Mumbai Court October 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.
Mahesh Kantilal Shah and ors. Vs. Shishir Chhotalal Shah and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1999
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR220
B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this appeal the appellants seek to challenge the order dated 30th June, 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the arbitration petition of the appellants by which the award of the Arbitrator was sought to be challenged on the ground of misconduct.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants who submits that in the instant case the award is vitiated because of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 48 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The learned Counsel submits that the Umpire failed to take into consideration Section 48 of the Indian Partnership Act and effect of non-compliance of the same.3. We have carefully considered the above submissions. We have perused the award as also the judgment of the learned Single Judge rejecting the arbitration petition. The learned Single Judge has considered the above submission of the appellants. He however, found that there was no non-compliance of Section 48 of the Indian Partnership Act because th...
Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Jaya Shree Insulators
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT944Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We have heard the Departmental Representative on the reference application. Respondent is absent and unrepresented.2. A clear or specific question has not been framed for reference.However, it appears that after reading the relevant material that the department wishes to refer following two questions. The first is whether a decision of three member larger Bench, in which one member descent from the view of the majority can be accepted as precedence in comprehend to another earlier unanimous decision of two member Bench.It is settled law that a decision of a Larger Bench takes precedence over a decision of a smaller bench notwithstanding that the number of members of the Larger Bench, on taking the majority view may not exceed the number of the Bench which passed the earlier order.3. The second question sought to be referred is whether the exclusion clause in the proviso to clause in Rule 57A includes parts of machines and machinery referred to there. On this, a reference has alread...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Patel Filed Marshal Inds.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT212Tri(Mum.)bai
1. I have seen the application filed by the Commissioner. It reads as under : "2. In the aforesaid case, the applicant, being aggrieved by the Or-der-in-Appeal Nos. 721 to 724/98 (237 to 240-Raj)-C.E./Commr (A)/Ahd, dated 12-10-1998, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Ahmedabad has filed an appeal before the WZB, Mumbai vide this office letter of even No. dated 7-1-1999. The appeals have been admitted under Appeal Nos. E/81/99-Bom and E/83/99-Bom. 3. The applicant craves leave to pray before the Hon'ble Tribunal for out of turn hearing, as the revenue has a strong prima facie case on the records and is likely to succeed in the aforesaid appeal and the matter has got recurring effect." 2. In this Tribunal there are 12,000 appeals filed by both the appellants as well as the department. The application is bereft of any cause for taking up this particular appeal of dispose of out of turn.Application filed, in my opinion, exhibits lack of application of min...
Abs Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT945Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These applications are for early hearing of the appeals which is posted for hearing today. When these applications were argued by the ld. Counsel, it was thought fit that the appeals could themselves be taken up for disposal, as the question involved is already covered by the decision of the Tribunal in respect of the same assessee in Appeal No. E/1236/98 in Order Nos. 1487-88/98, dated 13-7-1998 [1999 (112) E.L.T. 854 (T)].2. The appellant manufactures Acrylonitrite Betadiene Styrene (ABS) and sand resins. Some consignment of the goods which were cleared on payment of duty and supplied to the customers, were returned as not meeting the requirement of the contract of the assessee and the buyers.These goods were returned for reprocessing. It is contended that consideration of technology and economy require such reprocessing to be in large quantities and therefore these goods had to be mixed with other such material. In view of these requirements appellants chose not to follow the pr...
Commissioner of Cus. (P) Vs. Alliance Exports
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC245Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This application was argued by Shri B.K. Choube, SDR for the Revenue and Shri R.S. Dinkar advocate for the respondent.2. The respondent imported tyres and declared the value thereof at Rs. 1425/- per M.T. Show cause notice dated 30-12-1997 was issued alleging that the tyres were imported in contravention of the provisions of the Import Control Order, that the goods were under valued and proposed escalation to US S 100 per M.T. The show cause notice did not give any grounds for this proposed revaluation but merely cited Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules. The Addl. Collector dealt with the aspect of valuation in the following manner :- "The declared price of DHS 150 PMT (Rs. 1425 PMT C&F) claimed to be the transaction value and it is argued by the importer that the same should be accepted as per Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. 1 find that the freight itself for such goods was about Rs. 1,500/- PMT and the C&F (Cost i Freight) cannot be less than the freight amount. T...
Asian Paints (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT679Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When this stay application was argued, it appeared at this stage itself the main appeal could be taken up for disposal. Both sides agreeing, this was done, after granting waiver of the condition of predeposit of duty amounting to Rs. 10,16,887/-.2. We have heard Shri Anthony Fernandes Excise Manager for the appellants and Shri Deepak Kumar for the Revenue.3. In three show cause notices it was claimed that certain inputs were received by the appellants where the invoices issued under Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, did not show the appellants as the consignee's, although the goods were shown to be despatched to them.Before the Assistant Commissioner the assessees cited the Boards instruction which read as follows :- "A registered person places an order on a manufacturer for supply and delivery of goods directly to a consumer and the goods are accordingly transported from the manufacturer's premises. In such a situation manufacturer will issue an invoice under Rule 52A. T...
Universal Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT704Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These five applications relate to five appeals arising out of the same impugned order. After hearing Shri V.S. Nankani appearing along with Shri A.G. Kulkarni, C.A. for the applicants and Shri Deepak Kumar, SDR for the Revenue, the main appeals themselves were taken up for disposal after granting stay and waiver of the duty amounting to Rs. 25,58,869/- and equivalent penalty imposed under Section 11AC. In the proceedings leading to the impugned order, it was alleged that the production of the six units were required to be clubbed together for calculation of the duty payment. The Commissioner of Central Excise in his order held that two of the units were shown to be independent and therefore, their production should not be clubbed with the production of the other noticee. He, however, on conclusion of the discussion passed the following order : "I confirm demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 23,59,649/- from Shri R.H. More. Proprietor and other noticees under Rule 9(2) of ...
Indian Seamless Metal Tubes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT669Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This application was argued by Shri Gautam Doshi the ld. Chartered Accountant for the appellants and Shri Deepak Kumar the ld. SDR for the Revenue.2. The applicants secured a licence for manufacture of automobile parts. Applicants were receiving Seamless Tubes on payment of duty from their parent factory at Ahmednagar to their factory at Pune. These tubes were sent by them to other job workers under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. After manufacturing the parts and after being packed these finished goods were brought back to the applicants factory from the job worker premises and were cleared on payment of duty, after taking benefit of the credit of the duty paid on the inputs. The show cause notice alleged that the applicants had no manufacturing facility at all and that they could not be termed as manufactures. As such the benefit was wrongly taken of the modvat facility. It was claimed that the every step that was prescribed for manufacturer had been taken by the a...
Hindustan Biologicals Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC247Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applicants in this case manufactured medicaments. Their classification lists for Alphadine month wash and Topical Solution claiming classification under sub-heading 300310 was approved by the Jurisdictional Assistant Collector without any objection on 20-7-1994.Their other products viz. Pentavite Liquid both for sale and for precision claiming classification under 3003.10 was similarly approved by the Jurisdictional A.C. on 26-4-1994. Thereafter the same classification was being claimed for these products by the applicants in the declarations filed under Rule 173B from time to time. On 22-7-1998, Show Cause Notice was issued alleging that the assessees has wrongly claimed approved classification with intent to evade duty. It was' alleged that the correct classification of the products Alphadine Scrub and Alphadine Topical Solution was under sub-heading 3307.10, that Aplhadine Gargle fell under heading 33.06 and that the classification warranted for Pentative liquid wash was und...
Titan Investment and Finance Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)75ITD441(Mum.)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 20th February, 1991, for the asst. yr. 1984-85.2. The ground taken is that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee had made short-term capital gains of Rs. 1,37,000.3. The assessee subscribed for 10,300 convertible debentures of Maheshwari Mills Ltd. on 26th April, 1983, at the aggregate cost (inclusive of cost of right purchased of Rs. 5,17,575) of Rs. 18,05,075. Pursuant to the terms of the issue of the said debentures, the assessee was allotted 10,300 fully paid-up equity shares of the face value of Rs. 12.50 each. The assessee has sold on different dates during the year of account relevant for the asst. yr. 1984-85 the said debentures with residual rights, i.e. rights after the allotment of the shares on 30th June, 1983, for Rs. 9,25,309 in the aggregate. The assessee has sold the equity shares received against the convertible debentures for Rs. 10,17,125.4. In the return of income, the result of the sale of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »