Mumbai Court June 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.
Mr. Ashok Vadilal Shah and Smt. Smita Ashok Vadilal Shah Vs. Shri Jaya ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR391
R.M. Lodha, J.1. By means of this revision application, the petitioner seeks to challenge the two orders passed by the Competent Authority on 22.7.97. On that day, the Competent Authority first rejected the application made by the present petitioner for leave to defend the application for eviction and the condonation of delay and then by a separate order passed an order of eviction under Section 13A(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision application may be thus narrated. The respondent No. 1 herein (to be referred as original applicant for the sake of convenience) made an application for eviction against one Mr. Bhikalal Sundarji Vakaria (for the sake of convenience to be referred as original respondent No. 1 hereinafter) and the present petitioners Ashok Vadilal Shah and Smt. Smita Ashok Vadilal Shah (hereinafter to be referred as original respondent No. 2) before the Competent Authority Konk...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Equity Bearing P. Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC361
1. These two applications sought stay of the operation of the Commissioner (Appeals)' order. The respondents were not present but had sent submissions seeking disposal. On perusal of the proceedings it appeared that the issue being short, the appeals themselves could be taken up for disposal. This was done after hearing Shri Choubey, JDR for the appellant Commissioner.2. The Asstt. Commissioner in the impugned order had confiscated goods valued at Rs. 1,50,000 which were fully finished which goods had not been entered either the statutory registers or private registers. He had imposed penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs on the assessee unit and of Rs. two lakhs on Shri Sandip Damani, Director thereof. Against this order, the aggrieved persons filed the appeals. The Commissioner (Appeals) made the following observations: I find that in the present case the goods have been seized and subsequently confiscated only for the reason that the appellants did not account for the excisable final product in t...
Tata Libert Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT474Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant manufactures what is known as uninterrupted power supply (UPS for short). It is not disputed that depending upon nature of the use UPS may require a battery or can function without it.2. We are told that the UPS performs various functions, some of them relating to providing constant voltage, filtering out undesirable sergeants bites (sic) in the power supply. For these purposes battery is not required. However, a UPS, appropriately so called, also steps into the picture when the supply from the main power supply is interrupted and thus continuous i.e., uninterrupted power supply so that the goods, material or any information under process is not lost as a result of the disruption in power supply.3. The appellant in some cases supplied the UPS equipped with the battery, which provides power by itself in the event of breakdown and in some other cases supplied UPS without the battery. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether, in those cases where the batt...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Feroz Carpets Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC800
1. These are four appeals filed by the Department against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) dated 31-1-1994.2. I have heard Shri K.M. Patwari, ld. DR for the appellant Commissioner and Shri R.S. Rao and P.K. Shetty, advocates for the respondents.3. The Departments' case is that the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Collector directing confiscation of certain quantities of dyes and chemicals imported by M/s. Feroz Carpet Industries in contravention of the Import Control Restrictions and imposition of penalties on the respondents had been erroneously set aside by the Collector (Appeals) by the impugned order. The prayer is for upholding the Order-in-Original and for setting aside the Order-in-Appeal.4. Brief facts are that Show Cause Notice issued to the four appellants, among others, asked them to show cause why various types of dyes (imported under Bill of Entry No. 2297, dated 26-10-1990) which were seized on 22-4-1991 should not be confiscated under Section 111...
Jainul H. Tinwala Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. (Appeals)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC156
1. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the confiscation of 10 gold 'lagadies' and 75 gold guineas of foreign origin under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. A personal penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was also confirmed against the present appellant Shri J.H. Tinwala.2. I have heard Shri Mayur Shroff, ld. advocate for the appellants and Shri K.M. Patwari, ld DR for the Department.3. The Departmental officers on the basis of information received by them searched the business premises of one Shri Jaferbhai Daginawala at Surat on 5-4-91. In the course of the search a bag containing 10 gold bars was recovered from the right side pocket of the jeans worn by the present appellant Shri J.H. Tinwala, an employee of Jaferbhai Daginawala. It is stated that Shri Tinwala also tried to run away from the scene. Shri Tinwala disclaimed the ownership of the said 10 gold bars and stated that it belonged to his employer, Shri Jaferbhai Daginawala who was present at the time of reco...
J.i. Gandhi Silk Mills Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC811
1. This batch of application relates to same number of appeals arising out of the same impugned order. These are, therefore, being disposed of together by this common order.2. We have heard Shri Willingdon Christian appearing alongwith Shri Mayur Shroff, Advocates for the applicants. We have also heard Shri Deepak Kumar, SDR for the department.3. On 30/31.3.98, the Officers of the Central Excise searched the premises of M/s. J.I. Gandhi Silk Mills and also the premises of their employees and traders who had sent grey fabrics to them for processing.Certain incriminating documents were seized. Statements of the concerned persons were recorded. At the end of the investigations, show cause notice was issued alleging evasion of duty and proposing penalties on concerned persons. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I, after hearing the concerned persons passed the order now impugned before us. In this order, he confirmed duty amounting to Rs. 86,92,118 leviable on the fabrics clandesti...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Pepsico India Holding Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT798Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The instant Reference application has been filed against the order passed on 16.02.99 and issued on 18.02.99, whereunder the Tribunal had directed waiver of deposit of duty demanded and penalty imposed.Surprisingly, the reference application has been filed under Sec.35G(1) of the Central Excise Act. The said provision inter alia provides that the Collector of Central Excise may within 60 days upon which he served a notice under Sec. 35C of the Act may file an application requiring the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of the said order. Sec. 35C of the Act provides inter alia that Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit.2. From the perusal of the two provisions of Central Excise Act viz.Sec. 35C and Sec. 35G it will be clear that the Reference application can be filed only against final orders passed by the Tribunal. In the instant case, the Re...
Shri Jagannath Naik, Since Deceased Through His Heirs and Legal Repres ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR743
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 15th January, 1999 passed in writ petition No. 431 of 1998 by a learnedSingle Judge of this Court. The petition was preferred against the order of the Administrative Tribunal, Goa, Panaji, in Miscellaneous Revision Application No. 16 of 1994. The Administrative Tribunal by its judgment dated 31st January, 1997 had quashed and set aside the order of the third respondent. The third respondent in an appeal before him had allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the second respondent. The second respondent had dismissed the application for declaration of mundkarship by the original applicant now represented by his legal representatives who are the appellants. The Administrative Tribunal while disposing of the petition held that the applicant had failed to establish that the applicant was residing with a fixed habitation, which is one of the requirements for a person to be declared as a mundkar.2. At the hea...
Shri Manmal Hirachand Kothari Since Deceased, Through His Legal Heirs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR793; (2000)2BOMLR729; 2000(4)MhLj451
ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Appellate Court in awarding compensation to the respondent at the rate of 50% of Rs. 69,282.50 Ps. for unauthorized retention of advances till 15-1-1976. Brief facts leading to the present petition are that dispute was filed by the respondent society against the petitioner who was its member. The petitioner is said to be a contractor and was provided advances for transport by the respondent society. According to the respondent society, the petitioner was liable to pay certain amounts under different heads for a total sum of Rs. 3,65,757.35 Ps. Consequently, notice was given to the petitioner by the respondent society on 4-6-1975. Since the amount was not tendered, the respondent society filed a dispute before the Co-operative Court, Pune, for recovery of the said amount. The petitioner appeared in the said dispute and filed written statement. The petitioner...
Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2000
Reported in: (2000)74ITD369(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 27th January, 1997, and pertains to the financial year 1992-93. The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal revolves around the order passed by the ITO, TDS, Thane, under s. 201 of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), whereby a demand of Rs. 2,49,305 has been raised against the assessee, being short deduction of tax at source from salaries of certain employees.2. The assessee is a public limited company carrying on business of manufacturing cement. For the asst. yr. 1993-94 i.e. during the financial year 1992-93 the assessee had paid salaries to its employees and had deducted tax at source on the basis of estimated incomes of the respective employees. Survey operations were carried out under s. 113A of the Act on 5th December, 1994, at the business premises of the assessee. In the course of survey proceedings, it was observed that the assessee had allowed exemption of Leave Travel Allowance (LTA for sh...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »