit No. 3 of 1983 are impugned and rule has been issued by directing expeditious disposal of this application. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Application is taken up for hearing. In order to understand the points in controversy, it would be necessary to reproduce certain facts.The dispute relates to vacant piece of land with structure constructed of stones and earth (mud) over it from City Survey No. 44, Village Panchayat No. 191, Property No. 93 of village Pimpalgaon Khurd Taluka Kagal, District Kolhapur. Regular Civil Suit No. 3 of 1983 was initially instituted by petitioner No. 1, Shripatrao Dajiso Ghatage, through his so called power of attorney holder, Shri Ganpatrao Gopalrao Jadhav against the respondents, herein, and to this suit later on, -Shri Basaveshwar Vividh Karyakari Sahakar...
Tag this Judgment!Cyanamid India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT617Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals involve the same issue of whether filter aid material which is called Dicamol is an eligible input for purposes of Modvat credit under Rule 57A. The appellants manufacture Patent or Proprietary Medicines, and were availing of Modvat credit. As the filter aid is used for separating solid material from the mesh before the active ingredient is extracted with the use of solvent. The Department therefore took the view that no Modvat credit can be extended. In the Show Cause Notice issued to the appellant it was alleged that the filter aid does not form a part of final product, though it is used in relation to final product, it is not identifiable in the final product and therefore, it was alleged in the Show Cause Notice that the material cannot be said to be either a raw material or an input. The Assistant Commissioner's order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), who held that from the function of the input it has to be considered as a part of the machinery filte...
Tag this Judgment!industrial Electronic and Allied Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1997
Reported in: (1997)LC652Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Tribunal by its Order No. 3451 /96-WZB has allowed a rectification application of the appellants holding that the question whether the demand in this case is hit by limitation or not has to be gone into and the finding be given by the Tribunal, which it had omitted to do when the disposing of the appeal on merits by its earlier Order No. 1935/96-WRB, dated 23-5-1996.2. The facts briefly are that the appellants manufacture various types of blood pressure measuring instruments and they claimed exemption under Notification No. 179/77 on the ground that their manufacturing activity was undertaken without the aid of -power. It was however noticed by the department that part of the activity of manufacturing like drilling, tapping and spray painting of the boxes for these instruments were carried out with the aid of power and hence the demand was raised by issue of show cause notice dated 20-2-1986 for the period 1-4-1980 to 18-10-1985 invoking the longer period under Section 11A of t...
Tag this Judgment!Shivaji Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1997
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT220Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants herein had filed the writ petition in the Bombay High Court against the Final Order of this Bench in their Order Nos.147-148/89/WRB, dated 4-12-1989 1990 (50) E.L.T. 50 (Tribunal). In that decision the Tribunal had held that chemicals used in the preparation of 'sand moulds' for the production of steel casting are not eligible for Modvat credit, because the Tribunal held that the sand moulds are in the nature of equipments which is the excluded category input for Modvat purposes and the inputs going in the manufacture of such equipment, Tribunal held will also not be eligible for Modvat credit.The Bombay High Court has disposed of the Writ Petition by its Judgment dated 21-3-1997. The High Court has noted that during the pendency of the petition the Larger Bench decision in the case of Shree Ramkrishna Steel Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1996 (82) E.L.T.575, after considering several conflicting decisions of regional Benches has held that the issue ...
Tag this Judgment!Miss Rose Ben Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)65ITD57(Mum.)
1. These are cross appeals by the assessee and the department directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 8-9-1994 for the assessment year 1988-89. The grounds taken by the assessee read as follows :- "1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition to the income of the appellant on account of unexplained Investment. 2.1 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding that re-opening was proper and valid. 2.2 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that mandatory condition for initiating and completing reassessment proceedings were fulfilled. 2.3 It is submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law no reassessment proceeding could have been initiated or completed. 3.1 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the appellant is owner of the gold bars seized from her person and baggage. 3.2 It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Trilok Shipbreaking Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)66ITD114(Mum.)
1. There are three appeals of the revenue, two relating to assessment year 1987-88 and one relating to assessment year 1989-90.2. For assessment years 1987-88 and 1989-90 assessee had claimed deduction under sections 8OHH and 80-I which had been denied on the ground that shipbreaking activity did not involve any manufacturing activity within the meaning of section 80-I and section 8OHHA. Assessee appealed to the CIT(Appeals)-VI, Mumbai and the latter decided the issue in favour of the assessee by relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rama Shipbreaking Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 2624 (Bom.) of 1984, dated 28-4-1987] and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CST v. Indian Metal Traders [1978] 41 STC 169.3. For assessment year 1987-88 Assessing Officer had also imposed additional tax under section 104. On appeal, the levy has been cancelled on the ground that provisions of section 104 are inapplicable in respect of manufacturing concerns. Assessee-company being...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Qucxova Sinal Cundo, Through His Power of Attorney Shri Naraina S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)BomCR87
ORDERS.N. Variava, J.1. All these petitions can be disposed off by this common judgment. Facts are by and large common. On behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Zaiwalla and Mr. Chinoy have argued. All the other Advocates have adopted the arguments of these two Counsel.2. All these petitions challenge the vires of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mining Concessions (Abolition and Declaration as Mining Leases) Act, 1987 (hereinafter for the sake of convenience called the said Impugned Act). Facts briefly stated are as follows:3. The then Portuguese Government granted various concessions under Decrees dt. 20th September 1906. These were governed by the Portuguese Colonial Mining Laws. The then existing position is very succinctly set out by the Supreme Court in the case of Vinodkumar Shantilal Gosalia v. Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal : [1982]1SCR392 . The relevant portion reads as follows:'3. During the Portuguese rule, matters relating to grant, transfer and vesting of mining rights in Goa, Daman and Diu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.D. Pendse
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1997
Reported in: [2001]250ITR413(Bom)
1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has, at the instance of the Revenue, referred the following question of law to this court for opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the asses-see was entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A on the cost of poultry shed, machinery, cages and other equipments ?' 2. Counsel for the parties are agreed that in view of the ratio of the decision of this court in CIT v. Deejay Hatcheries : [1995]211ITR652(Bom) , the asses-see is not entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. In view of the above, the question referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. 4. Reference disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Tarasaheb Atar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)351
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties, perused the record and proceedings and the impugned judgment. The concurrent finding of fact which is being sought to be assailed in the present revision, which is directed against the conviction of the petitioner for an offence punishable under section 304-A I.P.C., is that on 5-10-1984 at about 8.30 p.m. as a consequence of his rashly and negligently driving ST. Bus No. M.T.D. 8971 a little ahead of Valsang bus stand an accident between the said bus and a scooter which was coming from the opposite direction took place, as a consequence whereof all the four persons who were riding on the scooter died; two on the spot and two later on. After the usual F.I.R., investigation etc. the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, was tried and convicted for an offence punishable under section 304-A I.P.C. His appeal was also dismissed.2. I find that the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below is based on good e...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Trilok Shipbreaking Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)61TTJ(Mumbai)80
ORDERM.A. Bakashi, J.M.There are three appeals of the revenue, two relating to assessment year 1987-88 and one relating to assessment year 1989- 90.2. For assessment years 1987-88 and 1989-90 assessee had claimed deduction under sections 80HHA and 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which had been denied on the ground that ship-breaking activity did not involve any manufacturing activity within the meaning of section 80-I and section 80HHAof the Act. Assessee appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) VI, Mumbai, and the latter decided the issue in favour of the assessee by relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rama Ship-breaking Ltd. ITA No. 2624/Bom/84 order dated 28-4-1987 and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian Metal Traders (1978) 41 STC 169 (Bom).3. For assessment year 1987-88, assessing officer had also imposed additional tax under section 104. On appeal, the levy has been cancelled on the ground that provi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »