Mumbai Court April 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.
Geoffrey Manners and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC653
1. When this case was called out, the appellants were not present in spite of notice. On the last two occasions also they were not present or represented. We therefore proceed to decide this issue on merits.2. The appellants manufactured goods falling under Chapter 32 and 33 of the CETA. Various price lists were approved provisionally permitting reductions on account of discounts etc. subject to the certification by the Chartered Accountant of the actual discounts made. Two show cause notices were issued seeking to disallow gifts given by the assessees to their dealers. These gifts were comprising of goods manufactured as well as those not manufactured by them. The Assistant Collector disallowed the quantity discounts and confirmed duty totally amount to Rs. 7,98,760.90. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the order. Hence the present appeal.3. We have heard Shri V.K. Choubey for the revenue and have seen the various contentions made in the appeal memorandum by the assessees.4. The Bombay ...
Morarjee Goculdas Spg Wvg. Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC41
1. These three applications are for waiver of deposit ordered in three orders of the Commissioner.2. The demand in application (2823/99) for Rs. 91,205 and Rs. 10,000 towards penalty is issued on the ground that duty was liable on double yarn during the period 1.3.1994 to 24.4.1994. We prima facie find considerable merits in the contention of the advocate for the applicant that during this period doubling was not deemed to be manufacture by Notes to the relevant chapter, and such deeming provision was only introduced on 16.3.1995. The goods in question have been cleared in 1994. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Banswara Syntex v. CCE that doubling does not amount to manufacture would prima facie apply. Hence we find a strong prima facie in favour of the applicant.3. We also find a strong prima facie case in favour of the applicant in application 2103/99 (demanding duty of Rs. 1,07,643) on the ground that texturised trade samples cleared by the applicant not exceeding 50 centimetre...
North Star Ice Equipment Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT758Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the ISO containers imported by the appellant are capital goods as defined in the Import and Export Policy 1992-97 and therefore could be imported without an import licence. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Collector (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Deputy Collector that the goods are not capital goods and therefore liable to be confiscated under Clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act but reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 2.40 lacs to Rs. 1.20 lacs.2. Representative of the appellant contends that the containers were imported in order for the appellant to fabricate an ice making plant which was required to be supplied for use in a hydro-electric project.He says that the term "capital goods" as defined in the policy includes accessories and the containers are accessories of the ice plant, as they improve its efficiency.3. I do not find it possible to accept this contention entirely. The import policy for the ...
Commissioner of Customs and C. Ex. Vs. J.M. Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT756Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondent to this appeal by the Collector M/s. JM Industries, who was and still is engaged in breaking up of ships at Alang ship breaking yard. The respondent purchased in 1986 a ship MV Neo Neo. The ship was provisionally assessed to duty in March, 1986 and duty finally assessed in December, 1989. It appears that breaking up of the ship was also delayed due to litigation and commenced only after finalising assessment on 29-11-1989. The assessee said part of the duty on the scrap obtained from breaking up of the ship. The assessee utilised the additional duty of customs paid by it after final assessment of the ship towards payment of the excise duty on the scrap obtained by breaking up of the ship. Debit was made on 17-12-1989. The deli partment noted that Modvat declaration under rule 57G was made only on 18-12-1989 and concluded that credit was taken prior to the declaration, and hence not admissible. The Assistant Collector confirmed this view contained in the show cause no...
Ramesh Deshpande Vs. Punjab and Sindh Bank and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2000
Reported in: 2001BomCR(Cri)113; (2000)2BOMLR300
T. K. Chandrashekhara Das. J. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard both sides.1. This writ petition arises out of a complaint filed by the Respondent before the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court at Bsplanade, in Criminal Case No. 158/S/99) against the petitioner. The first respondent's case in short before the Metropolitan Magistrate is that the respondent No.2 (accused No. 1) has drawn a pay order dated 18.12.1992 for and on behalf of M/s. Poise Leasing and Finance Co. Ltd. payable to the respondent No. 1 for an amount of Rs. 48,40,000/-. According to the complainant the aforesaid pay order was issued by respondent No. 2 in discharge of the liability of M/s. Poise Leasing and Finance Co. Ltd.2. On receipt of the pay order the Punjab & Sindh Bank debited the amount covered by it to the account of M/s. Poise Leasing & Finance Co. Subsequently when the cheque was presented to the accused No. 1, it was not honoured. A Notice under section 138 has been sent to the accused, and even after 15 day...
Municipal Transport Workers Union Vs. the Commissioner, Kolhapur Munic ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR529; 2000(3)BomCR622
ORDERR. J. Kochar, J.1. Six individual employees had filed a complaint of unfair labour practices under section 28 read with Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule 4 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act. They had prayed for permanency in employment of the respondent Corporation as they were in employment from 27th November 1980 (three employees) 16th December 1980 (one employee) and 3rd January 1981 (two employees) respectively as averred in para 2 of the petition. This fact has not been disputed. It appears that the petitioner union being a recognised union had stepped in the shoes of the individual employees and had finally contested the matter on their behalf. The respondent Corporation had filed its reply and contested the case of the complainant and vehemently refuted the charge of unfair labour practice levelled against them. The main case of the employees was that they were in employment from the first date of appointment though on daily wages and continued inemployment since then without...
Smt. Suman Subhash Jagtap and Others Vs. M/S. Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR859; (2001)ILLJ186Bom
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The five individual employees have challenged an order dated 27-8-1992 passed by the Second Labour Court at Thane in an Application for interim relief. Instead of resorting the remedy such as appeal under section 84 or Revision under section 85 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, the petitioners have directly approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Labour Court had partly allowed their application for interim relief directing the respondent company to pay 75% of the last drawn wages to the applicants in Application (BIR) Nos. 4 to 8 of 1992 (present petitioners) from the date of the order till the decision of enquiry and in the alternative the company was directed to allow them to join their duties. It appears that during the pendency of the writ petition four of the five petitioners' main dispute have been settled out of Court. The learned Advocate for the respondent company has filed an affidavit which is taken on rec...
The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Shri ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR246; (2001)ILLJ319Bom
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is a statutory Corporation established under the Road Transport Act and is engaged in Transportation of passengers throughout the State of Maharashtra. It is plying buses within and without the State for the benefit and welfare of the public. The petitioner No. 2 is the head of the Pune Division under whom the respondent was employed as a Conductor from 1977.2. On 27-6-1982 the respondent was on duty on route Pune Depot to Pandharpur and return journey. It appears that while on his return journey on 28-6-1982 the Checking Squad inspected the bus and found that there was discrepancy in the way bills maintained by the respondent-conductor showing the account of sold and unsold tickets of different denomination. It was the report of the checking staff that the respondent Conductor had reissued the sold tickets and that cash was found short to the extent of Rs. 673.85 and further the entries of the sold tickets of the 14 denomination were also no...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D.S. Screens Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2000
Reported in: [2001]248ITR633(Bom)
1. The short point which arose for consideration before the Tribunal was : whether the assessee should be permitted to raise an additional ground of appeal ?2. In this matter, an order has been passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without any prior notice under Section 145(2) of the Act. Hence, the appellate authority permitted the assessee to raise the additional ground. No substantial question of law arises. Further, the additional ground relates to the point of jurisdiction. It is an important point. Hence, the Tribunal was right in allowing the assessee to raise the said ground as an additional ground. We do not see any reason to interfere.3. The appeal is dismissed....
Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Bom)486; [2000]245ITR677(Bom)
1. On April 3, 2000, atter hearing arguments at length, the following order is passed :'For reasons to follow subsequently, appeal stands rejected.'2. Accordingly, we now propose to give reasons.3. The short point which arises for consideration in this appeal under Section 260A in respect of the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1974-75 is as follows :'Whether prior to the introduction of Section 80AB by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1980 (with effect from April 1, 1981), the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80HH with reference to the assessee's income from the profits and gains derived from new industrial undertaking without making all the deductions under Sections 30 to 43A of the Act including the development rebate under Section 33 of the Act ?'4. The assessee is a company. In its assessment for the assessment year 1974-75, it claimed relief under Section 80AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), in respect of the profit of a new industrial undertakin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »