Mumbai Court February 1999 Judgments

Varma Pharmacy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC241

1. The appellant manufactured and sold a product under a brand name "Oona". It did not pay any duty on the clearances of this commodity.The officers of the department found that the appellant had classified the goods as an insecticide under Heading 3808.10 of the tariff. The department noted the presence in the product of neem and karanj oils of 5% each by weight, with extracts of amla, brahmi, bhringaraj and sikakai. It was of the view that the product should be classified under Heading 3003.10 of the tariff as a patent or proprietary medicine.Notice was issued proposing reclassification of the product and demanding duty on the goods already cleared. The notice invoked the extended period contained in the proviso to Section 11A. Adjudicating on the notice, the Collector found that the extended period was not available because the appellant before him had not suppressed any facts. Since the notice proposed recovery only for the period beyond six months, he held that no such duty would...

Dipco Metal Fabricators P. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT54Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These are the applications filed for waiver of duty of Rs. 16,33,828.55/- + Rs. 5,29,875/- in all amounting to Rs. 21,63,703/- which has been claimed as duty and penalty of equivalent amount imposed by the adjudicating authority under Section 11AC.2. The applicants are engaged in the manufacture of inter alia "loader" which is a self propelled machine, viz. hydraulic power pack mounted on a chassis. They filed classification list claiming classification under Heading 87.05 which covered special purpose motor vehicles other than those pre- designed for transport of persons and goods. They also claimed exemption under Notification No. 162/86. In this case 5 show cause notices were issued. The period covered are from October, 1992 to 1996 and normal period in this case is September, 1996 to March, 1997.It is the case of the appellant that he raised before the adjudicating authority an alternative plea viz. that the product is covered under Chapter 8428 which the adjudicating authority...

Kewal G. Bajaj Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1989-90 is directed against the order of the CIT(A) upholding addition of Rs. 55,000 made on account of unexplained investment in household goods like washing machine, refrigerator, colour T.V., VCR, etc.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that a search and seizure operation under s. 132 of the IT Act was carried on at the premises of the assessee. Gold jewellery and other valuable articles were found in the possession of the assessee. The AO rejected assessee's explanation that TV, VCR, etc. were old items acquired several years prior to the raid and therefore, no addition on account of these articles should be made. Purchase bills of some items were also produced.The AO rejected above explanation and added Rs. 64,000 in respect of the following articles :-One T.V. Sony colour 14,000National VCR 12,000Washing machine 'Aristocrat' 6,000Kelvinator fridge 7,000Toshiba music deck 10,000A.C. 1-1/2 tonne capacity 15,000 --------- 3. ...

Capt. Kailash Nath Harsh Vs. D.C. Patel and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1999Bom133; 1999(2)ALLMR389; 1999(2)BomCR411; [1999(82)FLR811]; 1999(2)MhLj190

ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. This order will dispose of Notice of Motion Nos. 242 of 1999, in Suit No. 412 of 1999, 243 of 1999 in Suit No. 413 of 1999 and 241 of 1999, in Suit No. 414 of 1999. The plaintiffs in the three suits have challenged the show cause notices dated 13-1-1999 culminating in the suspension order dated 21-1-1999 on the grounds that they are ultra vires the Articles of Association of the defendant No. 12 Club. A declaration was also sought to the effect that the plaintiffs are entitled to all the benefits of the membership of defendant No. 12 including the use of the golf course. Prayer is also made for issue of an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 12 Club, its General Committee and its servants, officers and agents from restraining the plaintiff from in any manner enjoying the benefits of their members. The plaintiffs have also claimed that the defendant No. 1 to 10 be ordered and decreed jointly and severally to make payment to each of the plai...

Shri R.D. Patkar Vs. Directorate of Agriculture, Government of Goa and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(3)BomCR521

ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer Grade II on 27th September, 1973. The posts of Assistant Agricultural Officer Grade II were in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300 in the Directorate of Agriculture. By order dated 25th March, 1992, the Government of Goa upgraded 29 posts out of 52 posts of Assistant Agricultural Officer Grade II into the scale of Rs. 1640-2900. This order further provides that the upgraded posts will be filled only by agricultural graduates and the remaining posts of 23 Assistant Agricultural Officers will also be upgraded as and when holders of the posts, who are non-agricultural graduates, retire. 2. The petitioner in this petition seeks declaration that Exhibit 'E' at page 22 of the record to the extent that it denies Assistant Agricultural Officers Grade II, who do not possess a degree in agriculture from recognised university or equivalent, to promotion to the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer Grade I, is ...

Sirajkhan S/O Hayatkhan Vs. State of Maharashtra Another

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR275; 1999CriLJ2959; 1999(2)MhLj598

ORDERD.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Daga, learned Counsel for the petitioner andShri Chawda, learned A.P.P. for the State.2. The present criminal writ petition is directed against the order ofexternment passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amravati, vide orderdated 3-4-1998 whereby under section 56(1)(2) of the Bombay Police Act,1951, the applicant was externed for a period of one year from the AmravatiDistrict.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that in the instant case, respondent No. 2 issued notice under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act on 31-12-1996. It is further contended that the necessary enquiry was conducted by the respondent and thereafter respondent No. 1 issued the impugned order dated 3-4-1998 by which the petitioner is externed. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that the grounds mentioned in the above referred show cause notice are stale and old and, therefore, the impugned order which is based on such grounds is not sustainable in law. It ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Smelting and Refining Co. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1999]240ITR244(Bom)

1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), filed by the Revenue out of the assessment year 1987-88 seeking a mandamus to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for drawing up a statement of case and referring the following questions to this court for opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that fork-lift trucks are not covered by entry 9A of the old Appendix I and the assessee is entitled to extra shift allowance on fork-lift trucks ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the leave salary paid above the limit prescribed under Section 10(10AA) is exempted and not includible for the purpose of disallowance under Section 40A(5) ?' 2. On the above question No. 1, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the fork-lift truck falls in the category of items of motor tractors and harvesting combi...

M/S. Zim Laboratories Ltd. and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR282; 1999CriLJ2903; 1999(3)MhLj132

ORDERD.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Parchure, learned Counsel of the petitioners and Shri Deshpande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.2. The present criminal writ petition is directed against the order dated 3-2-1998 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision Application No. 1806 of 1995, whereby the Revisional Court dismissed the revision preferred by the complainant and confirmed the order dated 24-10-1994 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur below Ex. 4 in Complaint (Cr.) Case No. 21 of 1994.3. It will be appropriate to consider few relevant facts which have given rise to the controversy in question. Petitioner No. 1 is the Public Limited Company engaged in manufacture and supply of drugs and medicines. It is a licensed manufacturer of medicines. The complainant is the Drug Inspector, who was serving at the relevant time in the office of the Joint Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, Nagpur and is ...

R.D. Patkar Vs. Directorate of Agriculture and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR539

R.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer Grade II on 27th September 1973. The posts of Assistant Agricultural Officer Grade 1) were in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300 in the Directorate of Agriculture. By Order dated 25th March 1992, the Government of Goa upgraded 29 posts out of 52 posts of Assistant Agricultural Officer Grade II into the scale of Rs. 1640-2900. This Order further provides that the upgraded posts will be filled only by agricultural graduates and the remaining posts of 23 Assistant Agricultural Officers will also be upgraded as and when holders of the posts, who are non-agricultural graduates, retire.2. The petitioner in this petition seeks declaration that Exhibit 'E' at page 22 of the record to the extent that it denies Assistant Agricultural Officers Grade II, who do not possess a degree in agriculture from recognised University or equivalent, to promotion to the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer Grade I, is ultra vi...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Smelting and Refining Co. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Bom)483

By the court:This is an application under s. 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), filed by the Revenue out of assessment year 1987-88 seeking a mandamus to the Tribunal for 'drawing statement of case and referring the following questions to this Court for opinion :2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that the leave salary paid above the limit prescribed under s. 10(10AA) is exempt and not includible for the purpose of disallowance under s. 40A(5) ?'2. On the above question No. 1, the assessing officer came to the conclusion that fork-lift truck falls in the category of items of motor tractors and harvesting combines as mentioned in entry No. (9A) of para D of old Appendix-I and, therefore, extra shift allowance of depreciation as claimed by the assessee was not available. Being aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT. By his order dt. 19-7-1990, th...