Mumbai Court October 2000 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.
Tetrapak Converting (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT881Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant manufactures aseptic packaging made by laminating plastic with paper and aluminium. The packing manufactured by it is sold on order to customers, in the form of rolls containing such details as the brand name of the product, the logo of the manufacture of the product which is to be packed. The packing is converted at the premises of the manufacturer of the liquid, such as fruit juice, milk etc. into containers, normally refers to as tetrapacks in which the product in question is filled, after which the tetrapack is sealed. The conversion of the sheets into the containers or tetrapacks necessarily involves sealing after folding the sheet at least three times, once along the length of the roll, and once each at the top and bottom for the container emerge out of the machines. In order to ensure a total air tight tetrapack seal a strip of either polypropylene or polyethylene depending upon the product, is inserted between seams of the sheets and, by application of heat, m...
Haren Krishnakumar Mehta Vs. Kamla Pribhdas Nebhanani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Bom187; 2001(2)ALLMR67; 2001(2)BomCR678; (2001)1BOMLR228; 2001(2)MhLj45
D. G. Deshpande, J.1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that the agreement dated 1st April, 1978 is valid and subsisting and the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance thereof, and for specific performance and other incidental reliefs. The case of the plaintiff, in short, is as under :-2. The defendant was the owner of the suit flat. She was the member of Marryland Co-operative Housing Society Limited. She was also the owner of the furniture and fixtures. She entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff for the shares, suit flat and the furniture and fixtures for a sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- upon the terms and conditions mentioned in the said agreement. The plaintiff paid Rs. 10,000/- as an earnest money. The balance was to be paid after giving possession of the suit flat by the defendant and transferring the flat to the plaintiff. That the possession was given on or before 30.4.1978. The date of this agreement is 1.4.1978. According to the plaintiff, th...
Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Found ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR533(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. The short question of law which arises for determination in the above group of appeals is as follows : 'Whether violation of Section 11(5) read with Section 13(1)(d) by the assessee-trust attracts maximum marginal rate of tax on the entire income of the Trust ?' 2. In these appeals, we are essentially concerned with deciding the scope of Section 164(2) read with its proviso as also, the effect of contravention of Section 11(5) and Section 13(1)(d)(iii). Facts: 3. The assessee-trust came into existence after June 1, 1973. The assessee-trust was a holder of equity shares of Mafatlal Industries during the assessment year 1994-95. They were the holders of the shares even after March 31, 1993. In this group of appeals, we are only concerned with the effect of the violation of Section 13(1)(d). There is no dispute about the contravention. The assessee, during the relevant assessment year, received dividend income from Mafatlal Industries of Rs. 15,103. The assessee also r...
Tejraj R. Doshi Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT758Tri(Mum.)bai
1. While the proceedings were going on before the Commissioner, who by the common order impugned in these two appeals, an adjournment which was requested by the common advocate for both the noticees before him, was granted and the matter adjourned to 17.06.1994. The advocate for the appellants contends that on 17.06.1994, he had gone to attend the hearing, but the Commissioner was out of town, and the hearing could not take place. When the matter was listed on 16.08.1994, Mr. Dalvi, advocate sought adjournment on the ground that Mr. Jain who represented both noticees had some cardiac problem and required three weeks adjournment. The Commissioner found that the matter has been adjourned thrice and decided not to grant adjournment unless a firm date could be given by the advocate for the next hearing and has passed the order ex parte.2. If Mr. Jain on account of some unexpected health problem could not attend the hearing on 16.08.1994 and sought an adjournment for a reasonable period of...
S.S. Bindra Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT133Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These three appeals are against the common order of the Collector (Appeals) confirming the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, imposing penalties of Rs. 50,000/- on S.S. Bindra and Ashwin Mehta and a penalty of Rs 1.00 lac on Abubakar S. Kapadia under Section 112 of the Act.2. We have heard the advocates appearing for Bindra and Kapadia. Mehta is absent and unrepresented despite notice to him. We have read the memorandum of his appeal and we have also heard the departmental representative.3. The penalties have been imposed following the findings of the Additional Collector that a consignment of polyester fabrics which was imported duty free under the advance licence and Notification 117/78 was sold contrary to the provisions imposed by law, in the market, instead of being utilised for the manufacture of the final product to be exported.4. The basis for imposition of penalty upon Kapadia is that Farid Abdul Gani and Hemant Kawathekar who were transporting two packages cont...
Baban @ Shankar Udaysingh Rajput @ Shikalgar and ors. Vs. the State of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1183; (2001)1BOMLR96
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Since all these three matters arise out of the same set of facts and a common impugned Judgment, we are disposing them off by one Judgment.2. Three persons namely Baban alias Shankar Udaysingh Rajput alias Shikalgar, Anil Govind Shinde alias Shikalgar and Mukund Govind Shinde alias Shikalgar were charged by the Joint District and Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions Case No. 253 of 1998 for offences punishable under section 120-B I.P.C., 302 r/w section 120-B I.P.C., 302 r/w section 34 I.P.C.. 201 r/w section 120-B I.P.C. and 201 r/w section 34 I.P.C.. In addition, Baban and Anil were charged under section 302 I.P.C., 341 r/w section 120-B I.P.C. and sections 37(1) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The learned Trial Judge vide his Judgment dated 15.9.1999 found all of them guilty for the offences punishable under sections 120-B I.P.C., 302 r/w section 120-B I.P.C. and 341 r/w section 120-B I.P.C., For the offence under section 302 r/w section 120-B I.P.C., ...
Sarangdhar Rajaram Tembhikar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ525
R.K. Batta, J.1. The appellant along with six others was tried for murder of his wife by burning her. They were also tried for subjecting the deceased Mangala to cruelty etc. under Section 498-A of I.P.C. All the other accused were acquitted of both the charges and the appellant was also acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A of I.P.C. However, the appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife Mangala under Section 302 of I.P.C. and he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The appellant challenges his conviction and sentence imposed under Section 302 of I.P.C.2. The prosecution had examined 5 witnesses in support of the charge. The plea taken by the appellant is alibi and to establish the same three defence witnesses were examined. The trial Court has disbelieved the defence and found that the Dying Declaration was truthful, reliable and inspired confidence.3. The learned Advocate for the appellant urged before us that it is admitted by Dr. P.W. 2 Milind that the dec...
Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. New Bharat Engg. Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT840Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether a turning lathe is a machine tool or not. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Collector (Appeals) has held a CNC turning lathe to be entitled to the benefit of exemption contained in 253/88. The appeal questions this view on the ground that turning lathe is not a machine tool.2. We have heard the departmental representative. The respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice.3. The appeal proceeds on the assumption that lathe is not a tool but a machine. A machine tool is defined in the McGraw Hill Dictionary of Science and Technology as "a stationery power-driven machine in the shaping, cutting, turning, pouring, drilling, grinding or polishing of solid parts especially metal". The appeal itself admits that the lathe is used for removing the metal. A lathe is thus obviously a machine tool.4. The view that a lathe is a machine and therefore not a tool ignores the distinction between machine tools, which are power ...
indo Burma Trading Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT166Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applications are for waiver of deposit of penalties of Rs. 3.50 lacs on Indo Burma Trading Company and Rs. 35,000/- on Omprakash Khemka, its office Superintendent.3. The penalties have been imposed under Section 114 of the Act on the finding of the Commissioner that the toothpaste exported by the applicant was highly over valued. Prima facie the provisions of Section 114 of the Act will not apply in case of export goods which are not dutiable or prohibited, as is the case of the toothpaste. Further, the Commissioner himself agrees in his order that there was no undue benefit to be obtained by over valuing the goods; The applicant company had not availed of the DEEC Scheme, or other such benefits, and the goods were not exported under the claim of drawback. In these circumstances, where there is no wrongful gain at anybody's advantage, we do not prima facie see justification for any penalty, even assuming that penalty was imposable. Accordingly, we waive deposit of the penalties...
Favourite Food Products Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT131Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the goods described as "poha" manufactured by the appellant. The Collector whose order is impugned before us has held that these are processed foods classifiable under heading 19.04 of the tariff.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We therefore read the submissions made in the memorandum of appeal and heard the departmental representative.3. The goods under consideration are 'poha' (or pauva) manufactured out of maize, rice and wheat. The notice issued to the appellant, which has been confirmed in the impugned order, proposed classification of the 'poha' under heading 19.04 on the ground that it was manufactured by swelling or roasting and was put up in container ordinarily intended for sale. It therefore contended that the ingredients for classification under this heading were fulfilled. It was the appellant's case that the manufacturing process does not involve of swelling or roasting ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »