Mumbai Court August 1998 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.
Shivram Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)64TTJ(Mumbai)588
ORDERM. V. R. Prasad, AMThis appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 22-12-1997 for the assessment year 1993-94. Various objections are taken, but the gist of the main objection is that the CIT(Appeals) erred in taking the sale proceeds of a property sold by the appellant for the purpose of working out the capital gains thereof at Rs. 1,13,25,000 instead of Rs. 71,79,720.2. The appellant, which is a co-operative society filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 59,77,670 which comprised capital gains on sale of a plot No. 1087 (CST No. 1051, Mulund) of Rs. 57,14,286. The assessee worked out the capital gains as follows :-'Sale of Development of Plot No. 1087 CST No. 1051 Mulund (W) Bombay to Marathon Combine price Rs. 71,79,720Less : Cost of plot purchased as per valuation report of Mr. Namavati Roshan attached 11,83,159 Legal Fees Payable M/s. Soloman & Co.1,00,000 H. P. Ranina6,750 Mr. Namavati1,500 D. M. Harish4,000 M. R. Deshpande10,000 M. K. S. Ch...
Gopalrao Ambadasrao Borikar Vs. the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR559; 1999(1)BomCR859; 1999(3)MhLj536
ORDERA.D. Mane, J. 1. Rule. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Petitioner, who appears in person is not present today. Learned Counsel for the respective parties, waive service. The respondent No, 2 being a formal party, notice dispensed with. 3. The petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 90 of 1985 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani for perpetual injunction against the Municipal Council, Parbhani and Maharashtra State Electricity Board at Parbhani. The suit was based on substantive rights of the petitioner on the property and illegal and high handed approach made with mala fide intention by the defendants. The petitioner had also applied for temporary injunction, during pendency of the said civil suit. The petitioner had engaged one Shri G.S. Deshpande-Aundhekar, Advocate along with the present respondent No. 3. Both these advocates had filed vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner. Shri Chavhan, a junior had also signed the said vakil patra with th...
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Mulangi Krishnaswamy Ashok Kumar a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR126; 1999(2)BomCR771; (1998)3BOMLR228
ORDERS.N. Variava, J.1. This Court was established because large amounts were siphoned out from Banks and Financial Institutions into private pockets. The manner by which monies have been siphoned out are many. This case indicates how the broker and the officer, who is a public servant and whose duty it should have been to protect public monies, have conspired to misuse public position to enable the broker to siphon out monies on a large scale.2. Accused No. 1 was at the relevant time the Executive Vice President of Canbank Financial Services Limited (hereinafter called 'CANFINA'). Accused No. 1 was the Chief Dealer of CANFINA. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were at the relevant time Assist. Vice Presidents of CANFINA. Accused No. 3 was, at the relevant time, also a dealer of CANFINA. Accused No. 4 was and is a Share and Securities Broker.3. The case of the prosecution is as follows:Sometime in September, 1991 one Canbank Mutual Fund had taken out an Issue of Units called CANCIGO Units. It is th...
Audumbar Digambar Jagdane and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1936
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. The Appellants, original Accused Nos. 1 and 2, were charged and tried for offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Solapur in Sessions Case No. 13 of 1994.2. Prosecution case in brief is that deceased Nalsaheb was brother of complainant PW 12 Moula. Deceased was selling Shindi. Prior to the marriage deceased Nalsaheb was the wrestler. Sadashiv Mhadkar, Gundiba Bandagar, Bhalchandra Sarfale and others were also attending the gymkhana along with deceased Nalsaheb. Deceased Nalsaheb had a quarrel with Bhalchandra Sarfale. PW 12 Moula intervened. Since that quarrel Bhalchandra and deceased Nalsaheb were not on talking terms. On 12th November, 1993, Sadashiv Mhadkar, Bhalchandra Sarfale, Anna Sarfale and Vikas Sontakke had a quarrel during which Nalsaheb being friend of Sadashiv intervened. At that time Bhalchandra Sarfale and Vikas Sontakke gave threat to Nalsaheb that they will finish him within 8 ...
Echjay Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT920Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the decision of the Collector (Appeals), Ahmedabad made in Order-in-Appeal No. 4/94(3-Raj.) /CE./Collr (A)/Ahd., dated 4-1-1994 dismissing the appeal of the appellant. The Collector (Appeals) held that the order passed by the Assistant Collector was correct.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of steel forgings falling under Chapter Heading 70.30 of CETA. The appellant filed refund claim of a duty amounting Rs. 27,246.84 on 1-1-1990 on the ground that fully finished flanges were cleared to Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) and duty was paid on 27-1-1989. The goods were not taken delivery by IOC on the ground of delay and the goods were returned on 17-7-1989. On 18-7-1989 the appellant filed D3 Intimation under Rule 173L/173H and accounted for in the register maintained under Rule 173H. Show cause notice dated 17-2-1992 was issued under Section 11B by the Assistant Collector. A reply was filed on 17-2-1992. The Assistant Collector in the ord...
Commr. of Central Ex. and Cus. Vs. Dincotex Private Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT326Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal of the Department seeks to set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals) holding that the grey fabrics in the process of the respondent were not liable to confiscation.3. The contention that the provisions of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 173G were contravened by not entering the grey fabrics in the relevant record is not denied. However, we do not see how it follows from this the goods liable to confiscation. The reasoning of the Collector (Appeals) that the appellant is not a manufacturer of grey fabrics of which no duty is payable and therefore the provision of Rule 173Q will not apply cannot be found fault with....
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Spartan Electricals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT845Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the decision of the Collector (Appeals) who by the impugned order has held that the demand made by the Assistant Collector was barred by limitation.2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 85 of CETA, 1985. The respondents applied under Rule 57H(3) for transfer of credit lying in RG 23 Part II to RG 23A Part II. The said amount represents balance in respect of credit taken on electrical stampings and lamination and die cast rotors during the period from 1-3-1986 and in view of the fact that they were working under Rule 56A the credit taken under Notification 95/83 during the period was not admissible. Since the amount was erroneously permitted and claimed under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules and by order dated 3-11-1993 he confirmed the demand against which an appeal was filed and the appellate authority by the impugned order has said that the credit was wrongly taken under Ru...
Ramesh P. Singhvi Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT217Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Customs officer, on information, stopped a scooter driven by the appellant and seized Rs. 4.5 lacs Indian currency being carried on it.The appellant stated before the Customs officer on 6-10-1989 that he had been given the money by a stranger and that it was to be given to Manish. He said "I do know Manish indulges in smuggling and this amount is the sale proceeds of smuggled goods." He had no further details about Manish. Further subsequent statement on 12-10-1989, he amplified that he could not locate Manish, and according to him, Manish would not come to claim the currency. "As he very well knows that the said amount represented the sale proceeds of the contravene".2. The Collector (Appeals) has confirmed the confiscation by the Deputy Collector ate of the currency under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that this is the sale proceeds of smuggled goods.Hence this appeal.3. The departmental representative strongly emphasizes the fact that the money was in the...
ilac Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1998
Reported in: (1999)(80)LC62Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Learned Counsel for the appellant has withdrawn from the case.Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri R.D. Negi, SDR and perused the papers.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of PVC resins packed in HDPE hags and PVA emulsion packed in carboys and steel drums, was filing price lists from time to time claiming that the packing materials were durable and returnable and claiming deduction of the element of cost of packing. Some price lists had been approved. When subsequent price lists were filed, the department felt that these packing materials were not durable or returnable and accordingly, show cause notice was issued proposing to reject the claim for deduction. Though appellant resisted the notice, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand proposed in the notice. This order having been confirmed by Collector (Appeals), the assessee has filed the present appeal.3. Both the authorities were not prepared to accept that HDPE bags, carboys and ste...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Hari Aditya Koli
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT342Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the vessel "Gunatit" is liable to confiscation under Sub-section (2) of Section 115 of the Act. The vessel was seized by the Customs Department at Mumbai on information from the Goa Customs that it had been used in smuggling of silver at Goa in January, 1990. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Collector (Appeals) has set aside the confiscation on the ground that the owner of the vessel was not involved in the smuggling.2. It has to be straightaway accepted that this view of the Collector (Appeals) is not justified. Sub-section (2) of Section 115 makes liable for confiscation "any conveyance or animal used as a means of transport in the smuggling of any goods or in the carriage of any smuggled goods unless the owner of the conveyance or animal proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person in charge of the conveyance or animal." Thus, if a vessel was...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »