Mumbai Court December 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.
Classic Stripes Private Limited Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2000
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT281Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in these two appeals is the classification of what the manufacturer described as "printed trade advertising material". The appeal by the manufacturer M/s. Classic Stripes Pvt. Ltd., is against the demand for duty on these goods, on the ground that they are classifiable under Heading 94.05 of the Tariff, and not, as claimed by the manufacturer, under Heading 49.01.Penalties have also been imposed on the manufacturer and its director, Kishore Musale, who is the other appellant.2. The goods in question consist of sheets of vinyl printed on them, generally, a picture, and a slogan. The goods are used to advertise material. We were shown an example of such a product, which is an advertisement for a brand of coffee containing a picture of a man and a woman drinking from cups, and a few words praising its taste. It was explained that such a sheet is placed in a frame made of metal on three sides, the sheet being placed in the open front. It is illuminated fr...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2000
Reported in: [2002]253ITR534(Bom)
Smt. Pratibha Upasani, J. 1. All these appeals can be disposed of by a common order as the facts and questions of law involved in all these tax appeals are common.2. All these tax appeals are directed against a common judgment and order dated June 7, 1989, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (I.T.A.T.), Pune Bench, Pune. The block assessment period relevant is the period from April 1, 1986, to October 18, 1996. A few facts which are required to be stated are as follows :A search under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was conducted at the residential premises of the assessee at 'Thirtharupa', Aquem, Margao, Goa, from October, 1996, onwards. During the search operation, certain valuables were found which belonged to the assessee and his family members. In response to the notice issued under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, the assessee filed a return showing income of Rs. 11,05,374. Against this income, the assessment was completed at Rs. 44,20,643, vide order dated D...
Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Sangli Vs. B.B. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR515; (2001)2BOMLR923; 2001(1)MhLj871
V.C. Daga, J. 1. Rule, Returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent revision application is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 2. The main question falls for determination in the present revision application is as under : whether dismissal of appeal against the ex-parte decree on the ground that the appeal is barred by limitation attracts the provisions contained in Explanation-11 of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) and creates bar to the maintainability of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. for setting aside ex-parte decree? FACTS-IN-BRIEF 3. The facts and circumstances giving vise to the aforesaid question are as under : The petitioners/plaintiffs filed special civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli against the respondents/defendants for payment of damages in the sum of Rs. 32,35,879/- with interest thereon at the rate of 18% from the date of notice till the date of its realisation. The said suit came ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Rathi Rubber Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2000
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT58Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification in the Central Excise tariff of the "sensing element" manufactured by the respondent. It claimed classification under heading 4009.99, which covers tubes and pipes or hose of vulcanised rubber, other than hard rubber. The department was of the view that the goods should be classified under heading 4016, which is for other article for vulcanised rubber other than hard rubber. Both the Assistant Collector and the Commissioner (Appeals) have upheld the classification claimed by the manufacturer in this appeal by the department.2. We have heard the departmental representative. The respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice.3. In our judgment, the department's claim requires acceptance. The claim is that heading 40.09 will only apply to tubes, pipes and hose of vulcanised rubber. The essential feature of tube, pipe of hose is that it is made for conveying liquids or gases. The product under consideration is c...
Essar Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2000
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT213Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These five appeals are by Essar Steel Limited. Appeal 3885/99 is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Surat, and the other four appeals are against the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Vadodara disposing of two appeals before him.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of hot briquetted iron and hot rolled steel coils in its mill at Hazira in Gujarat. In order to obtain the electricity required for running the steel mill, the appellant set up a subsidiary company M/s. Essar Power Limited (EPL for short), adjacent to the steel mill. The entire electricity generated by EPL is transmitted through the steel plant; some of it is utilised in the steel plant, the remaining being transmitted to the grid of the Gujarat State Electricity Board. EPL generated the electricity by means of turbines, which were fuelled by Natural Gasoline Liquid (NGL for short) and naphtha, purchased and supplied by the appellant. The appellant had declared the NGL as input under Rule 57G. It ha...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nima Specific Family Trust
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR314; (2001)165CTR(Bom)518; [2001]248ITR29(Bom)
S. H. Kapadia, J. 1. The following question of law has been raised by the department in this Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act : Whether the assessee was entitled to claim 40% of the profit as deduction (20% under section 80HH and 20% under section 80-I) even though section 80-HH(9) provides that deduction under section 80-HH shall be given first, followed by deduction under section 80-I? 2. The facts giving rise to this Appeal are as follows. The assessee is a Specific Family Trust, carrying on proprietary business in the name and style of Nirma Detergent in Gujarat. It is assessable to tax under Section 161(1A) of the Income Tax Act. In this Appeal, we are concerned with the assessment year 1988-1989 relevant to the accounting year ending 31st December. 1987. The A. O. allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80-I at 20% of the total income and on the balance income, the A. O. granted deduction under section 80-HH at 20%. Being aggrieved by the Order...
PravIn Rajaram Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)921; 2001(5)BomCR462
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 11-9-1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions Case No. 238 of 1995 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to suffer two years R.I. for the offence under section 302 I.P.C.Shortly stated the prosecution case runs as under :-The deceased Vikas Sathe was the cousin of the informant Janardhan Sathe P.W. 2. At the time of the incident, both of them resided in Mhangwada of village Wategaon, Taluka Walwa Police Station Kasegaon, District Sangli and the appellant resided in Wategaon.On 26-9-1995 at 7.45 p.m. the appellant came on a jeep which he parked in front of Bajrang Restaurant in the square of S.T. stand, Wategaon. Thereafter, he came to bhellgadi of Yeshwant Sathe P.W. 5 which was located in the square of S.T. stand. An electric tube was lit in the said bhellgadi. At that time, the decease...
TexpIn Engineering and Manufacturing Works Vs. Joint Commissioner of I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2000
Reported in: (2001)70TTJ(Mumbai)789
ORDERR.V. Easwar, J.M.The first question that arises in this appeal is whether the assessee is liable to capital gains tax under section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act.2. The assessee is a partnership firm consisting of seven partners. It was engaged in the manufacture of ball and roller bearings. It applied under Part IX of the Companies Act, 1956, for becoming a joint-stock company under the said Act. A balance sheet was prepared showing the assets and liabilities of the firm as on 7-11-1995. There was no revaluation of any of the assets and the liabilities of the firm. After its application was accepted by the authorities under the Companies Act, the partners of the erstwhile firm were allotted shares equal to their respective capitals and became shareholders of the joint-stock company. There were no other shareholders. A certificate of incorporation was issued to the company by the Registrar of Companies on 8-11-1995, certifying that the company has been incorporated effective from th...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Icpa Health Products Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT207Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals involve common facts and are therefore being dealt with in this single order.2. M/s. ICPA Health Products Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called as "the assessees") manufactured "moyzen liquid" claiming classification thereof under heading 3303 and also claiming the benefit of Notification 167/86-C.E. which exempted products falling under certain tariff heading alone from payment of duty when manufactured without the aid of power. Three show cause notices were issued on 27-2-1998, 24-8-1998 and 24-11-1998 covering the period November, 1997 to September, 1998 alleging that the classification warranted was under Heading 3304 and alleging short levy of duty totally amounting to Rs. 2,98,292.15 on that ground. The Assistant Commissioner upheld the allegations, confirmed the duty and imposed penalty of Rs. 30,000/- on the assessees. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the assessees' contention that the goods were toilet water, set aside the lower order and allowed the appeal. A...
Ghevarchand Chunilal JaIn Vs. Collector of Cus. (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT687Tri(Mum.)bai
2. One person by the name Hussain Ahmed was caught carrying contraband gold at the Mumbai Airport on 2-4-1993. He was arrested, was enlarged on bail, jumped bail and disappeared. On 23-7-1993 he was once again arrested smuggling gold at Mumbai Airport. Although he had given his name as Shahjahan, he was identified as Hussain Ahmed. After his extensive investigations show cause notice was issued to him and several other persons who had allegedly aided and abetted him in the carriage etc. of smuggled gold. One of the noticees was Ghevarchand C.Jain, the present appellant.3. Hussain Ahmed had certain bank accounts. A pay order was issued from this account which was credited to the account of M/s. B.S. & Co. The later account was opened on introduction by one Mahendra Kumar Shah.One Harakchand M. Jain had acted as an intermediary for opening of the account. One Mafatlal M. Mehta had given him the pay order which he arranged to get encashed. Mafatlal Mehta claimed that he had got the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »