Mumbai Court February 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. the Trustees of the Trust for Relative ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1999
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Bom)556
Dr. B. P. Saraf, J.At the instance of the department, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court for assessment year 1978-79 under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the term of the Trust deed dated 9-5-1973 the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee-trust in not a discretionary trust and consequently the provisions of section164(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are not applicable?'2. The assessee claimed before the Income Tax Officer that section 164(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was not applicable in case of the assessee-trust. The Income Tax Officer did not agree with the claim of the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the claim of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the Trust was created by M...
B.G. Shirke Construction Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC195
1. Application is for waiver of deposit of Rs. 19.13 lakhs and penalty under Section 11A of the same amount.2. The Advocate for the applicant explains that the applicant is a builder, and for use in its buildings it manufactured at site concrete mix. Duty has been demanded on such concrete mix manufactured between 25-9-1995 and 21-11-1996 by notice dated 3-1-1997. He says that considerable confusion prevailed all along regarding liability to duty on concrete. Prior to issue of the Board Circular No. 237/71/96, there was a general impression that concrete, being a mixture of cement, sand and other goods, was not liable to duty, since it has a short shelf-life and, unless kept in an agitator becomes hard. By this circular the Board has clarified that ready mix concrete is chargeable to excise duty which is marketable despite having a short shelf-life, and classifiable under Heading 38.23. This circular was kept in abeyance by the Member of the Board in his letter to the Commissioner dat...
Anand Vithoba Lohkare and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR288; 2000BomCR(Cri)288; 1999CriLJ2857; 1999(2)MhLj435
ORDERD.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri A.K. Choube, the learned Counsel for the applicants and Shri V.M. Deshpande, the learned A.P.P. for the non-applicant. 2. This criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 14-7-1995 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajura in Criminal Summary Case No. 1500/95 whereby the applicants came to be convicted on admission of the guilt for the offence punishable under sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Gambling Act and were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for additional 30 days. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicants preferred Criminal Appeal No. 54/95 and the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur vide judgment and order dated 19-1-1996 dismissed the said appeal and hence the present revision application.3. The applicants 1 to 4 at the relevant time were caught red handed by the Police while they were engaged in gambling in a room of ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Mohammad Shabbir Sheikh NajmuddIn and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR439; 1999CriLJ4019
ORDERD.D. Sinha, J. 1. This matter was listed for final hearing before this Court on 11-1-99. Since, Shri Varma the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 was absent on that day, this Court has adjourned the matter by way of last chance in order to give opportunity to the respondents to appear in the matter on the next date. However, even today the Counsel for the respondent No. 1 is absent and hence the matter is proceeded on merits.2. Heard Shri Badar, the learned Special Counsel for the petitioner.3. The present writ petition is directed against the order dtd. 30-10-96 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mohadi below Exh. 1 and 3 in Criminal Case No. 57/96 whereby the present non-applicants 1 and 3 were discharged from the offence punishable under sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and the property was returned to the complainant i.e. Forest Department. The petitioner - Forest Department filed the Revision against the order of discharge passed by the Judicial ...
Smt. Parvatibai Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4884
ORDERD.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Naidu, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Badar, the learned A.P.P. for non-applicant No. 1 and Shri Gupta, the learned counsel for the non-applicants 2 and 3.2. The instant revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 2-8-95 passed by the 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 73/93 where the present non-applicants 2 and 3 came to be acquitted and the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur on 30-7-93 came to be set aside.3. Before I proceed to consider the merits of the matter, it will be appropriate to observe at this stage itself that the present revision is preferred by the complainant in a case which is instituted on a police report. The State has not filed any revision or appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge and, therefore, while exercising powers under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court has very little scope in the matter in ques...
Cce Vs. Unique Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC166Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed against the decision of Collector of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Mumbai made in Order-in-Original No.PCJ/634/Bom. 111/94 dated 20th October, 1994 thereunder he accepted the refund claim of the respondents reversing the findings of the Assistant Collector made in Order-in-Original File No. V (Ch. 29) 18-6/92 (37/93-94) dated 4.8.1993.2. The respondents are having their factory situated at Plot No. P-10, Shiv Mahape Road, P.O. Ghansoli, Thane Belapur Road, Dist. Thane have filed refund claim for Rs. 11,98,521/-. By their letter dated 11.2.1992 which was received by the A.C.'s office on 17.12.1992 it would appear that the respondents cleared 2000 Kgs. of Metronidazole B.P. and 28950 Kgs. of Metronidazole Benzoate I.P. for export under bond during the period from 1st October, 1991 to 31st October, 1991. The refund claim arose due to non utilisation of the modvat credit of input for payment towards the duty of final product cleared for export during the...
Associated Capsules Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT50Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellant absent despite issue of notice. Appeal is taken up for hearing with the consent of the DR and after waiving the pre-deposit.2. The question involved in this appeal is whether Blister Packing machine which is used for quality control/checking device was eligible for Modvat credit coming under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules.The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods availing under Chapter 39. They availed the facility of Modvat credit provided under the Central Excise Rules, in respect of Central Excise duty paid on inputs as well as on capital goods procured by them in their factory premises. A show cause notice was issued on 25-1-1995 alleging that Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 13,021/- was wrongly availed by the appellant on the ground that the said machine will not come under term "machinery" used in Rule 57Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules. The main ground under which the Modvat credit was denied was that the machine was used for testing whe...
Bharat Radiators Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT918Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee, against the decision of the Collector (Appeals), made in Order-in- Appeal No. 327/94, dated 7-4-1994 whereunder he confirmed the order of the A.C.2. The appellant manufactures various types of radiators for motor vehicles classifiable under sub-heading No. 8708.00. They were availing Mod-vat credit and they have filed necessary declarations under Rule 57G. They bring inputs "unwrought copper bars, unwrought zinc bars, copper cathodes, tin ingots and lead ingots" which are the inputs for which permission was granted by the A.C. and they were sent to processors under the then existing Rules 57(2) and 57F(4). For manufacturing of brass coils, brass sheets and sholders which are used in the manufacture of radiators. In the application for permission under the said Rule 57F(2) the appellant stated that the process carried on was inputs processed by the processors to get the intermediate products and also declared that the said process would resul...
Commr. of Customs Vs. Kantilal Manilal Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC292Tri(Mum.)bai
M/s. Cyanides and Chemicals Co. had a value based advance licence. Since the export obligation had been fulfilled by them, the licence was made transferable by the licensing authorities. M/s. Kantilal and Co. Pvt. Ltd. secured this licence from the original holders and imported caustic soda free of duty. The scrutiny of the documents revealed that in making the applications the first recipient of the licence had suppressed the fact that they had availed of Modvat credit on the inputs used in the export goods. It was also found that before licence was made transferable by the appropriate authorities, the Modvat so taken had been reversed by the first holders namely M/s. Cyanides and Chemicals. The Customs authorities held that by virtue of Modvat availment the first holder himself did not have the eligibility to possess the licence and therefore the transferee was also excluded from the benefit of duty free imports. On this observation, duty free import was denied. The importers then a...
Shri Sahebrao Rangrao Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR882
ORDERS.B. Mhase, J.1. Regular Civil Suit No. ..... of 1989 was presented on 23-10-1989 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chalisgaon for orders on a application to grant leave under section 80, sub-section (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, to institute the suit without serving any notice as required under sub-section (1) of section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the plaintiff desired to get urgent and immediate relief against the Government or a Public Officer. While considering the said application, the Civil Judge Senior Division, Jalgaon, on 23-10-1989, refused to grant leave to institute the suit and dismissed the application and thereby the plaint was returned by the said Court for complying with the statutory provisions of law before instituting such a suit. The said order was challenged by further filing appeal, which bears Rejected Appeal No. 7 of 1989. The said appeal is rejected by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Jalgaon on 6-11-1989 and the Additional Distri...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »