Mumbai Court February 2000 Judgments

Futarmal B. Mehta and ors. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC586

1. These five applications relate to five appeals arising out of the same impugned order. These applications are, therefore, being disposed of vide this common order.2. M/s. National Torch & Tubes manufactured aluminium cans. For making such cans they made intermediate product called slugs. Shri A.V.Phadnis, advocate appearing with Shri G.C. Biradar, advocate for M/s.National Torch & Tubes, informed us that these slugs were punched out of aluminium sheets. S.G. Lakhotia was power of attorney holder and also the main functionary in the business of M/s. National Torch & Tubes. The assessees were taking credit of the duty paid on the input namely sheets. It is the claim of the department that for making such slugs the assessees could use only those sheets which were of thickness of 2.5 mm and more. This assumption was confirmed by Shivcharan S.Bansodia, supervisor as also S.G. Lakhotia. The investigations resulted in the finding that what was purchased by the assessee company...

Johnson and Johnson Exports (i) Vs. Commr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)LC119Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The present appeal has been filed against the decision of Collector of Customs, Bombay made in Order-in-Original CAO No. 20/95 CAC dated 31-1-1995 where the adjudicating authority recovered drawback amount of Rs. 1,07,563/- erroneously paid to the appellants due to misdeclaration of the goods exported under the Shipping Bill No. 126507 dated 11-10-1993. The Collector also denied the drawback to the tune of Rs. 62,055/-.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed a Shipping Bill No. 47689 dated 20-4-1994 for export of a consignment declared to be American Poros Plaster (Surgicals) under claim for drawback under Heading 1208 of Drawback Schedule 1993-94 at 3% FOB. On examination of the goods, it appeared that they were not surgical dressings as declared by the exporters. It was observed that on the related AR 4 the goods were originally declared as Capsicum plaster but the same was changed to American Poros Plaster. The changed description of the AR 4 and the addition of...

Churchil Alemao Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT638Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Today, when the hearing in these appeals was resumed, Shri M.I.Sethana, Sr. Counsel appearing for the Revenue sought permission to produce two affidavits; one filed by Shri Costao Fernandes and the other filed by the Officer presently working as Asstt. Commissioner, Customs, Coa with the prayer that these affidavits be taken on record.He placed on record a number of judgments justifying the prayer.2. Shri Pochkhanwala, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants along with Shri Saklecha, Advocate advanced arguments opposing the submission of the affidavits by citing substantial case laws.3. We have perused the citations made by both the sides. We have gone through the affidavits sought to be filed and have also perused Rule 23 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.4. During the arguments, the ld. Counsel for the appellants had repeatedly raised the point that no gold was ever found in the entire proceedings. The affidavit of Shri Costao Fernandes sought to be filed seeks to make an...

Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Ms. M.N. Palia

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)78ITD206(Mum.)

1. This is an appeal preferred by the revenue and is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 26-11-1995 for assessment year 1993-94.The only issue involved in this appeal is against the deletion or addition of Rs. 1,30,330 made by the Assessing Officer on account of capita! gain holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 54F.2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had sold 150 shares of C.J. Ltd. in June 1992 which were purchased by him prior to the year 1981 and sold for a consideration of Rs. 2,07,375 and the assessee claimed exemption under the provisions of section 54F on account of the amount invested by the assessee upto 15th October, 1992 towards construction of residential premises at Mawal Village. The details of amount invested towards the construction of said residential premises as recorded in Assessment Order at page 2 are re-produced below: (i) Estimated expenditure on insurance and taxes on motor cars depreciation as well as ex...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. M.N. Palia

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue and is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 26th Nov., 1995, for asst. yr. 1993-94. The only issue involved in this appeal is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 1,30,330 made by the AO on account of capital gain holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 54F.2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had sold 150 shares of C.J. Ltd. in June, 1992, which were purchased by him prior to the year 1981 and sold for a consideration of Rs. 2,07,375 and the assessee claimed exemption under the provisions of Section 54F on account of the amount invested by the assessee upto 15th Oct., 1992, towards construction of residential premises at Mawal Village. The details of amount invested towards the construction of said residential premises as recorded in assessment order at p. 2 are reproduced below ; The AO disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee under the provisions of Section 54F by giving the r...

Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha Vs. Smt. Manharbala Jeram Damodar and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR1; 2000(3)BomCR512

ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. Heard at length.The petitioner has approached this Court in writ jurisdiction alleging that a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India under Article 228 and to hold that section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') which was amended by Maharashtra Act No. XIX of 1976 to the extent it confers jurisdiction upon the Small Causes Court to entertain and try the suit relating to recovery of possession of building or part of it given on leave and licence as void. Consequent thereto the petitioner seeks that this Court hear the appeal and set aside the eviction decree dated 7-2-1997 passed in L.E. & C. Suit No. 430/583 of 1978 by Small Causes Court at Bombay.2. The eviction suit was filed in the year 1978 by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and one Jeram Damodar Kotecha for recovery of possession of flat No. 6, Ram Mahal, Dinsha Vaccha Road, Mumbai, under section 41 of the said Act....

Sanjay Chandrakant Mehta Vs. Malaben Sanjay Mehta

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR781; 2000(4)BomCR207; 2000(4)MhLj244

ORDERJ.A. Patil, J. 1. The appellant herein is the original petitioner who had filed a petition of divorce against the respondent-wife on the ground of cruelty. The said petition being Petition No. A-599/93 was, however, dismissed by the Family Court, Mumbai. Hence this appeal.2. In short it is the case of the appellant that he was married to the respondent on 22-4-1992 at Mumbai as per the Hindu Vedic rites and that after the marriage both of them lived together in their matrimonial home till 5-8-1992. According to the appellant during the said period the respondent treated him with cruelty and finally left the matrimonial house on 5-8-1992.3. The respondent denied the allegation of cruelty made against her and alleged contrary that the appellant and his mother had adopted a hostile attitude towards her and that both of them subjected her to harassment. The learned Judge of the Family Court upon consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prov...

Govind K. Popley Vs. G.M. Kini, First Income-tax Officer and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001]250ITR613(Bom)

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard advocates for the petitioner and the respondents. A. P. P. for the State/respondent present.2. The petitioner was prosecuted by the respondents under Sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Section 279(1) of the Income-tax Act on the ground that the petitioner has committed a default of concealing his income by making false entries and statements, etc., by undervaluing the closing stock for the assessment year 1979-80. The accused/petitioner filed an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate on the ground that the basis of the complaint is not in existence in view of the findings given by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by his order dated March 11, 1991. The Commissioner of Income-tax has given a finding in the said order that there is no concealment and, secondly, there is no discrepancy in the quantum of closing stock since the applicant is following a particular method of valuation of stock. However, the magistrate reject...

P.M. More Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribuna ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2000(87)FLR228]; (2001)IIILLJ689Bom

R.M. Lodha, J.1. Through this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the employee who has been refused reinstatement with consequential reliefs by Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 Mumbai in Reference No. CGIT-1/30 of 1993 seeks to challenge the legality and correctness of the award passed by the Tribunal on August 16, 1996.2. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the workman) has set out the following relevant facts in the writ petition.The workman was employed by Shipping Corporation of India - respondent No. 2 herein (for short 'the employer') in the capacity of dock clerk to transact the business of the employer in the Port of Mumbai with effect from August 23, 1986 along with 10 other workmen. The employer terminated the services of these 11 workmen including the present workman with effect from November 23, 1988. All the 11 workmen who were terminated by the employer demanded reinstatement through their union. The matter formally went ...

Sou. Mangala Suresh Kanase Vs. Suresh Dadu Kanase and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2000)DMC527

Ranjana Desai, J.1. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the judgment and order dated 16.10.1991 passed by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1990 whereby, the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the revision filed by respondent No. 1 and dismissed the maintenance application filed by the petitioner.2. Before I deal with the merits of the case, a very disturbing aspect of this case needs to be noted. By my order dated 14.1.2000, I had called for record and proceedings because for proper appreciation of the arguments of the learned Counsel it was necessary to peruse certain exhibits. The farad indicates that for compliance of my direction message was communicated to the office of the Sessions Judge, Kolhapur. On 20.1.2000 merely the pleadings of the parties were received. The exhibits filed in the Court were not received. The Registrar was, therefore, directed by me to make further enquiry. The enquiri...