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.
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Indo Rama Synthetics India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT481Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal by the department is whether, during the period between April, 1994 to 16th March, 1995, when Rule 57Q was amended, the goods under consideration were capital goods within the meaning of that rule and whether the respondent could take Modvat credit of the duty paid on them. The goods in question are weighing and material handling equipment, other electrical machinery such as motors, transformers, distribution equipments (switch boards, wires, cables, etc.) and measuring and control devices.2. The department's appeal is on the ground that these goods were not used for producing or processing of any goods or bringing about any change in substance and therefore do not confirm to the definition of capital goods in the rule as it existed at the relevant time.3. After hearing both sides we find that the issue is covered by the decision of the Larger Bench in Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. C.C.E. 1999 (108) E.L.T. 47. This Bench has considered the scop...
Parle Beverages Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC604Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In these four appeals the question involved is whether plastic crates used in relation to manufacture of aerated waters is eligible for modvat credit or not.2. In the above appeals, appeal No. E/1307 and E/1308-V/97 relate to the period respectively from June, 1994 to September, 1994 and October, 1994 to December, 1994. In respect of appeal Nos. E/777 and 2545/96 the period relates to respectively January, 1992 to December, 1992 and October, 1993 to November, 1993. In these cases, appeal Nos. 777/94 and 2545/96 are against the captioned order in-Appeals dated 23.11.1994 and 24.9.1996. The other two appeals are against the Order-in-Originals passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise dated 27.1.1997.2.1. The facts of the case are that the appellants are the manufacturers of aerated waters. When the aerated waters are sold at the wholesale market it is being filled in bottles and transported by placing it in the plastic crates. Each plastic crate consists of 24 bottles duly filled ...
Savitri and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: (2000)74ITD225(Mum.)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 15-7-1998 for the assessment year 1995-96.2. The main ground is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 24,15,200 (i.e., Rs. 30,19,000 Rent, less Rs. 6,03,800 being deductions under section 24(1)) being rental income as the income of the assessee-firm and not as the income of the partners (co-owners) in their individual capacity. Vide its letter dated 24-5-1999, the assessee-firm has also raised three Additional Grounds, which read as follows :- 5. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the rent received pertained to rent for the Assessment Years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 and hence the entire amount in any case could not be taxed as Income from House Property of this year. 6. Without prejudice to the above, if at all it is held that this income belongs to the appellant firm then accordingly directions should be given so that the taxes paid by the co-owners are refunded." 3. The assessee-firm was ...
Central Bank of India Vs. the Official Liquidator and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)BomCR743
ORDERDr. PRATIBHA UPASANI, J.1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the plaintiffs, praying that the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay be directed to sell the immovable property described in Exhibit 'A-1' to the plaint and the plant and machinery described in Exhibit 'B' to the plaint with all powers under Order XL, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 either by public auction or private treaty as the Court Receiver may deem fit and proper and pay over to the plaintiffs the net sale proceeds thereof in or towards the suit claim. 2. The suit is a usual bank suit, failed by the plaintiffs bank, namely, Central Bank of India, having its Heads Office at Nariman Point, Bombay and inter alia, having a Branch Office at Jalgaon, against the defendants for various reliefs which are usually claimed in a Bank suit. Defendant No. 1, The Khandesh Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd., is a company registered under the Companies Act, having its registered office at Jalgaon and a Branch Office ...
Supreme Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC613Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 1,80,76,929/- as well as penalty of equivalent amount; and stay of recovery thereof was argued by Shri B.N. Rangwani, ld. Consultant.3. The applicants are engaged in the activity of printing on plastic films. During the years 1994-95 and 1995-96 they sought classification of such goods under sub-heading 4901.90 of CETA. The classifications filed by them from time to time were duly approved. The assessees in the remarks column had clearly mentioned that the printing was done on duty paid films and the end product was used for packing of food products like milk, edible oil, ghee etc. A show cause notice dated 20-10-1998 was issued alleging that the correct classification was under sub-heading 3920.32, that the assessees had deliberately misclassified the product with intent to evade duty and that the duty was short paid was recoverable in terms of the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Com...
Press Trust of India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Parag B. Rabade and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ492Bom
A. P. Shah, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges an interlocutory order dated June 9, 1999 made by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No. 128 of 1999, a proceeding under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a news agency engaged in the business of collection and dissemination of news to various newspaper establishments, electronic media and Government and private agencies. The 1st respondent joined the employment of the petitioner with effect from August 1, 1989 at Pune as a trainee journalist. He was thereafter confirmed as a journalist in Group III from September 1, 1990. He was transferred from Pune to Mumbai on promotion from Group III to Group II-A with effect from January 1, 1996. Initially the respondent No. 1 was assigned to editorial desk to discharge the duties of a senior sub-editor....
Modistone Ltd. and ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1999
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ1043Bom
A.P. Shah, J.1. Rule.2. Learned counsel for the respondents waive service. By consent Rule taken up for final hearing.3. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against an order dated March 5, 1999 passed by the Controlling Authority made under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and also the appellate order dated May 11, 1999 passed by the appellate authority under the said Act hereinafter referred to as the Act.4. The only contention raised in this petition by the petitioners is that the petitioner company has been declared as a sick unit under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and by virtue of Section 22 no recovery could be made in respect of the gratuity payable to the concerned employee.5. The present proceedings are in respect of gratuity payable to respondent Nos. 3 to 41 who are ex-employees of the petitioner. On hearing the learned counsel I am of the opinion that this contention should be rejected...
Sydney @ Rajesh Vs. Mrs. Edith @ Reena
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1999
Reported in: I(2000)DMC523
P.S. Patankar, J. 1. This is for confirming the decree passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Nagpur dated 7.1.1999, under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The decree for dissolution of marriage came to be passed in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the respondent was living in adultery. The said decree is passed under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act.2. There is no opposition on behalf of the respondent. In the Court below, the respondent filed a written statement but led no evidence. On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner entered the witness box and also filed affidavits of two other witnesses. The petitioner was not cross-examined or the other two witnesses were also not cross-examined. On the basis of the said evidence, the said decree came to be passed.3. We have perused the judgment passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Nagpur, as well as the record in the matter and we find that the learned Judge has rightly passed the said decr...
Mrs. Phelomen Chandrasen Salve Vs. Chandrasen
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1999
Reported in: I(2000)DMC532
P.S. Patankar, J. 1. This is for confirmation of Decree, passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Nagpur, under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The decree for dissolution of marriage by divorce has been passed on 21.4.1998 on the ground that the respondent is living in adultery and has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as without adultery could have entitled for divorce.2. The respondent is served, however, there is no opposition.3. After going through the judgment passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Nagpur and perusing the record, we find that there is sufficient evidence led by the petitioner to prove the case and the learned Judge has rightly recorded the findings. In view of this, the decree of dissolution of marriage passed under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 is confirmed....
Jagdishprasad Agarwal Vs. Transport Corporation of India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1999
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR874
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mrs. Thorat for the petitioner and Mr. Raja Thakare for the opponent No. 1 and the learned A.P.P. for the State.2. The opponent No. 1 had filed complaint against the petitioner under Section 630 of the Companies Act. He was convicted by the Trial Court and was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for 60 days and he was also directed to hand over possession of the disputed premises. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, against the said conviction but the same was also dismissed. Hence this writ petition.3. It was contended by Mrs. Thorat that the respondent No. 1 Company could not prove its ownership over the flat in dispute, that the defence of the petitioner-accused was also not properly considered, that the witnesses of the respondent Company did not have personal knowledge of the events that took place in 1968, that the respondent Company was not the owner of the flat, that the petition...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »