Mumbai Court August 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Punit Commercial Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Bom)594; [2001]245ITR550(Bom)
S. H. Kapadia J.Since all the above three appeals deal with common questions of fact and law they are jointly disposed of by this judgment.2. The assessee is a 100 per cent exporter. The assessee is wholly engaged in export business. The entire business income is from exports. The assessee credited in the profit and loss account for the assessment year 1989-90, interest income while working out the deduction under section 80HHC by considering these amounts as part of business profit. The assessing officer held that interest income cannot be treated as profit relating to business exports and, accordingly, while working out the business profits for the purposes of section 80HHC, the assessing officer reduced the interest income from the business profit. The assessing officer held that the deduction under section 80HHC was meant for the assessee who earned profits from exports and any business profits other than from export activity was not eligible for deduction under section 80HHC. Bein...
Mercantile and Industrial Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT152Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant could import under the Open General Licence (OGL) goods described as 'totaliser'. It is not in dispute that the totaliser is a mechanism for registering cumulative quantity of petrol dispensed by the petrol dispensing pump. In his order the Deputy Collector has concluded that the totaliser was not part of the petrol dispensing pump and therefore held that the appellant could not import this under the provisions of the OGL. Disposing of the appeal against this order the Collector (Appeals) has in effect agreed that import of the goods under OGL could not be objected to. He agrees that the goods did not figure in appendices II, III Part-A, V or VI and that therefore needs to be imported by an actual user for industrial use. He has however, not pursued his reasoning to its logical conclusion but instead reduced the fine fixed by the Dy. Collector for redeeming the goods which are ordered to be confiscated.2. Once i...
indrox Chemicals Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT786Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We are concerned in this appeal with the classification of two products manufactured by the appellant, Indrox 985 P-12 and Indrox 9 PR12. The assessee had claimed classification of these products under sub-heading 3823.00 of the Tariff. The Assistant Collector has confirmed the demand for duty issued by the Superintendent for the period July, 1991 to 1993. Subsequent to issue of these notices, prior to their adjudication, Collector (Appeals) in his order dated 23-9-1992 has classified the goods manufactured by the appellant under Heading 3204.90 of the Tariff. On appeal from that order, the Tribunal, by a majority view of two to one, held that classification of Indrox 985 P-12 requires reconsideration by the Collector (Appeals) in the light of the technical literature produced relating to the products and the HSN Explanatory Notes. The Tribunal's order indicated that the appeal was only related to this product. So far as the other product Indrox 9 PR-12 is concerned, Collector (App...
Mimara Gems Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC190
1. The Commissioner ordered confiscation of 26 machines imported on payment of concessional rate of duty in terms of certain notifications which permitted such import made by exporters registered with Germ & Jewellery Export Promotion Council and where the machines were used for manufacture of export products. 20 of the machines were importers had sold to the present applicant. As regards the 6 machines, the Commissioner found that the importer had sold these machines to the present application without using them for the manufacture of export product. As regards the other machines, the Commissioner observed that the registration showed that the appellants were merchant exporters and not actual users. He further observed that from the time of importation of the machines to the time of search and seizure, there was no export of goods manufactured on these machines. On these grounds, he invoked the extended period, confiscated the machines and also imposed penalty on the appellants, ...
Swaraj Mazda Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC557
1. The question for consideration before us in this appeal is the eligibility to refund of customs duty paid by the appellant on the importation of four consignments.2. The claims are on two different counts. Rs. 2,60,125 was claimed as refund of duty paid on bill of entry dated 5.3.1990 rotation No. 107, Line No. II (referred to either as bill of entry No. E-1308 or 1338) filed for the goods carried on vessel 'State of Nagaland'. The refund claim was filed on the importer contending that excess freight was paid by mistake to the carrier. The freight bill amended by the carrier M/s.Shipping Corporation of India showing the lower freight of Rs. 13,077 was produced. The claim has been rejected on the ground that worthwhile evidence of actual freight was not produced. We are unable to accept this reason. The certification by the carrier of the goods by way of amendment to the freight bill showing the actual freight paid would itself, in our view, constitute sufficient evidence of freight...
Vinod Metal Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT185Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in these appeals is whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the entry at serial number 3 of the table to the Notification No. 171/88. This entry exempts from duty waste and scrap arising out of a specified goods on which the excise duty or additional customs duty had been paid subject to the condition no credit of such duty under Rule 56A or 57A has been taken.(We are not concerned with this condition). The appellant claimed the benefit of this notification for the scrap, which arose in the manufacture of components of internal combustion engines from steel sheets. The benefit of the notification was denied by the Assistant Collector on the ground that evidence of payment of duty on these sheets had not been produced. In disposing of the appeals the Collector (Appeals) has remanded the matter back to the Assistant Collector to determine factually whether duty was paid or not on these sheets. This being challenged by the appellant.2. The a...
Neela Asbestos Inds. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT128Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The representative of the applicant states that she is withdrawing the appeal E/671/99. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.2. Our order is limited to appeal No. E/709/91 filed by the department against the same assessee. The assessee filed on 20-2-1987 a declaration under rule 57G showing as final product asbestos mill board. On that date asbestos mill board was not an item included as final product in the table to notification 177/86. It specified the input and final products for purpose of rule relating to Modvat credit.It came to be so notified on 1-3-1987. The assessee received the inputs required for utilising them in the manufacture but did not take credit, utilised the credit taken towards the payment of duty on the final product. On an objection being raised by the department (on the issue which was the subject matter of the appeal E/671/91 which has been withdrawn) the assessee filed a declaration under rule 57G. It is stated that the declaration was filed on...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT663Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal by the Commissioner is the correctness of the classification claimed by the respondent of the ethyl alcohol manufactured by it. In the list effective from 1-3-1989 the respondent had claimed the classification of the alcohol under 2204.00 with the benefit of Notification 20/89, which exempted power alcohol from duty. Notice was issued proposing to classify the product under 3823.00. This heading classified among others residual products of chemical and allied industries. The Asstt. Collector found that the Jurisdictional Superintendent reported that ethyl alcohol manufactured by the respondent was suitable for use as fuel in spark ignition engines although it was not actually so used. He found that Heading 2204.00 was for ethyl alcohol suitable for use in spark ignition engines. He further found that Notification 20/89 exempted from duty power alcohol and did not contain any condition as to suitability of use of such alcohol as fuel not...
Voltas Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT802Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant imported at Bangalore goods such as fire damper, grilles, air volume boxes etc. for setting up air conditioning plant.In the order impugned in this appeal the goods have been classifed in the appeal under heading 84.15 of the Customs Tariff.2. It is contended by the advocate for the appellant that the notice to show cause proposes classification of these goods not under heading 84.15 but under heading 84.14, which is for air ventilating machine.The fact that during the hearing before the Asstt. Commissioner, the appellant was explained orally that the classification under heading 84.15 has to be applied does not fulfil the right given to the appellant to have notice issued in writing fulfilling the classification that is proposed to be determined. The decision of the Tribunal in Tata Mills (UC) Bombay v. CCE -1988 (37) E.L.T. 284 is cited.3. In the decision, the Tribunal held that where notice to show cause which was issued proposed classification of non-woven woollen...
Jasmeet Hoon Vs. Smt. Rita Johar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2000
Reported in: (2001)1BOMLR82; 2001(1)MhLj649
Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent, Petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith. 2. The Petitioners seek to impugn the validity of two orders, dated 16.6.2000 passed by the Competent Authority, Konkan Division, Mumbai. The first order has been passed rejecting an application filed by the Petitioner herein for setting aside an order closing the evidence. The second order has been passed allowing the application filed by the Respondents herein under Section 13A(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging HouseRates (Control) Act, 1947 and decreeing the eviction of the Petitioner to whom the premises have been held to have been granted under a Leave & Licence Agreement of 1st October, 1989. The circumstances in which the Competent Authority declined to accede to the request of the Respondents to reopen the order closing the evidence will be adverted to hereinafter. The relevant facts, briefly stated, are as follows : 3. On 1st ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »