Mumbai Court June 2000 Judgments

Pandurang Ramchandra Jadhav (Gursale) Vs. Shri Uttaralaxmidevi Public ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR135; 2000(4)BomCR791

ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the trial Court dated 1-7-1986 below Exhibits, 63, 65, 72 and 97 in Regular CivilSuit No. 96 of 1977. The petitioner had preferred the aforesaid four applications seeking amendment of the written statement, for framing an additional issue, to refer the issue regarding tenancy to the tenancy Court, and to frame an issue regarding rent respectively. All these applications have been rejected by the trial Court by separate orders.2. During the course of hearing, it was pointed out to learned Counsel for the petitioner that the question raised, arising from the aforesaid applications made before the trial Court, the same can be kept open with liberty to the petitioner to raise the same before the Appellate Court, if need arises. This suggestion was made having regard to the fact that the hearing of the suit had virtually concluded, in that the record...

Smt. Neelakshi Raghunath Kute Vs. Raghunath Manohar Kute and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2000)DMC664

D.K. Trivedi, J.1. The appellant-original complainant has filed this appeal and challenged the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Ghodnadi dated 18th May, 1985 in Criminal Case No. 401 of 1983 acquitting the respondents-accused from the offence under Sections 494, 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant-original complainant had also taken out Criminal Misc. Application No. 398 of 1986 supported with an affidavit of the complainant dated 20th March, 1986 praying for withdrawal of the appeal or for dismissing the appeal for non prosecution on the ground that subsequent to the filing of the appeal, the complainant had obtained customary divorce from her husband-respondent No. 1 by executing a regular divorce deed dated 6th January, 1986 registered with the Sub-Registrar and, accordingly, it is further highlighted in her affidavit that even the proceedings initiated between them viz. the proceedings taken out ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J. K. Investor (Bombay) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2000]112TAXMAN107(Bom)

Kapadia, J.The short point which arises for consideration in this appeal is : Whether notional interest on interest-free deposit received by the assessee against letting of property could be taken into account in cases falling under section 23(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') In other words, whether notional interest would form part of actual rent received or receivable under section 23(1)(b) 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly, are as follows: The assessee, during the previous year, relevant to the assessment year 1992-93, purchased premises in the building known as 'Mahendra Towers' vide sale deed dated 28-6-1991. The said premises were let out to Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. from 1-10-1991. The lessee agreed to deposit an amount as a security deposit for the due performance of the lease. The assessee was not to pay any interest on the security deposit to the lessees. The premises are covered by the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act,...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Wipro Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT356Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondent was absent and unrepresented yesterday. We, therefore, heard the departmental representative and reserved our orders for dictation today.2. This appeal by the department is against the order of the Collector (Appeals) holding that M/s. Wipro Ltd, the respondent, was entitled to take Modvat credit of the duty paid on tin plates and sheets, which were sent out by it to job workers for conversion into tin containers which in turn were re-turned to it for packing vanaspati. The Collector (Appeals) had not accepted the view proposed in the notice, that these containers were not used in or in relation to the manufacture of the finished products, since that - vanaspati -had already been manufactured before it was packed. The same ground is taken up in the appeal.3. What the respondent sold was vanaspati referred to as "vegetable product" in the tariff, packed in such tin containers. It is not anybody's case that the vanaspati can be sold without being packed. The tins were ...

Divyalaxmi Plastic Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC349

1. These two appeals are against the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dismissing of the two appeals filed before him against two orders of the Assistant Collector demanding duty on goods manufactured by the appellant.3. The Assistant Collector's Order No. VGN (30) 407/TI/SCN/94 dated 26.9.1994 was passed on a notice dated 2.8.1994. This notice demanded duty on goods specified in the price declaration No. 78/93-94 filed on 23.9.1993 for plastic shatrang is filed by the appellant. The prices contained in the declaration were enhanced by the Assistant Collector in his order dated 16.2.1994. The notice to show cause demanded duty on the ground that the duty that had been paid was not in accordance with the prices as determined by that letter.4. The Assistant Collector, in the order that we have referred to above, confirmed the duty based on these prices. The appeal against that order has been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that no appeal was filed against...

Comsat Max Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs (Acc)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC159

1. After hearing Shri V. Swaminathan for the applicants and Shri Ramtake for the Revenue, it appeared that the main appeal itself could be disposed of on short point. This was done after granting waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 9,51,569 confirmed as duty.2. The appellants imported goods described as computer software (control channel module upgrade on floppy) claiming benefit of entry at Sr. No. 173 to Notfn. No. 11/97- Cus., dated 1.3.97. The Asstt.Commissioner of Customs referred to certain instructions of the Board clarifying the term "computer software" and observed that this entry would not cover software required for any machine performing a specific function other than data processing and incorporating or working in conjunction with an automatic data processing machine. He ruled that the contested goods did not conform to this trust. He denied the exemption and confirmed the differential duty payable. Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the counsel appearing for the appellants made...

Mrs. Rohita Subramaniam Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The appeal filed by the assessee pertains to asst. yr. 1994-95. Vide ground Nos. 1 and 2, the assessee contends that the AO erred in applying the provisions of Section 50 of the IT Act. The facts of the case in short are as order: 2. The assessee's husband, late Subramaniara carried on the business of panting and book binding at Dhanraj Industrial Estate. In Unit No. 4, he was running the business of book binding in his capacity as an agent of Court receiver, High Court, Mumbai on payment of royalty Rs. 5,500 per month which had to be deposited with the Court receiver. From Unit No. 10A, he was running the business of printing as a proprietary concern, Subramaniam expired on 5th May, 1989. Subsequent to death, a dispute arose regarding the inheritance of his property. Brothers of late Subramaniam filed a petition for probate in the High Court claiming that they would succeed to the property as per the will. Late Subramaniam's wife and minor sons filed a caveat objecting to the gran...

Rohita Subramaniam Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)75TTJ(Mumbai)101

Counsels: V.H. Patil & Vipul Joshi, for the Assessee E.K Vijayan Nair, for the Revenue...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Autofil Machines Company

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT508Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to notification 46/94 of three machines. The departments appeal is against the Commissioner (Appeals) order that the goods are entitled to exemption under heading 18 of the table to that notification.2. The machines in question are described as packing plugging table, automatic bung feeding machine and packing turntable The Commissioner (Appeals) has described the functions of the first machine as for pressing or putting of plastic or other type of cap or plug on bottles or vials, the second for putting rubber plugs on vials and the third one for moving the bottles from one place to another. The Assistant Commissioner, whose order was appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals), held these goods to be parts of a pharmaceutical packing machinery and therefore entitled to the exemption under entry No. 19 at 20%. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) held each of the goods to be a complete machine and extended the exemptio...

Gujarat Machinery Mfgrs. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC351

Is it necessary for the applicant to seek relaxation of the provisions of Rule 173L for the purpose of admitting a claim of refund to submit application to the Principal Collector as provided in Sub-rule (4) of Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 existed during the relevant period or the jurisdictional Assistant Collector/Commissioner should submit the refund application received by him to the Principal Collector for relaxation provided therein.2. After hearing the representative of the applicant, we are not able to see that the question arises out of the Tribunal's order. It was not argued before the Tribunal that the application for condonation of the period of delay has been made to the Assistant Collector and that this was sufficient and an application has not been specifically made to the Principal Collector. Nor has the Tribunal found the necessity for any such step. It said that the question of exercising of the power under Rule 173L for the Collector to condone the del...