Mumbai Court January 1999 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Cement Allocation and Co-ordinating Org ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1999
Reported in: [1999]236ITR553(Bom); [1999]103TAXMAN403(Bom)
S. H. KAPADIA J._At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following questions, for the opinion of this court for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.'1. Whether, the assessed -organisation derived profits and gains of business of Rs. 94,77,142 for the assessment year 1967-68 and Rs. 8,75,000 for the assessment year 1968-69 chargeable to tax under section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether the principle of mutuality, as enunciated in Styles' case was satisfied in the assessee's transactions with its members and the savings were not chargeable to tax on the ground of mutuality ?3. Whether the assessee organisation in its transactions with its members derived any income chargeable to tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The assessee was an association registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It was registered under section 25(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. It was registered to act as a central co-ordinating...
Jbf Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC489Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Today when the appeal was taken up for hearing, one representative pleads before me that the certain divisions of the company have been sold and he is trying to get in touch with the company. The learned Advocates are not responding, therefore the matter be adjourned. I cannot agree with it. The Advocates are not responding, it is their problem. The appeal is of 1993, we are in the year 1998. I do not want to adjourn this case. Hence I take up the matter for disposal.2. This is in appeal filed by the appellants against the decision of the Collector (Appeals) made in Order-in-Appeal No. PCJ/73/SRT/93, dated 5-10-1993 whereunder he denied the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 3,35,425/-.3. The appellants are manufacturing tobias acid and G salt falling under Chapter 29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. They were availing Modvat facility in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules read with Notification 177/86. They filed declarations under Rule 57G. The appellants w...
Elpro International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC803Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the decision of the Collector of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Pune where by the impugned order he had confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector rejecting the refund claim.2. The appellants in this case are manufacturers of heating elements falling under Chapter Heading 8516.00 and clearing the same on payment of appropriate duty. A quantity of 31 numbers of heating elements was rejected by the customer and returned to the appellants for rectification. Immediately on receipt of the said quantity, the appellants filed intimation in D3 form to the jurisdictional Inspector on 25-10-1989 as required under Rule 173L(3). The jurisdictional Inspector did not inspect and verified the goods within six months, but on 25-4-1990 after six months the jurisdictional Inspector visited the factory and inspected the goods then only the appellant could clear the goods within a period of 5 months and 5 days from the date of verification...
Graham Firth Steel Products Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)(84)LC232Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), made in Order-in-Appeal No. CS/367/M.V./98 dated 5.8.1998 whereunder the appellate Collector denied the modvat credit on capital goods, viz. machinery. She sought to follow the strict rules of Rule 57G. Hence the present appeal by the appellants.2. The appeal itself is taken up for disposal after waiving pre-deposit with consent of both sides.3. Learned Counsel Shri Rustom Parakh contends before me that the inputs were imported in December, 1995 as evidenced by bill of entry dated 16.12.1995. The credit was taken on 13.1.1996 in RG 23C Part I.Reconstructed triplicate copy of the bill of entry was received on 1.3.1996 and the credit was taken. He states that at the relevant time the provisions of Rule 57T(3) did not provide for either quadruplicate copy or triplicate copy for eligibility of taking modvat credit. He also invited my attention to the judgment of the Tribunal in Siel Sugar v. CCE 5. ...
Textile Corpn. of Marathwada Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT933Tri(Mum.)bai
1. One appeal and one application are listed in respect of duty and penalty arising out of 9 notices. Since penalty had not been separately apportioned in the impugned order the appeal is therefore treated as appeal against the order confirming duty of Rs. 1.68 crores issued in the earliest notice and the total penalty imposed. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 1.68 crores approximately and penalty of Rs. 1.8 crores.2. Applicant is engaged in the processing of cotton fabrics. Such processed fabrics are exempted from basic duty, but liable to duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. Duty has been demanded on the ground that each of the processes such as bleaching, printing and dyeing to which the fabrics are subjected renders them liable to duty and that therefore each time a fabric is subjected to each of such processes duty may be paid. The contention of the applicant is that duty has been paid when the goods were clear...
Hagel Capsules Inds. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC179Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the decision of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai made in Order-in-Appeal No. GS/1028/B-I/93 received by the assessee on 6.10.1993 whereunder the Collector (Appeals) have denied modvat credit on the inputs on the basis of documents issued two years prior to the date of availment of credit and therefore it was irregularly taken. In this case, the Show Cause Notice dated 3.2.1992 was issued by the Superintendent charging the appellants that they had taken modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 38,953.62 on the ground that the credit was not admissible as per Trade Notice 89/1989 dated 3.11.1989. The appellants replied by its letter dated 29.11.1989 and by order dated 14.9.1992 A.C. confirmed the demand. Against which appeal was filed and the Collector (Appeals) who by the impugned order confirmed the same on the ground that conditions of Trade Notice were not complied with.Hence the present appeal.2. Shri Ragesh Mehta, Id. C...
Shri Victor De Graca Pinto and Another Vs. Smt. Lourdes De Graca Pinto ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR39; 1999(3)BomCR441; (1999)1BOMLR704
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. After obtaining a decree, the problem of the decree-holders is execution of the Decree. All sorts of possible objections are raised in execution by the judgment-debtors, so as to defeat the decree obtained by the decree-holders so that they are not able to reap fruits thereof. The instant case under consideration is an example of this state of affairs. A deed of partition was executed between the parties on 21-12-1989, by which the property, in question, was divided into three parts. By this deed of partition, the matter was amicably settled between the parties and the terms of settlement were recorded in Decree dated 2-1-1990 in the Inventory Proceedings No. 55/88/A. Inventory proceedings, under the Portuguese Law, are initiated to determine all rights in property and partition of the estate left by the deceased. By this Decree, the property was divided into three parts, namely (A), (B) and (C) as per plan attached thereto. In terms of the same, part (A) shall be...
Mr. Armando Pereira and Another Vs. Mr. Krishnanath V. Malvancar (Sinc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR660; 1999(3)BomCR511
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The deceased respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction in relation to suit property 'Vale Verde' or 'Butabaradacho Ollo,' surveyed under No. 54/1 of Reis Magos village at Pilerne. An application for temporary injunction was filed seeking to restrain the applicants from interfering with the suit property. This application for temporary injunction was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji. The deceased respondent filed an appeal before the District Judge, North Goa, Panaji, who, by the impugned judgment dated 3rd March, 1997, set aside the order of the Civil Judge, Junior Division and granted the application for temporary injunction filed by the deceased respondent. This order is challenged in this revision.2. The suit property admittedly belongs to the Communidade of Pilerne and it stands recorded in the records of the Communidade in favour of the heirs of Manuel Vaz. This property is also recorded under Matriz No. 115 in favour of the he...
Ansari Mohd. Riyaz Abdul Latif Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR318; 1999BomCR(Cri)318; 1999CriLJ1508; I(2000)DMC671
ORDERDr. (Mrs.) Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This criminal writ petition is filed by the petitioner Ansari Mohammed Riyaz Abdul Latif, being aggrieved by three orders, all dated 23rd July, 1993, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, rejecting his Criminal Revision Application Nos. 79 of 1993, 103 of 1993 and 154 of 1993.2. Criminal Revision Application No. 79 of 1993 was made by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the common order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malegaon dated 16th March, 1993, who was pleased to issue conditional distress warrant against the revision petitioner, the original non-applicant, against whom recovery proceedings were pending under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 3. The second application namely, Criminal Revision Application No. 103 of 1993 was filed by the revision petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malegaon passed on 26th April, 1993,directing that the petitione...
State Represented by Public Prosecutor Vs. Suhas Satardekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR507
ORDERR.K. Batta, J. 1. The respondent was tried for rash and negligent driving resulting in simple hurt to Subash Gaonkar and Amethi Gaonkar under sections 279 and 337 Indian Penal Code. The prosecution had examined six witnesses in support of the charges. The trial Judge acquitted the respondent of the charges vide judgment dated 30th June 1997, against which the State has come in appeal. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor Shri Lawande has urged before me that inspite of clear evidence of two eye-witnesses and the panchanama on record, the trial Judge, disregarding the said evidence, ordered the acquittal of the respondent. He took me through the evidence of eye-witnesses P.W. 3 Amethi Gaonkar and P.W. 4 Subash Gaonkar as well as the panchanama and urged before me that it had been established by the prosecution that the accident took place on the right side of the road, taking the direction of the truck driven by the respondent; that the brake marks of the truck to the extent of 6.5 metres ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »