Mumbai Court February 2000 Judgments
S.S. Industries Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2000
Reported in: (2000)(93)LC359Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 50,867/- demanded on the ground that applicant ought to have cleared goods without payment of duty under notification 1/93 and therefore was not entitled to take modvat credit of the inputs, which it used in the clearance of such finished product, which it cleared on payment of duty.2. Advocate for the applicant cites the decision of the Tribunal in Everest Converters v. CCE 1995 (80) ELT 95 : 1995 (60) ECR 670 (T) in support, while the departmental representative contends that the ratio of the decision, that the assessee has right to pay duty even if the goods are exempted, requires reconsideration.3. We have at this stage to make a distinction between an unconditional exemption and those of conditional exemption, as notification 1/93 is, the assessee himself has reason to believe rightly or wrongly that he does not satisfy the terms of the exemption and therefore he choose not to avail of. On this prima facie understanding o...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Skypak Couriers (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2000
Reported in: (2001)78ITD141(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the ld.CIT(A) dated 17-1-1994 arising out of order passed under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 1-3-1993. The only ground raised in the appeal reads as follows : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in directing to compute profit under section 115J by adopting Hybrid system of accounting overlooking the fact that the provisions of section 115J are special in nature and the income under this provision is to be computed under sub-section I-A of 115J of the Companies Act" (sic).The ground, as is evident, is not properly worded. To put it simply, the controversy is whether can the assessee adopt a method of accounting different than the one followed by it on the basis of which the books are actually maintained to determine profits under section 115J of the Act. The assessment year with which we are concerned is a transitional year, the previous year compris...
Tag this Judgment!Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Pune Helium India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR707; (2000)3BOMLR870
ORDERB.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This is an appeal directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 13th October, 1995 dismissing the petition of the appellants under section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter called 'Act').2. The facts leading to the present appeal, shortly stated, are as under :-The appellant is an authority constituted under the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 whose main function is to carry out development of petroleum resources, production and sale of petroleum and petroleum products. The respondent is an Indian Company which is engaged in the supply of chemicals and pure Helium. On 2nd May, 1989 the appellant published a notice inviting tenders for supply of pure Helium gas. On 14th June, 1989, the interested tenderers, including the respondents, submitted their technical bids. Similarly, on 11th October, 1989 price bids were submitted by all the tenderers including the respondents. The price bids were opened on 23rd November...
Tag this Judgment!Air India Limited Vs. P.K. Upadhyay and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR72; [2000(85)FLR827]; (2000)IILLJ267Bom
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner-Air India Limited, has filed the present petition to impugn the order dated November 20, 1998 passed by the National Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai. By the said order the Tribunal, refused permission to the petitioners for the action of dismissal imposed on the respondent pursuant to the domestic inquiry. The Tribunal whilst refusing to grant approval held that the inquiries were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play and secondly that the respondent No. 1 was not paid subsistence wages in accordance with the practice prevailing in the petitioner's management as set out in letter dated October 22, 1991 from the Industrial Section to Assistant Accounts Officer.2. Before I proceed to dispose of the petition and consider the contentions as advanced on behalf of the petitioners, it would be gainful to refer to some relevant facts to the extent that they are necessary for the purpose of disposal of the present Petition. Two e...
Tag this Judgment!Western India Oil Distributing Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: (2001)77ITD548(Mum.)
1. As these two appeals involve common points, they were heard together and are disposed of by this "common order.2. This appeal is directed against the order of the CIT passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act dated 14-12-1990 for the assessment year 1987-88.3. The ground taken is that the CIT erred in taking action under section 263 for the assessment year 1987-88 and in giving direction to withdraw the deduction for the enhanced amount of rent which is disputed by the assessee in the Court.4. The assessment for the assessment year 1987-88 had been completed by the Assessing Officer vide his order dated 7-9-1988 in which he allowed the claim for the deduction in respect of rent of Rs. 8,35,061 which included the enhanced rent claimed by Bombay Port Trust and Northern Railway from the assessee of Rs. 6,20,728 as per the following details :-- The assessee had been a lessee of certain land belonging to Bombay Port Trust and Northern Railway and it put up some oil storage tanks on...
Tag this Judgment!Central Bank of India Vs. Hathibhai Bulakhidas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR6
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Advocates for the appellant, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3.2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were the original plaintiffs before the City Civil Court who filed a suit mainly against the present appellant/Central Bank of India (The parties are, hereinafter, referred to as the plaintiffs arid defendants) for recovering a sum of Rs. 10450/- with interest on the principal amount of Rs. 10,000/-. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was as follows : -The plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 were the partnership firm carrying on their business as merchants and commission agents at Bombay and Palanpur respectively. The plaintiff No. 2 in the course of their dealings purchased a demand draft for the sum of Rs. 10.000/- from the Palanpur Branch of Dena Bank, the defendant No. 2 in the suit. On the same day this draft was despatched by ordinary course to the plaintiff No. 1 and simultaneously plaintiff No. 1 was informed that the draft has been so despatched. It appears tha...
Tag this Judgment!Mahavir Butyl Rubber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC583
1. Applicant has sought for the waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 3,85,320 and penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 and for the stay of recovery of the same.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant manufactures rubber tubes classified under chapter 40 of the Tariff Act and it is a SSI tiny unit in backward area. On 14.11.1995 on a surprise visit made by the Inspector of Central Excise, Nanded, on an inspection, observed that statutory records were not maintained from 11.10.1995. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Nanded visited on 15.11.1995 and conducted a stock taking of finished goods and raw materials, and found shortage and excess of both category of above goods and issued a show-cause notice dated 3.1.1996 to show cause to the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise. Aurangabad as to why exemption under Notification 1 /93 dated 28.2.1993 should not be denied, why Central Excise duty of Rs. 5,14,099 should not be recovered and that the seized goods and finished ra...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Khushalrao Dabhade Vs. Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR545; (2001)1BOMLR339; 2000(4)MhLj609
V. K. Barde, J.1. The case of the petitioner is as follows.2. He was appointed as Driver in Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, as per the appointment letter dated 28.8.1984 after conducting interview and other formalities. Along with him, other 24 candidates were appointed as Drivers. He resumed duty on 31.8.1984 at Primary Health Centre, Shivoor, taluka Vaijapur. The appointment was for the period of one year and it stood terminated after the expiry of the period. But, then again, he was appointed for one more year with effect from 1.9.1985.3. A circular was issued by the District Health Officer - respondent No. 3 - on 23/27.1.1986 and all the officers and other employees of the Zilla Parishad were prohibited from driving the vehicles of Zilla Parishad either in the absence of the drivers or in the presence of the drivers. The drivers were also directed that they should not allow any officer or any other employee of the Zilla Parishad to drive the vehicle without prior permission; and it was...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Giridhar H. Pednekar Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR241; 2000(3)BomCR176; (2000)1BOMLR772; 2000(3)MhLj393
ORDERN.J. Pandya, A.C.J. 1. The petitioner faced charges on three counts as per page 50. At the end of the enquiry he is exonerated for two and he was held guilty in respect of one charge. He was awarded punishment of withholding two increments with future effect. He carried the matter in appealand the appellate authority reduced the punishment for the reasons set out in the order. Exh.H. page 108 onwards. 2. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working as store keeper with the respondent Municipal Corporation. The charge that was proved against him was with regard to indenting certain items of wood in excessive quantity, selecting only those which were at the higher rate. These items are at Nos. 4, 5, 8, 12 and 15 in the schedule of the contract for which there were approved contractors. 3. Suspecting that this has been done deliberately with ulterior motive, the enquiry was gone into and according to the Enquiry Officer this charge was proved. 4. The appellate authority at pages ...
Tag this Judgment!Sadashivrao S/O Gopal Dhamankar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR190; 2000(2)MhLj233
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. With consent petition taken up for final hearing forthwith. 4. The petitioner presently holds the post of President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmednagar (District Forum for short) and he came to be appointed in the said post on 8-1-97. By order dated 4-12-98, he was transferred from Sholapur to Ahmednagar and by the impugned order dated 6-1-2000 he has been transferred from Ahmednagar to Sangli and the respondent No. 3 has been transferred from Sangli to Ahmednagar. It is required to be noted at this stage that the petitioner was enrolled as member of the Sholapur District Bar, whereas, the respondent No. 3 was enrolled as member of the Ahmednagar District Bar and both of them were practising at the respective district headquarters prior to their appointments. It is contended that the impugned order has been issued with mala fide intentions and only to accommodate respondent No. 3 who is a resident of Ahmednagar District....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »