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.
Photophone Indus. (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1031Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is against the order of the Collector (Appeals) holding that the cost of blister packing in which the camera manufactured by the appellant was sold is includible in the assessable value of the camera.2. The Advocate for the appellant does not press the first ground in the appeal that the department was estopped from filing the application to Collector (Appeals) since the Assistant Collector's order which is the subject matter of application has merged in an earlier order of the Collector (Appeals). He stated that since he confines his arguments to the merits of the case. His contention in that regard is that the appellant cleared the camera without blister packing in question.Blister packing was done in another premises 10 k.m. away from the factory. Packing the camera in its case does not amount to manufacture.3. The Departmental Representative contends that since the packing is done by the same manufacturer of the camera its cost is to be included.4. When the camera w...
Cce Vs. Siemens Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1999
Reported in: (2000)(89)LC425Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is the department's appeal against the impugned order dated 23.12.1994 praying for setting aside the same and to restore the order-in-original dated 24.3.1994. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of products falling under the Central Excise Tariff Act, for which they are using wires and cables as inputs and they are availing Modvat credit on them. They have received the said inputs from Ms. Anandji Cables under the gate pass No. 42 dated 10.6.1993 and No. 51 dated 26.6.1993. M/s. Anandji Cables have wrongly paid the Central Excise duty under the above documents, and the respondents is the consignee of the same. The jurisdictional Superintendent of M/s. Anandji Cables informed that the clearance was below 30 lakhs on the above gate passes and the appropriate rate of duty was nil. The respondents have availed the Modvat credit on the said gate passes to the extent of Rs. 15,892/-. The payment of the Excise duty by M/s. Anandji C...
Jost'S Engg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1999
Reported in: (2000)74ITD34(Mum.)
1. These three appeals are directed against the consolidated order of the CIT(A), dated 29th April, 1991, for the asst. yrs. 1986-87 to 1988-89 wherein he confirmed the penalties levied under s. 271B of Rs. 1,00,000 each for these three assessment years.2. The common ground taken in all these appeals is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under s. 271B by the AO for each of the three years involved.3. The turnover of the assessee-company was about Rs. 10 crores each for the asst. yrs. 1986-87 and 1987-88 and about Rs. 13.5 crores for the asst. yr. 1988-89. As its turnover exceeded the limits stipulated under s. 44AB, it had to file the audit report as required under this section within the specified dates for each of the three assessment years involved. It, however, did not file the audit reports in the prescribed form within the specified dates. The relevant details for the three assessment years involved are as follows :-------------------------------------------...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Vs. M/S. Savailal Maneklal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)BomCR426; (2000)2BOMLR861; [1999]239ITR636(Bom); 1999(3)MhLj782
ORDERRanjana Desai, 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 at the instance of the revenue :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest and commission paid to Shri Deepak N. Shah as partner of the firm representing his H.U.F., is not payment made to partner of the firm and consequently cannot be disallowed under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?'2. The facts, which are material for the purpose of this reference are as under :In the assessee firm, there are two partners namely, H.U.Fs. of Narottamdas K. Shah and Smt. Jayalaxmi N. Shah and the H.U.Fs. of Deepak N. Shah. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1979-80, the assessee paid commission of Rs. 14,948/- and interest of Rs. 55,740/-to Shri Deepak N. Shah in his individual capacity. The said amount...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gopaldas H. Hansrajani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1999
Reported in: [1999]239ITR523(Bom)
Ranjana Desai, 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 at the instance of the Revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses-sees are entitled to exemption under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1982-83 ?'2. The material facts giving rise to this reference are as follows :The assessees, who are husband and wife, used to reside in flat No. 6, Hanuman Sharan Building, Bomani Petit Road, Bombay, on leave and licence basis as per agreement dated April 27, 1968. On March 16, 1981, both of them purchased the said flat for Rs. 1 lakh and resold it for Rs. 4.5 lakhs by agreement dated March 25, 1982. They thereafter on May 6, 1982, purchased another flat in Vile Parle for Rs. 7.15 lakhs. The controversy arose whether the assessees are entitled to claim exemption in respect of the capital gains under Sect...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jam Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1999
Reported in: [1999]240ITR167(Bom)
Ranjana Desai, 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 at the instance of the Revenue ;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, payment of damages of Rs. 6,06,544 under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952, was allowable deduction if the assessee had acted in good faith in normal course of business as trader ?'2. It is evident from the question itself that the controversy in this case pertains to liability of deduction of the payment of damages amounting to Rs. 6,06,544 by the assessee under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952, in computing the income of the assessee.3. We have heard Mr. R. V. Desai, learned counsel for the Revenue, who fairly stated before us that the controversy in the above question now stands covered by the decisions of the S...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Govind Poy Oxygen Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1999
Reported in: [1999]239ITR543(Bom)
Ranjana Desai, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred thefollowing question of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the Central subsidy cannot be reduced from the total cost of the assets for computing the investment allowance and that the view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 is not correct ?'2. The facts, which are relevant for purposes of this reference, are as under :3. The assessee-company had installed plant and machinery during the year which ended on June 30, 1977, at a cost of Rs. 64,07,538. The First Income-tax Officer, Margao, determined the investment allowance at Rs. 16,01,884 as claimed by the assessee. The assessee received Central subsidy of Rs. 8,72,270 attributable to the plant and machinery. Upon receipt of Central subsidy,'...
Vithal Yadav Manjare and ors. Vs. Ambadas Eknath Dhage and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR670; (1999)101BOMLR209
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Advocate Shri Sarnant for the petitioners. Nobody is appearing for the respondents.2. The petitioners are the alleged tenants of the suit premises. A civil suit was filed by the respondents wherein the petitioners raised a plea of tenancy, therefore, the matter was referred to the Additional Tahasildar Barshi. He gave findings in favour of the tenants. The findings were upheld by the Appellate Court in the absence of appellants/landlords. The landlords, therefore, challenged this ex parte decision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (herein after referred to as the M.R.T.) by filing a revision and the said revision was allowed. The tenants, therefore, came to the High Court, and the High Court remanded the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer who had decided the matter ex parte.3. On remand the Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the appeal and held that the respondents were the tenants vide his order dated 31st December, 1982. The landlords, therefore, agai...
Savita Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC845Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These five appeals arise out of the same impugned order and are, therefore, taken up together for disposal.2. M/s. Savita Chemicals Ltd. the present appellants manufacture lubricating oil (automotive oil). The goods are cleared in four different ways :- (1) packed in 20 Itrs & 210 Itrs containers and sent to wholesale dealer; (2) packed in 20 Itrs & 210 Itrs containers and sent to their depots on stock transfer; (4) cleared in bulk in tankers to M/s. Unique Packers, job workers, who repack the bulk oil in tins of 5 Itrs., 1 Itr and .5 ltr capacity and despatch them to the depots of M/s. Savita Chemicals Ltd. from where they are sold.3. The dispute in the present appeals relates to (4) above. Sometime ago, such oil in bulk was sent by the appellants to M/s. Unique Packers under the procedure prescribed in Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, where the job workers would return the lubricating oil packed in smaller containers to M/s. Savita Chemicals Ltd. M/s. Savita...
Pepsico India Holding Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC324Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These are the appeals filed by the appellants against the decision dated 28-8-98 made in Orders-in-Original 53 and 54 of 1998.2. The appellants manufacture Pepsi brand of aerated water of various flavours viz. Pepsi, Mirinda, 7Up and Teem falling under Chapter 22 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The department found that there are certain suppressions of production and clandestine clearance of the aerated waters without payment of duty and without following procedure prescribed under the Central Excise Rules. Two show cause notices were issued on 24-9-97 and 21-10-97 demanding duty to the extent of Rs. 83,92,667.50 and Rs. 35,86,762.89 respectively. After filing their replies and hearing the appellants as well as their Counsel, the impugned order has been passed.3. The question involved in these appeals is as to whether the formula for production of the final product in respect of the raw material supplied is to be taken into consideration for purpose of determination of the actua...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »