Mumbai Court July 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.
Bharat Explosives Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC615Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Appellants M/s. Bharat Explosives Ltd. formerly known as M/s.Narendra Explosive Ltd. have entered into an agreement with M/s. Biazzi of Switzerland on 15.12.1997 for setting up a plant for manufacture of explosives in India. As per Clause (1) of the contract M/s. Biazzi had to provide the basic engineering documents, drawing and information to develop it into detailed design engineering and drawings in India and all other services as detailed in Clause (5) of the agreement subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement. In consideration of the above M/s. Narendra Explosive Ltd. had to pay Swiss Fanes 5 lakh towards technical know-how and basic engineering fees. M/s. Biazzi also hold 23% equity in the Company. Since NEL could not execute the project the same was handed over to the appellants by the finance companies.The project was commissioned in October, 1992. The Indian Co. had imported capital goods, spare parts from M/s. Biazzi of Switzerland prior to 1988 and after 1...
Cce Vs. Mazda Industrial Chemicals Pvt.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: (2000)(88)LC850Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondents are manufacturers of Surface Active Agents falling under Tariff 15AA, before 1.3.1986. They manufacture Surface Active Agent Slurry from Alkyl Benzene and Sulphuric Acid and pay Central Excise duty. Such duty-paid Surface Active Agent Slurry is captively consumed for further processing into wetting out agents and emulsifiers. They availed exemption on these products under Notification No. 101/66 dated 17.2.1966 in terms of serial No. 4 of the table annexed to the notification. The proceedings in these cases relate to eligibility for the exemption.2. Arguing the appeals for the Revenue, learned S.D.R. Shri H.K. Jain submitted that the respondents had availed this exemption under serial No. 4 of Notification No. 101/66. He submitted that these exemptions were in respect of "emulsifiers, wetting-out agents, softeners and other like products intended for use in any industrial process". He submitted that test reports have shown that the goods in question were only Surfac...
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT733Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is against the order of the Collector (Appeals) reducing the fine fixed for redemption, from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- and penalty imposed under 173Q from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 2,000/-.2. The representative of the appellant says that his arguments are limited to the confiscation of goods. The goods were ordered to be confiscated, penalty imposed for the reason that the appellant was entering the details in the RGI Register not as required by law at the point of the manufacture, but they were being removed on payment of duty. It is the contention of the appellant that since the Collector (Appeals) found that there was no evidence to support any evasion by the appellant, the goods were not liable to be confiscated. He relies for this purpose upon the Tribunal's decision in Kwality Containers Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1987 (29) E.L.T. 304. Paragraph 16 of this order says that since there was no case made out of wilful infraction making the goods liable for confiscation, confis...
Pioneer Sales Agencies (P.) Ltd. Vs. Olympus Superstructures Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)BomCR877; (1999)3BOMLR803
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. This Notice of Motion has been taken out for a declaration that the consent terms entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant on 31st August, 1998 is null and void and not enforceable and not binding on the defendant. It is also prayed that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Notice of Motion, the plaintiff be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from in any manner acting upon the Power of Attorney dated 31st August, 1998. 2. The consent terms which were signed between the parties on 31st August, 1998 provided that the parties have settled their dispute in the present suit in respect of the premises on the third floor of the building 'Wembley' referred to in Clause 16 of the Consent terms for a sum of Rs. 1,25,00,000/-. The defendant agreed to make payment of the aforesaid amount on or before the expiry of 180 days from the date of execution of the consent terms. Clause 2 provides that there shall be a decree in favour of...
M/S. K.G. Construction and Another Vs. Municipal Corporation for Great ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR142; 1999(4)BomCR729; (1999)3BOMLR339
ORDERB.N. Srikrishna, J.1. These two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugn the action of the 1st respondent in treating the tenders submitted by the petitioners as 'Non-Responsive' and eliminating them from consideration.2. The first respondent is a Municipal Corporation set up under the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The second respondent is the Commissioner of the said Corporation exercising statutory powers under the Act. The third respondent is an officer of the first respondent Corporation. The petitioners are respectively a partnership firm and a sole proprietory concern doing the business as Municipal Contractors.3. Sometime in April 1998, the 1st respondent invited sealed tenders from contractors to carry out certain petty works. The tenderers were required to quote the percentage below the scheduled rates at which they offered to carry out the work. The offer had to be in the form o...
The Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai Vs. Trustees of Parsi Panch ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR674; 1999(4)BomCR713; 1999(3)MhLj642
ORDERY.K. Sabharwal, C. J.1. Appeal admitted. 2. Respondents waive service. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and with their consent, at this stage itself, we proceed to decide the appeal. 4. The land of the respondents was acquired in terms of Notification dated 20th September 1969 under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for short). The Special Land Acquisition Officer made the award on 1st October, 1977. The. said award was the subject matter of reference. Thelearned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 21st December 1995 has enhanced the compensation and has also issued directions for payment of solatium @ 30% under section 23(2) of the Act and for payment of interest @ 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking possession of the land and @ 15% thereafter from 30th November, 1978 till 14th December, 1995 under Section 28 of the Act. The learned Judge also directed that the claimants are entitled to further interest @ 15% p...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindustan Conductors P. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: [1999]240ITR16(Bom); 2000(2)MhLj352
B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the payment of Rs. 36,045 representing finance charges on the loan taken from D.D. FoundationTrust and on accumulated finance charges was, allowable as deduction for the assessment year 1978-79 ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company. The shares of the assessee are held by the members of a single family, In its assessment for the assessment year 1978-79 relevant to the previous year ended on April 30, 1977, the assessee claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 1,34,045 towards finance charges payable to one D.D. Foundation Trust, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as 'the trust'). Under an agreement dated March 5, 1967, the assessee had received a loan of Rs. 2,00,000 from the said trust. U...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindustan Conductors Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: [1999]240ITR762(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion :''Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding' that the payment of Rs. 1.54,884, Rs. 1,70,848 and Rs. 82,120 representing finance charges on the loan taken from a closely connected trust, is allowable in full as a deduction for the assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72, respectively ?'2. The material facts giving rise to this reference are as follows :The assessee is a private limited company. The shares of the assessee-company are held by the members of a single family. The assessee-company took a loan of Rs. 2 lakhs from one D. R. Foundation Trust under a memorandum of agreement dated March 5, 1967. Under that agreement, the assessee was liable to pay finance charges to the trust for the amount of loan. During the previou...
Cc Vs. Plasser (i) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC859Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondent to this appeal entered into a contract with the manufacturer in China to assemble dynamic track stabiliser machines (these are said to be railway track maintenance equipment) in its factory at Faridabad and export them along with spare parts to the Peoples Republic of China. The major components required for assembling equipment after import went to respondent's factory. Some goods to be supplied as spares and therefore not requiring in processing were also received in Bombay. The respondent requested the Assistant Commissioner to keep these in the Customs bonded warehouse with seal at Bombay, without payment of duty in advance as was required by law at that time, till they could be exported along with the machinery under fabrication at Faridabad. The Assistant Collector permitted the goods to be stored in the warehouse subject to the approval of the Additional Collector.The Additional Collector allowed the goods to be kept in warehouse subject to the fulfilment of t...
Bhor Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT474Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 1.42 lakhs approx.2. The duty has been demanded on the ground that the applicant should have availed of exemption under Notification 217/86 on the PVC sheets manufactured by it, consumed captively in the manufacture of PVC leather cloth. The contention of the advocate for the applicant that this case is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in Everest Converters v. CCE -1995 (80) E.L.T. 91 and more specifically in Polychem Ltd. v. CCE - 1997 (90) E.L.T. 156 has to be accepted. The Departmental Representative says that these decisions require to be reconsidered. He also raised the question that Modvat credit of the duty paid on goods falling under Heading 89.04 is restricted to Rs. 550 pet sq. metre and that even by applying the decision in Polychem Ltd. v. CCE the amount of credit that would be taken would be limited. We are not able to agree with this contention. The charge in the show cause notice is only one tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »