Mumbai Court March 1999 Judgments

Ashok Silk Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)LC129Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appeal taken up for disposal with consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. Appellant was engaged in processing of textile fabrics during the period with which we are concerned, 1-3-1986 to 28-2-1989. Duty has been demanded on the embroidered grey fabrics which the appellant received, on the ground that the processes of bleaching and dyeing to which these goods were subjected before returning them without payment of duty to the consignors amounted to manufacture. The notice to show cause, which was issued on 27-2-1991, invoked the extended period contained in the proviso to Section 11A.3. Advocate for the appellant contends that duty was not payable on embroidered fabrics when subjected to processing. He says that the processing of fabrics by itself does not amount to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act. It is only by means of provisions contained by way of Notes to the Chapter in question that these processes are deemed to be manufacture. He cites the e...

Rafique Abdul Hamid Kokani Alias Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the AO, dt. 14th November, 1996, under s. 158BC(c) r/w s. 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, for the block period comprised of financial years 1985-86 to 1994-95 and upto 8th November, 1995.2. Various grounds are taken. The gist of the objections is that the AO erred in making an addition of Rs. 5,25,90,000 as per the following details :(i) 3,05,50,000 as unexplained investment in the alleged bringing of gold weighing 30 kgs. by 6(ii) 2,17,40,000 from the alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,22,90,000 in respect of 105 kgs.(iii) 3,00,000 alleged unexplained investment in the renovation of house.The appellant has also raised certain additional grounds vide his letter dt. 8th September, 1998 and the additional grounds read as follows : "1. Without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal, the appellants submit that impugned order of block assessment passed under s. 158BC of the IT Act, 1961 is void and illegal as no opportunity of hearing has ...

Union Bank of India Vs. Kokila Nitish Kotak and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR208; 1999(3)BomCR488; (1999)2BOMLR518; 1999(2)MhLj370

ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel; Shri Gupte for the appellant/original plaintiff Union Bank of India, and Shri Thakkar for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 original defendants. 2. Appeal admitted. 3. Filing of the paper book dispensed with Shri Thakkar for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 waives service. 4. By consent, appeal taken up for hearing forthwith. 5. The appeal is against the order dated 19th November, 1997, passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber Summons No. 82 of 1997 in Suit No. 1821 of 1995. Under the impugned order the learned Judge has made the chamber summons absolute which has the result of granting several amendments to the written statement which take away the right accrued to theappellant Bank as a result of several admissions given by the respondent No. 2 in the suit filed by the appellant bank. 6. Suit No. 4821 of 1995 has been filed by the appellant bank for recovery of an amount of Rs. 29,24,271.50 as per the statement of account annexed at Ex. Q to t...

M/S. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. and Others Vs. M/S. Oswal Petrochemicals Em ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR400; 1999(3)BomCR478; (1999)2BOMLR306; [1999(82)FLR310]; 1999(2)MhLj449

ORDERN.J. Pandya, J.1. The petition is filed against the interim order that came to be passed by the learned Industrial Court Judge, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No. 1481 of 1988. This order was passed on 25-1-1999 below application for interim relief filed by the respondents-union as Exh. U-9.2. As the petition was filed against the interim relief which had the impact of lifting the dispute of lock out, obviously the petitioner-company was serious about it. Whether the entire petition is heard or after issuing rule in the petition it is heard for interim relief, it would be one and the same. By consent, therefore, the petition itself was taken up for hearing after issuing rule which was waived by Counsel Mr. Colin Gonsalves i/by Ms. Gayatri Singh for the respondent-union. That is how this petition is heard and finally decided by the present order. The complaint as originally filed is Exh. D, page 25. I used the word as originally filed as on 26-11-1998 because on the date of filing of th...

Mr. Abhay R. Sinha and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR307; 2000BomCR(Cri)307

ORDERS. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Heard all the learned Counsel; Shri. A.P. Mundargi for the petitioners in Criminal Application Nos. 3956 of 1998, 3980 of 1998 and 545 of 1999 and Shri S.V. Marwadi for the petitioner in Criminal Application No. 3987 of 1998, Ms. A.R. Kamat, the learned A.P.P. for the respondents in all the matters.2. The above four applications are anticipatory bail applications. By this common order all the aforesaid four applications have been disposed of inasmuch as the broad facts are common in all these four anticipatory bail applications.3. All these applicants are connected with one Sanjeevani Savings and Investments India Ltd., a non-banking financial institute incorporated on 4th February, 1987. The said Sanjeevani Savings and Investments India Ltd. has its head office at Manish Market, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (East), Mumbai and its registered office is at Jawahar Nagar, Akola. The said Financial Institute has its regional office at Bhagyodaya Building, Station ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mercantile Bank Ltd. (Through Successor ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Bom)59; [1999]237ITR676(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court for the assessment year 1978-79 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is not liable to be taxed in respect of the amount credited to the interest suspense account and which interest had not been credited to the profit and loss account ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is not liable to be taxed in respect of the interest of Rs. 14,54,523 on debts of which recovery is doubtful and the interest of which the assessee has neither credited to the interest suspense account nor to the profit and loss account ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that two separate limits will apply fo...

Rafique Abul Hamid Kokani Alias Mohd. Rafique Abdul Hamid Vs. Deputy C ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)67TTJ(Mumbai)49

ORDERM. V. R. Prasad, A.M.This appeal is directed against the order of the assessing officer, dated 14-11-1996, under section 158BC(c) read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the block period comprised of financial years 1985-86 to 1994-95 and upto 8th Nov., 1995.2. Various grounds are taken. The gist of the objections is that the assessing officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 5,25,90,000 as per the following details:Rs. (i) 3,05,50,000 as unexplained investment in the alleged bringing of gold weighing 30 kgs. by 6 passengers and 35 kgs. By 7 passengers at Delhi International Airport.(ii)2,17,40,000from the alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,22,90,000 in respect of 105 kgs. of gold brought by 20 passengers from abroad in November.(iii)3,00,000Alleged unexplained investment in the renovation of house.The appellant has also raised certain additional grounds vide his letter dated 8-9-1998 and the additional grounds read as follows :'1. Without prejudice to the...

Manish Organics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT296Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 8,67,325.92 and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh.3. We have read the Stay Application and heard the Departmental Representative. The duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the finding of the Commissioner that applicant did not pay duty on a product 'Glyoxal 40%' manufactured by it and misdeclared as 'Glyoxal 20%' which is stated to be unmarketable in view of its unstableness.4. The contention in the stay application is essentially that the 'Glyoxal' on which duty has been demanded is only used as part of the raw material in the manufacturing process and therefore, cannot be subjected to duty. It is also contended that a claim under Section 17 of the BIFR Act is pending before the board.5. The fact that a commodity is used to manufacture another commodity does not itself justify non payment of duty on it. Goods manufactured and captively consumed are also liable to duty in view of provisions of Rules 9 and 49. The contention that there...

Raghunath S/O Dhondu Navde Vs. Pandit S/O Ramchandra Navde and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR426; 2000(1)BomCR129; 2000(2)MhLj81

ORDERS.B. MHASE, J.1. This Civil Revision Application is directed against the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon dated 17-11-1989 below Exhibit 20 which was filed by the present revision petitioner. The land Survey No. 50 situated at village Manyarkhede, has been acquired by the State by the Land Acquisition Proceeding No. LAQ/HP/SR/27/1980 and award under section 11 was passed in the said proceeding on 12-9-1986. The amount of compensation was fixed at Rs. 62529/-. The said amount has been disbursed on 6-10-1986. The land S.No. 50 at the time of acquisition was standing in the name of the present petitioner and the respondent No. 1, and therefore, in the award the amount was shown as against the names of both the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. The petitioner and the respondent No. I are, nephew and uncle respectively. The said amount of Rs. 62259/- was paid by joint cheque in the name of the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. When the award was pas...

Cdr. John. A.R. Deans I.N. and Others Vs. Mr. Anil Kumar Mitra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(3)BomCR364; (1999)2BOMLR283; 1999(2)MhLj330

ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner has impugned in this revision application, the judgment and order dated 21-7-1992 passed by the competent authority, Konkan Division, Bombay in Case No. 12/89. The applicants are the owners of bungalow known as Chateau-De-Blanche situated at 70, Church Avenue, Santacruz (West), Bombay 400 054. In or about the year 1972, the said bungalow was taken by the respondent on licence. He came to be in possession of the bungalow on the understanding that as soon as he was allotted company accommodation, he will vacate the suit premises. 2. The applicants filed application before the competent authority that the flat was used for occupation of applicant No. I and his family members. However because applicant No. 1 didn't require the flat immediately, due to service conditions, the suit premises was given on temporary basis to the respondent on leave and licence. The leave and licence was signed by applicant No. 2. It is further contended in the ...