Mumbai Court September 1997 Judgments
Larson and Toubro Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1997
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT404Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant received for repairs in its factory a water cooler which has been manufactured, not by it, but by another manufacturer. It received the cooler in October, 1986, repaired it and sent it out of the factory in September, 1987. It paid duty on the cooler when it was cleared. Subsequently, it claimed refund of the duty so paid, on the ground that no duty was required to be paid in terms of Rule 173H. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim on two grounds - that the claim was barred by limitation, and that proviso to Rule 173H would not apply to a case of this kind, where the goods which entered the factory for repair had been manufactured in another factory. In appeal, Collector (Appeals) held that the claim was not barred by limitation. He however upheld the finding of the Assistant Collector on the applicability of Rule 173H. Hence this appeal.2. The appellant's contention has all along been, that, as it stood at the relevant time,the provisions of Rule 173H did not e...
Tag this Judgment!Modison Metals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1997
Reported in: (1998)(60)ECC126
1. The appellants herein manufacturer of Silver Alloy Contacts' falling under Chapter 85 sub-heading 8538.00 CETA. They supplied the goods numbering 5338 to M/s. Kirlosker System Ltd. under various gate passes during the period October 1988 and March 1989. These were however, received back because the customer did not release the documents from the bank. The receipt of the goods back at the factory was duly verified on 12-12-1989 by the Departmental Officers on the basis of D-3 intimation given by the appellant. They were taken into their accounts and after such verification in terms of Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This rule empowers the Collector to grant refund of duty paid on manufactured excisable goods issued for home consumption from a factory, which are returned to the factory for being remade, refined, reconditioned. The appellant cleared 2,274 pieces of the returned Silver Alloy Contacts after re-polishing, re-testing and re-packing to another customer on paym...
Tag this Judgment!Goa Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT177Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Heard both sides, the application proposes to refer to the High Court following question : "In the facts and under the circumstances, whether RT 12 Return for the month of September, 1987 or October, 1987 is relevant for computation of limitation for recovery of credit on the stock of inputs in a case where Modvat facility was withdrawn with effect from 1st October, 1987." The Tribunal, in coming to its conclusion has applied the period of limitation as prescribed in the Larger Bench decision in Breaks India v. CC, Madras - 1996 (15) RLT 68 (CEGAT-SRB). This decision read into Rule 57-1 before its amendment in 1988 the period of six months for issuing notice to recovery calculated from the date on which the fact that the credit has been incorrectly availed of came to the knowledge of the Department. The question as to whether in this case, such date is the date of filing of RT 12 return for September, 1987 or October, 1987 can be answered by determining whether the Department could...
Tag this Judgment!Mafatlal Apparel Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1997
Reported in: (1998)65ITD234(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 21st January, 1992 for the asst. yr. 1989-90.2. The only dispute in this appeal is for the additional tax levied under s. 143(1A) of the Act in respect of addition of cash compensatory support (CCS) to the income of the assessee made in the intimation issued under s. 143(1)(a) of the Act.3. In the note attached to the computation of income, the assessee stated that it received CCS of Rs. 41,83,875 and claimed the same to be capital receipt not liable to tax. It was based on the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gedore Tools (India) (P) Ltd. vs. IAC (1988) 31 TTJ (Del) (SB) 260 : (1988) 25 ITD 193 (Del) (SB).The return was filed on 28th December, 1989.4. The Finance Bill, 1990, was introduced in the Parliament on 19th March, 1990, making the CCS taxable as revenue income with retrospective effect. It became an Act on the assent given by the President of India on 31st May, 1990.5. The AO took up...
Tag this Judgment!Bhargav Keru Tamondkar Vs. Jam Manufacturing Mills (Uc) N.T.C. (S.M.) ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALLMR504; 1998(2)BomCR60; 1998(1)MhLj523
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J. 1. This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been fifed with a prayer for issuance of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgement and order dated 29th July, 1986 passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay. 2. The petitioner states that initially he was employed with the respondent No. 2, the Jam ., Bombay. The management of the respondent No. 2 has been taken over by the National Textile Corporation Ltd. (South Maharashtra), the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 1 Jam Manufacturing Mills (UC) Bombay is said to have been under the control and management of the respondent No. 3 with effect from 18th October, 1983. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court is impleaded as a respondent No. 4, whereas the member of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, at Bombay, constituted under the B.I.R. Act, 1946, is impleaded as a respondent No. 5. 3. It is stated that the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!indubai Sidram Mundewade and Others Vs. Sidramappa Baslingappa Kalyans ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR611; 1998(2)BomCR71; 1998(1)MhLj282
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. The petitioners by way of this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenge the legality and validity of the judgement and order dated 13th July, 1983 passed by the III Extra Asstt. Judge, Solapur in Revision Application No. 27 of 1981 confirming the judgement and order dated 30th April, 1981 passed by the II Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Solapur in Misc. Application No. 150 of 1996. The other Writ Petition No. 4550 of 1983 challenges the same order as the Civil Appeal No. 612 of 1981 and the Revision Application No. 27 of 1981 arising out of the judgement and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 1400 of 1976 have been decided by a common judgement. Both the writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgement. 2. The petitioners are the original applicants/ tenants and the respondents are the original opponents/landlords of the suit premises. The petitioners filed Misc. Civil Application No. 150 ...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Sinh S/O Shivajirao Pandit Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR409; 1998(2)BomCR575
ORDERV.K. Barde, J.1. Heard Shri R.N. Dhorde, learned Counsel for petitioner. Leave to delete respondent No. 7 granted.2. This Letters Patent appeal is arising because of dismissal of Writ Petition No. 3734/1997 in limine by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court. The facts giving rise to this litigation in brief are as follows :-3. The respondent No. 5-Beed District Central Co-operative Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) is the Cooperative Society and is a specified society under section 73-G of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The programme for the election of the director board of the Bank is published by the respondent No. 2-Collector and the respondent No. 3 is appointed as the Returning Officer. The present petitioner is the delegate of the affiliated Cooperative Society of the Bank, namely, Seva Sahakari Society, Rakshas Bhuvan, for the purpose of the election to the director board. As per the bye-laws of the Bank, a ...
Tag this Judgment!Mafatlal Apparel Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1997
Reported in: (1998)61TTJ(Mumbai)323
ORDERR. P. GARG, A.M. :This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 21st January, 1992 for the asst. yr. 1989-90.2. The only dispute in this appeal is for the additional tax levied under s. 143(1A) of the Act in respect of addition of cash compensatory support (CCS) to the income of the assessee made in the intimation issued under s. 143(1)(a) of the Act.3. In the note attached to the computation of income, the assessee stated that it received CCS of Rs. 41,83,875 and claimed the same to be capital receipt not liable to tax. It was based on the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gedore Tools (India) (P) Ltd. vs . IAC . The return was filed on 28th December, 1989.4. The Finance Bill, 1990, was introduced in the Parliament on 19th March, 1990, making the CCS taxable as revenue income with retrospective effect. It became an Act on the assent given by the President of India on 31st May, 1990.5. The AO took up the return on 19th July, 1990 and pro...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkumar Jalan Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)66ITD576(Mum.)
1. Before deciding the assessee's present Misc. Appln. No. 121/Mum/96, we would like to devolve upon the reasons leading to the furnishing of this miscellaneous application. The assessee had filed the first miscellaneous application on 8th March, 1996, and another miscellaneous application claiming to be the revised miscellaneous application along with an affidavit of Mr. D. M. Harish, advocate, who had appeared and had argued the assessee's appeal before the Tribunal on a stamp-paper dt. 5th July, 1996, and executed on 8th July, 1996, filed on 8th July, 1996.2. The assessee's first M.A. filed on 8th March, 1996, was registered in the Tribunal's record as M.A. No. 63/Mum/96 and was heard on 12th July, 1996. At the time of hearing of M.A. No. 63/Mum/96, on 12th July, 1996, the learned senior advocate, Mr. Y. P. Trivedi, appeared on behalf of the assessee and withdrew the M.A. No. 63/Mum/96.3. The present miscellaneous application which is the third in the series and was registered as M...
Tag this Judgment!B.D.A. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)65ITD501(Mum.)
1. This first appeal arises out of an assessment made under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act falling under Chapter XIV-B thereof, on the assessee, which is a company engaged in liquor trade, pursuant to a search made under section 132 of the Act on 2-8-1995.2. Various grounds have been taken in the memorandum of appeal, but the first ground, which goes to the root of the matter, is that the "undisclosed income for the block period could only be computed by setting off the loss incurred in any of the years falling in the block period against the profit for the other years". Arguments were addressed elaborately on this point and it was agreed by both sides that if the ground is to be accepted then there would be no need to decide the merits of the various additions made in the block assessment at this stage. Since we also felt so, we heard arguments only in respect of this ground.3. The block period consists of the assessment years 1986-87 to 1995-96 (10 years) and the period from 1-...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »