Mumbai Court July 1999 Judgments

Press Metal Corporation Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(89)LC146Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this appeal we are concerned with classification of 'roladeck panels'. The appellants herein, in the classification list filed by them during the relevant period 1.3.1986 to 30.6.1988 have described the product and claimed classification as under:Prior to 1.3.1988 "Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Steel not elsewhere specified [other than slotted angles and channels) rolled, forged, extruded, formed, finished (T.H. 72.10)] Angles, channels and other various shapes and sections of steel (other than slotted angles and slotted channels (T.s-h 7210.10)]"W.e.f. 1.3.1988 "Iron & Steel Iron & Non-alloy Steel Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron and Non-alloy Steel (T.H. 72.16) (i) Not further worked than cold-formed or cold- finished (T.s-h. 7216.20) Number of classification lists filed by the appellants on the above lines were approved by the competent officer.2. Trade name of the goods involved before us and declared as above in the classification lists is Roladeck floor...

Aplab Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT652Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Applicants manufactured "Signal Generators". The classification of these goods was claimed under Heading 9031 of the CETA of 1985. The Assistant Commissioner approved this classification. On a revision application made by the Department the Collector (Appeals) vide his order dated 24-6-1994 ruled that the goods merited classification under Heading 8543. As regards claim of the assessees that they deserved the benefit of Notification Nos. 51/93 and 46/94 the Collector directed the Assistant Commissioner to take a decision in de novo proceedings. Both the notifications prescribed the same condition for the exemption and i.e. that the goods sought to be exempted should be machinery used for the production of a commodity. During the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner Show Cause Notice dated 3-3-1993 was issued seeking recovery of differential duty on re-classification of the product from Chapter 90 to Chapter 85. Three more Show Cause Notices were issued seeking recovery of...

J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)74ITD274(Mum.)

1. The appeal of the assessee, for assessment year 1992-93, is directed against the order dated 4-12-1995 of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXXIII, Mumbai. The only issue involved in this case is as to whether the notional interest on the interest free deposit received by the assessee from the tenant is assessable as part of the rent received or receivable within the meaning of Section 23(b). Rival contentions have been heard and records perused.2. The relevant facts; in this case, are that the appellant company during the previous year relevant to assessment year 1992-93 purchased second and third floor of "B" Wing in the building known as 'Mahindra Towers' from M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vide sale deed executed on 28-6-1991. For the constructed area of 25663 sq. ft. the consideration was Rs. 10,90,63,750. The total purchase price of the property including stamp papers, stamp duty, legal fees, etc., was Rs. 12,03,69,675. The said premises was let out to M/s Raymond Woolle...

J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The appeal of the assessee, for asst. yr. 1992-93, is directed against the order dt. 4th December, 1995, of CIT(A)-XXXIII, Mumbai. The only issue involved in this case is as to whether the notional interest on the interest-free deposit received by the assessee from the tenant is assessable as part of the rent received or receivable within the meaning of s. 23(b). Rival contentions have been heard and records perused.2. The relevant facts, in this case, are that the appellant-company during the previous year relevant to asst. yr. 1992-93 purchased second and third floor of "B" Wing in the building known as 'Mahindra Towers' from M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vide sale deed executed on 28th June, 1991. For the constructed area of 25,663 sq. ft. the consideration was Rs. 10,90,63,750. The total purchase price of the property including stamp papers, stamp duty, legal fees, etc., was Rs. 12,03,69,675. The said premises was let out to M/s. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd., a sister concern...

Midland Overseas Vs. M.V. cmbt Tana and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1999Bom401; 1999(3)ALLMR662; 2000(1)BomCR618

ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard Ms. Sethna, the learned Counsel for applicant-defendant No. 3 and Mr. Vipul Shukla, the learned Counsel for plaintiffs.2. By this notice of motion, the defendant No. 3 prays that suit be dismissed as against them and other consequential reliefs.3. In support of notice of motion, an affidavit of Mr. Anthony Lobo has been filed and it has been stated therein that the 3rd defendants merely acted as general agent for disclosed principal, namely, the 2nd defendant at all times and as such has no independent liability either in law or in fact to the plaintiffs. It is stated that even as per the case pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiffs the 3rd defendant has been impleaded as an agent of 2nd defendant.4. The notice of motion was served on the plaintiffs on 16-7-99. No reply has been filed. As a matter of fact the learned Counsel for defendants No. 3 made statement at the out set that the prayer for dismissal of suit by 3rd defendants against them is sought on th...

Mohan Pandurang Kashid and Others Vs. Smt. Anusayabai W/O Rajaram Mane ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(2)BomCR154; (2000)1BOMLR729; 2000(2)MhLj532

ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Advocate Mr. Gole for the petitioners and Advocate Mr. Thorat for the respondents. 2. The petitioners are the landlords and respondents are the tenants. There is a dispute of tenancy in respect of land bearing R.S. No. 120/2, Gat No. 250, O.H. 2/ Rs. situated at village Khubi, Taluka Karad, District Satara. Dhondiba Kashid and Haranabai Tupe were the original landlords. Dhondiba died in 1959 and Haranabai died in 1979. Haranabai had three daughters, Kamalabai, Anjubai and Manjubai. Kamalabai died in 1979 leaving behind her son Rajaram and daughters, Parubai, Laxmibai and Hirabai, Rajaram died in 1979 leaving behind him his widow Anusayabai and his daughter Noushakka as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 3. Haranabai claiming to be a owner filed an application under section 88-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) and an exemption certificate was granted to her. Thereafter on 13-3-1963 Har...

Margao Municipal Council Through Its Chief Officer, Shri P.W. Rane Sar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2000Bom78; 2000(1)ALLMR585; 2000(2)BomCR195; 2000(1)MhLj767

ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This revision arises from the Order dated 29th December, 1998 passed the Addl. District Judge, Margao in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 31/98 whereby by the lower Appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal filed by the petitioners herein. The said appeal was against the order dated 29th April, 1998 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao in Civil Misc. Appln. No. 247/97/E and Civil Misc. Appln. No. 362/ 97/E in Regular Civil Suit No. 49/1973/E, whereby the trial Court in exercise of the powers under Order 39, Rule 2-A of C.P.C. had directed the petitioners to re-erect the suit shops and to restore them in the condition in which the same were existing prior to the demolition on 22nd July, 1997 within thirty days of the order, failing which the petitioner No. 2 has been ordered to be detained in prison for a period of one month.2. The case of the plaintiffs/respondents is that the trial Court had granted temporary injunction by the order dated 6-3-197...

Shri Izaz Rashid Baig @ Ajju Vs. Shri R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of P ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR48; 2000BomCR(Cri)48

ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu seeks to impugn the detention order dated 7-11-1998 passed by the first respondent Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay detaining him under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996).The detention order along with the grounds of detention also dated 7-11-1998 was served on the petitioner-detenu on 11-11-1998. True copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this writ petition.The prejudicial activities on which the impugned detention order is founded are contained in the grounds of detention. Their perusal shows that the impugned detention order is founded on two C.Rs. and two in camera statements, of witnesses A and B. Two C.Rs...

Associated Dye-stuff Industries Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT732Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant exported two consignments of synthetic organic dyes and claimed, as provided in the second proviso to Rule 57F(3), refund of excise duty paid on inputs, and taken as Modvat Credit, used in the manufacture of these dyes. The Assistant Collector, whose order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals), rejected the claim on the ground that appellant had been claimed and paid drawback under the Drawback Rules on the export of the goods, and therefore the claim could not be sanctioned under second proviso to Rule 57F(3). Hence these appeals.3. Common contention in both the appeals is that the drawback, which was paid, related to the element of customs duty and that the excise duty paid on these inputs is not included in the drawback which was paid. The provisions of the second proviso to Rule 57F(3) would only be attracted if the drawback was on the excise duty.4. The departmental representative adopts the reasoning common to both the orders impugned in the appeal.5. Th...

Commissioner of Cus. Vs. General Electric Plastic India

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)LC445Tri(Mum.)bai

The question for consideration in this appeal is the value for assessment of two commodities, poly carobonate compound (Lexan) and modified ppo compounds with the trade name Noryl, imported by the appellant from M/s. General Electric Plastics, BV, Netherlands. The notice issued to the respondent in this appeal increased the value on the ground that it was related to the supplier and also on the ground that some goods were supplied to other persons contemporaneously at higher prices. Assistant Collector did not give any specific finding on the charge of relationship. On appeal the Collector (Appeals) accepted the contention of the importers that it is not related to foreign supplier. He held that the prices at which the goods were imported to be acceptable as assessable value under Section 14 of the Act. Hence this appeal by the Department. This later finding is questioned in this appeal.2. The imports in dispute were made in 1992. The respondent had imported during this period from Ma...