Mumbai Court June 1998 Judgments
Shriram Alkalies and Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT239Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applications are for dispensing with the pre-deposit of duty Rs. 1,26,11/564/- as wrongly availed Modvat credit besides penalty Rs. 30.00 lakhs on the applicant firm and Rs. 2.00 lakhs on its Additional General Manager is applicant Shri S.R. Bansal.2. Shri C.S. Lodha the ld. Sr. Counsel appeared for the applicants along with Shri Mayur Shroff. The ld. Sr. Counsel pointed out that the Commissioner has denied the Modvat credit on the ground that the applicants have not been registered under the Central Excise in terms of Rule 174 of Central Excise Rules. However, the application for registration had been made by them on 6-12-1994. It was returned by the department they further requested for authentication of Central Excise records on 14-3-1995 which was also not considered. The finding that applicants have taken credit before filing of Modvat declaration was not actually correct as they had been filing the declaration from time to time. There is also a factual error in the impugn...
Tag this Judgment!Liva Pharma Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1998
Reported in: (1999)(80)LC728Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Orders-in-Appeal No. KPS/648/B. 11/91 dated 10.4.1991 and SDK/280-281/B. 11/91 dated 12.11.1991 both passed by the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, Bombay, setting aside the original orders passed by the Assistant Collector and remanding the cases to the Assistant Collector for de novo consideration after observing principles of natural justice have been challenged in these appeals.2. Shri Sandeep Mittal, Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is not pursuing the appeals and would be satisfied if the Assistant Collector re-adjudicates the matter without further delay.3. Appellant's main grievance appears to be that the Assistant Collector has not taken action during the last six years. Appeals are disposed of directing the jurisdictional adjudicating authority to take up the matter at hand for adjudication and pass adjudication orders after granting due opportunity to the appellant....
Tag this Judgment!Shri Damaso Cota Vs. the Director, Directorate of Health Services and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)BomCR363; [1998(80)FLR960]; 1998(3)MhLj566
ORDERA.A. Desai, J. 1. The question involved herein relates to the ambit and scope of the term 'absorbed post' occurring in the Goa, Daman and Diu (Absorbed Employees) Act, 1965 (the Act of 1965). Facts for raising the question are thus :---The petitioner was appointed on 1-4-1952 as 'Assalariado' (daily wager) in the erstwhile Administration of Portuguese. On 19-12-1961 Goa got liberated from the Rule of Portuguese. On 27-12-1961 the institution where the petitioner was working was abolished. On 28-1-1963, he was appointed as Surveillance Worker, (subsequently designated as Basic Health Worker) in the National Malaria Irradiation Service. After attaining the age of superannuation on 1-1-1985, the petitioner retired.2. The petitioner, claimed that he is entitled to the benefit of the service which he has rendered under the erstwhile Portuguese Administration in view of provisionsunder the Act of 1965 which came into force w.e.f. 1-2-1966. Undisputedly, there is no express order absorbi...
Tag this Judgment!The Comissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ix, Bombay Vs. Shri J.V. Ko ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)BomCR821; [1999]235ITR239(Bom)
ORDERDr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs.40,264/- received by the assesses from M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.under the superannuation scheme on his premature retirement is notliable to be assessed or charged to tax?'2. This reference pertains to the assessment year 1976-77, the relevant previous year being the year ended 30th March, 1976. During this year, the assessee, who is an individual, received a sum of Rs. 44,743/- from his employer M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra under the superannuation scheme on his premature retirement from service with effect from December, 1975, but of which a sum of Rs. 6,358.41 was deducted as lax. Before the Income-tax Officer, the assessee claimed that this amount was not taxable as his income. The I...
Tag this Judgment!Kadam Rupsing Bhivji Vs. Returning Officer, Municipal Council, Ahmedna ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Bom314; 1998(4)ALLMR162; 1998(4)BomCR786; (1998)3BOMLR106; 1998(3)MhLj293
ORDERA.B. Palkar, J. 1. The election of the Ahmednagar Municipal Council, Ahmednagar was held on 1-12-1996. The petitioner was one of the candidates who has been declared elected from Ward No. 9. The respondent No. 1 was the Returning Officer and respondents No.2 to 8 were the unsuccessful candidates.Respondent No. 2 had secured 707 votes whereas petitioner has secured 722 votes and other respondents secured comparatively less number of votes. Petitioner was held to be disqualified for contesting the election and his election was declared void and the respondent No. 2 was declared elected.2. Although number of other grounds were raised in the election petition, at a later stage, the petition was restricted to the disqualification of the present petitioner (original opponent No. 2 ) on the ground that he was not competent to contest the election in view of the provisions of Regulation 85(h) 3(n) of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations and if he is disqua...
Tag this Judgment!Robert Peter Kadam and Etc. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3879
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Since these matters arise out of the same set of facts and a common impugned judgment, we are disposing them off by one judgment. 9 persons namely (1) Robert Peter Kadam (2) Tulshidas Ramchandra Bhokre (3) Balu Mogal Kharb(4) Yadav Baburao Karote (5) Bhimrao Kabir Waghmare (6) Salim Dilvar Munshi (7) Ashok Laxman Ghoderao (8) Anil Nathu Kale and (9) Gangubai Laxman Shinde were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, for offence punishable under Section 395, IPC. In addition, some were charged for offences punishable under Sections 397, 412 and 414, IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his Judgment dated 3-1-1985 passed in Sessions Case No. 86 of 1984, convicted and sentenced three of them namely Robert Peter Kadam, Ashok Laxman Ghoderao and Anil Nathu Kale, for offence under Section 395 read with Section IPC. He sentenced Robert Peter Kadam to undergo seven years R.I. for the same but, released the other two on probation of good conduct of t...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Mirchu Gumanmal Damnani Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1998
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR55
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. As this matter is very old and it has been shown on the board for last several dates, we have took up this appeal for hearing on 23.06.1998. Since the counsel for the appellant was absent on that day, we partly heard this case for some time with the assistance of the A.P.P. and adjourned the matter to the next date. Since then, it has been shown on the board as a part heard matter. Today also, when we took up the matter for further hearing, learned Counsel for the appellant was absent. Therefore, we proceed with hearing of the appeal and deliver the judgment on merits in the absence of the counsel of the appellant. We are justified in resorting to this course of action, particularly in view of the decision Bani Singh and others v. State of U.P. : 1996CriLJ3491 . The said decision is cautioning the appellate Court against the dismissal of appeal for default in the absence of the counsel concerned.2. We have read the judgment of the Court below and perused ...
Tag this Judgment!Comnhssioner of Income Tax Vs. A.G. Narayanan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1998
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Bom)633
ORDERBY THE COURT:By this reference under s. 256(l) of the IT Act, 1961, (the Act), the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this Court for opinion.'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Rs. 48,574 received by the assessee from the staff superannuation fund is income, but at the same time not liable to be assessed or charged to tax?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the provisions of cl. 6 of part B of TV schedule for deduction of tax from such income and rendering it otiose and reducing it to a meaningless and idle formality?'2. We have already decided an identical controversy in IT Ref. No. 222 of 1987 (reported as CIT vs. JV. Kolta (1998) 149 CTR (Bom) 454] wherein we have held that receipts by an employee from the approved superannuation fund are not taxable for and upto the asst. yr. 1995-96. The controversy in this case perta...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J.V. Kolta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1998
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(Bom)454
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 40,264 received by the assessee from Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. under the superannuation scheme on his premature retirement is not liable to be assessed or charged to tax?'2. This reference pertains to the assessment year 1976-77, the relevant previous year being the year ended 30-3-1976. During this year, the assessee, who is an individual, received a sum of Rs. 44,743 from his employer under the superannuation scheme on his premature retirement for service with effect from December 1975, out of which a sum of Rs. 6,358.41 was deducted as tax. Before the Income Tax Officer, the assessee claimed that this amount was not taxable as his income. The Income Tax Officer did not accept this claim of the assessee as he was ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pooja Archa Trust Fund
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1998
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Bom)31
ORDERBY THE COURT:By this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this Court for opinion :'(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that s. 164(2) of the IT Act, 1961 applied only if the trust was public religious trust and that inasmuch as the assessee was a private religious discretionary trust, the provisions of s. 164(1) applied and not the provisions of s. 164(2) of the IT Act, 1961T'2. This reference pertains to the asst. yr. 1979-80. The assessee in this case is a charitable trust. The income which is the subject-matter of the dispute in this case is Rs. 18,010. The dispute is whether the provisions of s. 164(1) of the Act would apply. The ITO applied provisions of s. 164(2) of the Act. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue at whose instance this reference is made. We have effused the statement of case and the order of the Tribunal. No sufficient m...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »