Mumbai Court February 1999 Judgments

Gharda Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC535

1. Application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs 97.91 lacs (approx) and penalty of Rs. 5.00 lacs.2. Representative of the applicant says that the applicant received in August, 1995 various consignments under cover of duplicate invoices and took credit of the duty paid on them. Subsequently, the file containing these duplicate invoices was lost. On this being intimated to the department, notice was issued proposing recovery of the credit taken resulting in the issue of the impugned order. She contends that the goods were invariably received by the applicant under cover of duplicate invoices, and this was confirmed by an affidavit of the excise clerk showing loss of the file and transporter confirming that duplicate invoices were delivered to the applicant. The notice issued relating to the credit taken on some other connection shows evidence of receipt of these documents. The only objection therefore could be that the goods were not lost in transit but after the goods were receiv...

Cce Vs. Crompton Greaves Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(83)LC329Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Revenue has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved by the order in appeal dated 13.9.1990 under which the Collector (Appeals) had allowed the claim of refund of duty to M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd., Respondents.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Respondents manufacture Electric Motor and were availing proforma credit of duty paid on inputs, namely electrical stamping, under Notification No. 95/83. The Assistant Collector under order in original dated 16.9.1985, confirmed a demand amounting to Rs. 6,72,171.72 paise holding that the proforma credit of duty paid on inputs was not available to them since the final product was cleared at nil rate of duty under Notification No. 272/79 dt. 18.10.1979. The Collector (Appeals) vide order dt. 1.3.1986 directed the Respondents to deposit the amount demanded by the Assistant Collector as a pre-condition under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The Respondents deposited the said amount in R.G 23 Part II and P.L.A. on 31.3.1986...

L and T Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(83)LC590Tri(Mum.)bai

1. M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. has filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the order dt. 10.7.1991 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Mumbai.2. Briefly stated the facts are that M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. manufacture Pilfer Proof Caps and avail of Modvat credit of the duty paid on aluminium sheet under Rule 57-A of the Central Excise Rules.The aluminium sheets were subjected to the processes of printing and lacquering and thereafter punching before converting them into P.P.caps. Certain sheets used to get damaged or defective due to wrong printing or mismatching of the prints or incorrect colouring, etc. The appellants were clearing such damaged/defective sheets as waste and scrap of aluminium on payment of duty in terms of Rule 57-F(4) of the Central Excise Rules. The Range Superintendent demanded differential duty alleging that the goods cleared by them were aluminium sheets and not waste scrap. The Appellants paid the differential duty and filed three refund claims subsequ...

Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Sinora Trading Ltd

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The only issue arising out of this appeal relates to the computation of deduction under section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The brief facts of the case are these. The assessee is a dealer in shares and synthetic fabrics. During the year under consideration the assessee purchased shares worth Rs. 498.86 lakhs and sold the shares worth Rs. 182.60 lakhs. There was opening stock of shares of Rs. 150.57 lakhs and closing stock of Rs. 412.55 lakhs. However, there was no dealing in synthetic fabric in this year. In addition to this, the assessee rendered certain services, against which it earned the gross receipts of Rs. 64.24 lakhs. During the year under consideration, the assessee had borrowed certain funds from banks on which interest amounting to Rs. 9.60 lakhs was paid to the bank. During the year under consideration, the assessee had also received dividend income of Rs. 4,26,898. The assessee claimed the aforesaid amount of dividend income as deduction under section 80M. Howe...

Dhanpal Bharmappa Gudale Vs. Appasaheb Balkrishna Malge Since Deceased ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR363; 2000(1)BomCR184

ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the tenant petitioner, challenging the order of the lower Appellate Court, whereby the petitioner - tenant was sought to be evicted. The controversy arise in this writ petition is that the landlord - respondent sought eviction of the petitioner for his own occupation, as contemplated under section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act. The contention of the respondent landlord is that the eviction is sought for construction of the building as envisaged under section 13(1)(i) of the Act. The lower Appellate Court proceeded on the basis that this case squarely falls under section 13(1)(i) and therefore, having proved the reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlord, the trial Court ought to have decreed the suit in favour of the respondent landlord under section 13(1)(i) of the Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant, however, submits that assuming that the claim of the respondent for eviction is sought under...

Dr. (Miss.) Sangita Kamlakar Vyavahare Vs. the State of Maharashtra an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR69; 2000(1)BomCR435

ORDERV.K. Barde, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. The respondents Nos. 1 to 18 have raised a preliminary issue regarding admissibility of this petition and that point is being considered as to whether the writ petition be entertained or not.2. The petitioner has challenged the enrolment given to the respondent No. 18 for the 1997 January Batch for M.S. (Opthalmology) in Government Medical College, Aurangabad. The challenge is based on the ground that while giving this admission mala fide practice was there on the part of the authorities who gave admission. Firstly, when the seat became vacant in June, 1998, no action was taken to fill in the seat till 17th December, 1998. It is further contended that the respondent No. 18 is the son of the respondent No. 14 and the respondent No. 14 participated in the committee meeting which considered the question of admission for M.S. (Opthalmology) course for January, 1997 Batch. It is contended that not only the action is wit...

Unilab Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Vs. Smith Stanistreet Pharmaceuti ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR497; 1999(2)BomCR402; (1999)1BOMLR878; [2001]103CompCas122(Bom); 1999(2)MhLj289

ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The defendants have filed the present Chamber Summons for the following reliefs:(a) that the Ex-parte Decree dated 23-9-98 passed by the Hon'ble Court be set aside:(b) that the Vakalatnama of the Defendant's Advocate be taken on record on the file of the above suit;(c) that delay in taking out the Chamber Summons and filing the Vakalatnama on behalf of the defendants, be condoned;(d) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Chamber Summons, the execution of the Ex-parte Decree dt. 23-9-98 be stayed;In support of the Chamber Summons an affidavit of one Shri. S. Chandrashekharan Iyer, Constituted Attorney of the defendants is filed.2. The plaintiffs have filed their reply whereafter a Rejoinder is given by the defendants and also an additional affidavit which is followed by a Sur-Rejoinder on the part of the plaintiffs.3. I have heard the learned Advocates for both the parties. Even on the merits of the case it was inevitable to touch the merits.4. The fa...

Suresh S/O Ramniwas Mantri and Another Vs. Mohd. IftequaroddIn S/O Moh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR566; 1999(2)BomCR752; 1999(2)MhLj131

ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard, Rule. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties.2. The respondent has filed R.C.S No. 337/1998 for perpetual injunction, restraining the petitioners - defendants from making use of the name of the plaintiff - Society and carry on any activity pertaining to the dealers dealing in Drugs & Medicine in the State of Maharashtra and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from operating the Current Account No. 2322 of the plaintiff Society with the State Bank of Hyderabad, Main Branch at Jalna, and in any other Bank. Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction at Exh. 5 has also been filed. The defendants filed an application at Exh. 17 under section 9-A of the Civil Procedure Code and contended that the plaintiff is a Public . Trust, as defined under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 {hereinafter referred to as the said Act for short} and in view of the bar of section 80 of the Trusts Act, the suit was not tena...

Narsingrao Kondaya Kondle Vs. Mallesham Irayya Sambharam and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR488; 1999(3)BomCR179; 1999(2)MhLj397

ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara, J.1. Petitioner is the landlord in respect of the suit property, which is an open plot bearing Sub-Plot No. 276/6 of Plot No. 9 in T.P. Scheme No. 1. Raviwar Peth, Solapur. It is the case of the petitioner that he required the plot for construction of his residential house. The open plot was originally given for construction of a shed to the original tenant and the defendants are the sub-tenants and the legal heirs of the original tenant. It is revealed from the pleadings of the parties that there were previous litigations between the tenant and the petitioner regarding the sub-tenancy and also regarding the claim of the tenant that the tenancy is of 99 years etc. Those suits have been ended in dismissal. 2. The original suit which gave rise to this writ petition, was filed on the ground of arrears of rent and also on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord for construction of a residential house for his own occupation. Both the courts below found...

Bank of Maharashtra Vs. M/S. Balraj Sud and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR65; 1999(3)BomCR524

ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. At this stage, learned Advocate for the petitioner, seeks to delete the names of respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 which is granted. The amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Heard Shri A. Navelkar for the petitioner and Shri C. Mascarenhas for the respondents. 3. Rule made forthwith with consent. 4. The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed pursuant to the objections raised regarding the absence of Power of Attorney in favour of the Bank/petitioner and such objections were raised on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2, 6 and 8 and this fact is not disputed by the learned Advocate for the respondents. 5. Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is seen that the trial Court by order dated 20th March, 1997 upheld the objections raised on behalf of the respondents for the examination of P.W.1 on the ground that the witness did not have Power of Attorney from the Bank. Th...