Mumbai Court May 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.
Sovereign Printery Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC906Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These three applications are for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 68.98 lakhs by the assessee M/s. Sovereign Printery, penalty of equivalent amount under Section 11 AC, penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs on Ketan Sukhadia, Partner and Rs. 1 lakh on Ms. D'Souza, Accounts assistant.2. The common Advocate for the applicant explains that duty has been demanded on the ground that the applicant clandestinely removed excisable goods without payment of duty. He contends that the applicant had contended before the Commissioner that even if duty was payable, Modvat credit would be available of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of final product; this has been refused by the Commissioner on the ground that the applicant did not file a declaration under Rule 57G or maintaining the prescribed records. He says that there are a large number of decisions of the Tribunal to say that credit should not be denied only on the account that declaration was hot filed citing in support in Gujarat Amb...
Shri Nandlal Govindram Gunwani Vs. Ashok Balram Bedekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR333; 2000(2)BomCR772; 2000(1)MhLj23
ORDERS.B. Mhase, J. 1. The petitioner has approached to this Court by filing this Civil Revision Application in view of the provisions of section 26 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act, for short) challenging the judgment delivered by the Rent Controller, Aurangabad in Case No. 81/RC/CR/15 decided on 20-6-1989 which is confirmed in Rent Appeal No. 18 of 1989 decided by the District Judge, Aurangabad, by the judgment dated 4-6-1990, as a result of which the petitioner has been directed to deliver the possession of ground floor of the house C.T.S. No. 4560 equal to Municipal No. 2-10-26 (old) new Municipal No. 4-11-18, situated in Mohalla Kumbharwada in Aurangabad city. The respondent had filed an application under section 15 of the said Act on various grounds. However, the Rent Controller directed the petitioner to deliver the possession of the suit premises as the petitioner was found a defaulter, as provided u...
M/S. Nanded Wine Mart Vs. Suresh Shankarlal Dhoot
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR415; 2000(2)BomCR784; 2000(1)MhLj315
ORDERS.B Mhase, J.1. This Revision under section 26 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 is directed against the order passed by the District Judge, Nanded in Rent Appeal HRCA No. 28 of 1989, decided on 7-8-1990 wherein the said District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller for eviction of the petitioner from the said premises on the grounds under section 15 (3)(a)(iii) and section 15(2)(v) of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 and also further allowed the cross objections filed by the respondent and granted an order of eviction in favour of the respondent on the ground under section 15(2)(i) of the said Act.2. The petitioner is tenant of the suit premises bearing Municipal No. 3-1-14 admeasuring 25 ft. to the east-west and 30 ft. north-south, situated at Station Road, Nanded and agreed rent of the said premises is Rs. 400/- per month and the petitioner ente...
Shree Anupar Chemical (India) Private Limited and Others Vs. Dipak G. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Bom349; 1999(3)BomCR790; (1999)2BOMLR712
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. This order will dispose of Appeal Lodging Nos. 1, 2 and 4 of 1999. For the sake of convenience, the facts have been taken from Appeal Lodging No. 1 of 1999. These appeals have been filed against the order dated 22nd March, 1999, hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned order'; passed by the Principal Bench of the Company Law Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.L.B.'), at New Delhi in Company Petition No. 46 of 1998. The aforesaid Company Petition was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein being petitioners therein under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeals may briefly be noticed. 2. Appellant No. 1 Company was incorporated on or about 26th July, 1994 with an authorised and paid up share capital of Rs. 5 lakhs. Sometime in March, 1995, respondent No. 1 along with appellant No. 2 and respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 purchased 100 per cent shareholding of the Comp...
Shri Popatlal H. JaIn and Another Vs. Shashikumar Martand Sonawane and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR883
ORDERDr. Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This criminal writ petition is filed by the petitioners, being aggrieved by the order of issuance of process, dated 10th June. 1992, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur, in Criminal Case No. 417 of 1992 under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.2. I have heard Mr. Soni for the petitioners and Ms. Kamath, learned Addl.P.P. for respondent No. 2. I have also perused the proceedings. It appears that respondent No. 1 Shashikumar Martand Sonawane, filed complaint dated 27th March, 1992, in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur, against the petitioners, under sections 420 and 406 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was the case of the complainant that he was residing at Solapur and he was doing business of purchasing lottery tickets and that he used to purchase those tickets from petitioner No. 2 M/ s. Barad Lottery Agency. Petitioner No. 1- Popatlal H. Jain was the main Agent and Distributor of 'Labh-Laxmi' Lottery Tic...
Electrical and Electronics Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-1999
Reported in: (1999)(84)LC911Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Electrical and Electronics Corpn. were located at R.K. Sharma Compound, Walbhat Cross Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400 063. They filed a declaration as required under Rule 174 on 16.4.1986. In this declaration, the benefit of notification No. 175/86 was claimed on the ground that the value of clearance in the preceding year was Rs. 7.5 lakhs. In 1989, they applied for and were given L-4 licence. After that they filed classification lists from time to time claiming the benefit of Notfn. No. 175/86 as it existed then. On 29.11.1989, they wrote a letter to the jurisdictional Supdt. informing that they had shifted their factory to another location viz. Bharat Industrial Estate, Goregaon (E). They requested the Supdt. to cancel L-4 licence. On 2.9.1991, they were granted a fresh L-4 licence. The classification list filed showing the new address was duly approved by the Asstt.Commissioner in March/April, 1992. On 10.6.1992 a show cause notice was issued demanding differential duty on ...
Eastern Smelting and Rolling Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT827Tri(Mum.)bai
1. - The question involved in this stay petition is whether amount of duty paid on inputs should be taken for purpose of valuation of the final product. The amount involved in this appeal is Rs. 1,48,20,997/-.Ten show cause notices have been issued in this case and consolidated penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs have been imposed. The present applications have been filed for mentioned above.2. It is contended by the ld. Counsel V.N. Deshpande on behalf of the appellant that for purpose of valuation under Rule 6(b)(i) of the Valuation Rules. The issue has been settled in the case of Dai Ichi Karkaria a decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 676 which has held that such a duty element cannot be taken into account for purpose of valuation of the final product. The case involved is in respect of job worker and the goods are not sold and the valuation has to be made in terms of Valuation Rules as provided under Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act. It is also f...
Gujarat Metal Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT936Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants manufactured Aluminium Plates, Sheets, Strips, Slug and Circles. The Aluminium circles were cleared without payment of duty as permitted under certain notifications. During the manufacture of such circles, aluminium plates came into existence. On a study of the manufacturing process the officers felt that such plates were excisable products and should have discharged burden of duty before they were captively consumed in the manufacture of circles. A show cause notice dated 7-1-1991 was issued alleging that the fact of manufacture of plates as intermediate products was suppressed by the appellants with intent to evade payment of duty. Duty leviable on such plates during the period 16-1-1986 to 30-6-1990 totally amounting to Rs. 2,40,44,230.85 was demanded. Allegations as to penalties were also made. The Collector in the impugned order confirmed the duty. He also confirmed a further Amount of Rs. 34,23,584.24 on the ground that when the value of production of plates wa...
Surya Conductors P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC472Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the includibility in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the appellant as a job worker, the element of excise duty paid on the raw material supplied to him, which he took as Modvat credit. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Collector (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Assistant Collector that, notwithstanding that credit was taken by the assessee, excise paid on goods is includible in their value determined under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules.2. Mr. K. Gopal, Managing Director of the appellant contends that the issue is settled by the decision of this Tribunal in Dai Ichi Karkaria v. CCE [1996 (81) E.L.T. 676] 3. The departmental representative however makes a submission that the ratio of that decision would apply to cases where recourse has to be had to Section 4(1)(b) or Rule 6(b) of the Valuation Rules because the goods are captively consumed. He says that it will not apply to the situation, wher...
Wall Street Construction Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-1999
Reported in: (2003)87ITD43(Mum.)
1. Both the appeals concern the same assessee and the same assessment year. They are being disposed of together for the sake of convenience.2. ITA No. 9595/Bom/1995 is decided first. The ground of appeal of Department reads as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in directing to allow expenses against 'on money' received by the assessee which were not recorded in the books and also erred in directing to tax 12 per cent of the 'on money' as assessee's income." 1. There were two searches in this case on 21st Aug., 1990 and on 24th Dec., 1992, respectively. 2. In the first search, a computer sheet was found, whose pp. 131 and 147 were seized as they gave details of 'on money, receipts amounting to Rs. 1,04,44,834. 3. The assessee submitted that the same was offered for taxation for the asst. yr. 1991-92 in addition to the regular income. 4. In the second search, in response to question No. 15, the director of assessee-company submi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »