Mumbai Court April 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.
Natwarlal D. Rathod and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR514; 1999(3)MhLj23
ORDERP.S. Patankar, J.1. The three petitioners herein are the persons who are ordered to be added as accused Nos. 3 to 5 by the learned Special Judge for Greater Mumbai exercising power under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The learned Special Judge for Greater Mumbai at Mumbai in Special Case No. 41 of 1995, entertained the application filed by accused No. 1 and passed the order directing petitioners to be joined as accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in the criminal proceedings and further directed CB1 to obtain the necessary sanction under section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against them.3. CBI filed the charge-sheet against 2 accused persons viz. Bhupendra N. Sonavaria and Sahebrao S. Jagtap. It was filed under provisions of section 7 read with section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On 17-10-1996 the learned Special Judge passed the order directing these petitioners to be joined as accused Nos. 3 to 5 along with another acc...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R. Shroff Consultants P. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1999
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Bom)557; [1999]238ITR1018(Bom)
B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to this court for opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses-see-company having business of 'business consultants', was an industrial undertaking for the purpose of manufacture or production of any article or thing as envisaged by Section 32A(2)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and is entitled to 'investment allowance' in the assessment year 1980-81 ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company and carries on the business of 'business consultants'. As a part of its consultancy business, the assessee-company undertakes data processing work with the help of electronic computers. For this purpose, in the previous year ending on September 30, 1979, relevant to the assessment year 1980-81, the assessee company acquired a computer and claimed investmen...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1058Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal from the Revenue was argued by Shri K.M. Patwari and Shri A.M. Shinde, Accountant appeared for the respondents.2. The respondents assessees manufactured P & P medicines. The Jurisdictional authorities issued show cause notice dated 19-10-1992.In the show cause notice, it was claimed that the number of Glass Bottles taken for use in finished products was less than the number of bottles used. On the differential quantity the differential credit was sought to be recovered. The Assistant Collector denied the claim of the assessees that during the production bottles broke and became scrap on the observation that no evidence was revealed by the assessees. The Collector (Appeals) relying upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Eros Pharma (P) Ltd. 1994 (73) E.L.T. 72 allowed the appeal. Hence the present appeal from the Revenue.3. In the appeal memorandum it is claimed that broken bottles cannot be covered under the destruction "wast...
Cce Vs. Usan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC488Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the decision of Collector (Appeals), Mumbai made in Order-in-Original No. NK (575) 1143/94 dated 9.1.1995 whereunder he ordered entitlement of modvat credit for six months, that is the reasonable time. The assessees are a private limited company engaged in the manufactured of bulk drugs classifiable under Chapter 29. They received various inputs during the period March 1991 to April 1992 and the credit for the inputs were taken during the period March 1992 to July, 1992. The department objected the taking of the credit belatedly as the inputs were entered in RG-23A Pt. I. So it should taken immediately thereafter.2. The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order after referring to Order, No. 473/92/WRB dated 20.3.1992 in the case of Serene Dyestuff v.CCE, Pune and the case of Mysore Lac & Paints Works Ltd. held that modvat credit can be availed within a reasonable time i.e. six months period is a considerably reasonable time. Accordingly he granted bene...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ex-protecta
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT76Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the decision of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad whereunder he allowed the assessee appeal and held that the respondents assessee entitled to the permission under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules.2. The assessee respondents are engaged in the manufacture of junction boxes, control station, switch, socket, lighting fixture etc. falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1985.3. By Order-in-Original, the Assistant Collector of Anand withdrew the permission allowed for clearance of inputs viz. aluminium scrap, bran scrap under Rule 57F(2) and directed them to clear the scrap under the provision of Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The assessee filed an appeal to the Collector who by the impugned order held that the assessee was entitled to the permission under Rule 57F(2) for sending aluminium & waste scrap for conversion into aluminium ingots. He followed the judgment of t...
Asia Automotive Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT841Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The assessees were availing the benefit of deemed credit on Copper scrap in terms of Ministry's order F. No. 342/1/88 TRU, dated 20-5-1988. During the period July 1988 to June 1989 the credit taken by them on the basis of 16 invoices was found to be wrongly taken inasmuch as the description of the inputs in the invoices did not indicate their character as scrap. The show cause notice dated 4-11-1992 was therefore issued seeking reversal of the modvat credit wrongly taken. Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were invokved. The Collector having confirmed the demand and having imposed a penalty, the present appeal has been filed.2. I have heard Shri M.S. Jagesha for the appellant and Shri B.K. Suman for the Revenue.3. It is Shri Jagesha's claim that the goods actually received were in fact scrap. I have seen the contested invoices and except in a few cases where the description "scrap" occurs, in other cases the goods are describ...
Emil Pharmaceutical (India) P. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC489Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Emil Pharmaceutical (India) Pvt. Ltd. have filed the present appeal, being aggrieved by the order dated 4.5.1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II.2. When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. However, they have, under their letter dated 3.1.1999, requested to decide the issue on merits. It has been submitted by them that they were manufacturing medicaments on their own behalf as well as on loan licence to M/s. Abbott Laboratories India Ltd. & M/s. Merind Ltd. The medicines, bearing the brand name of these two loan licencees, were cleared by them availing the exemption under Notification No.175/86. When the Central Excise officers visited their factory on 3.10.1992, they pointed out that the appellants are not entitled for concessional 337 rate of duty as they affixed the brand names of the manufacturers, who were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No.175/86. It has been, further, mentioned by them that they had alrea...
Cce Vs. Bharat Rubber Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC73Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is the Department's appeal against the above captioned impugned order praying for setting aside the same and to restore the orders of the Assistant Collector dt. 12.11.1993. The facts of the case are that the respondents manufacture excisable goods falling under Chapter 39 & 40 of the schedule to this Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and availing benefit of modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.They had availed modvat credit of Rs. 87,460/- on the strength of a Bill of Entry in the name of M/s. Associated Brothers, which has resulted in the issue of show cause notice on the ground that it was excisable and the procedure laid down and Trade Notice No. 57/87 dt.7.8.1987 was not followed. After the receipt of the reply from the respondents to the show cause notice dt. 31.5.1993, and holding the personal hearing and herein (sic) the parties, the show cause notice is confirmed by the Assistant Collector. In the appeal by the respondents and impugned order it i...
Plating Material Manufacturing Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC232Tri(Mum.)bai
Section 124 of the Customs Act requires issue of a Show Cause Notice before adjudging confiscation of goods etc. seized under Section 110 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 110 stipulates that where such notice is not given within six months, from the date of seizure of the goods, the goods are liable to be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. The proviso to the sub-section however, empowers the Commissioner of Customs, to sufficient cause is shown that the Show Cause Notice not be issued within the stipulated period.2. In the present case the offending goods were detained on 29.4.1998, and were formally seized oh 27.5.1998. Such detention is provided for in terms of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 110. On 26.10.1998, a notice was issued to Shri Bipin Parekh, Partner of the appellant company to show cause why the time limit for issue of the Show Cause Notice not be extended by two months. This notice was received by Shri Parekh on 26.10.1998 at ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Assam Timbers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT226Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal by the department is whether, as a result of amendment to Notification No. 175/86 by Notification No. 55/92 (and subsequent amend to it by Notification No.67/92 on 22-5-1992) the assessee became disentitled to Notification No.175/86 for the period from 1-4-1992 to 21-5-1992. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Collector (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Assistant Collector that the amendment made in notification did not disentitle the assessee to the benefit of notification. The Assistant Collector had found that the assessee continued to avail of the notification. From 1986 onwards only by virtue of the provisions contained in Clause (b) of the proviso under para 4 prior to amendment of the notification which became the second proviso after the notification was amended on 1-4-1989. The exemption enjoyed would continue unaffected despite issue of Notification No. 55/92. He said that this notification would only come into p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »