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.
Earl Bihari Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT70Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of various articles of iron or steel which are to be used in furniture.The appellant had sought classification of these goods under heading 7326.90 of the Tariff. This heading is for other articles of iron or steel. The department proposed to classify them under heading 8302.00.This heading covers inter alia base metal mountings, fittings and similar articles suitable for furniture. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepting the appeal by the department had overruled the order of the Asstt. Collector approving the classification claimed by the department.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented. We have therefore read the memorandum of appeal, papers attached to it and heard the departmental representative.3. The three items under consideration are flap stay, modular clip and spring clip specified for use in wooden cabinets. It is contended that the Explanatory Note to the Harmon...
Veena Engineering Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT417Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These eight appeals are against the common order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur. By that order the Commissioner has held that the name 'Super Trailer' painted in Devnagari script on both sides of the agricultural trailers which were manufactured by the appellants before us excepts Dhawal Sales Corporation was a brand name as defined in explanation VIII of notification 175/86 (December 1988 to 31st March, 1990) and paragraph IX of notification 1/93 (for the period 1st April to 22nd June 1993). He has concluded that this brand name belongs to M/s. Dhawal Sales Corporation who, being a trader and not a manufacturer, was not entitled to the benefit of the notification and denied benefit of the notification by virtue of paragraph 7 of notification 175/86 and paragraph 4 of notification 1 /93, and demanded duty on such trailers manufactured and cleared by the 7 appellants. He has imposed penalty on each of these appellants as also on M/s. Dhawal Sales Corporation.2. It is ...
Perfect Embroidery Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT752Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When these three applications seeking waiver of pre deposit of penalties were heard, it appeared that the main appeals themselves could be taken up for disposal. Both sides consenting to this was done, after granting the prayers made in the stay application.2. We have heard Shri Arun Mehta Advocate for the appellants and Shri K.M. Patwari for the Revenue.3. Rule 96ZI of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 enables the Government to prescribe by Notification compounded rates of duty for machine made Embroidery. The scheme takes into account, the number of machines used and the number of shifts per day in which the machines are run. A shift has been defined in the rule as a period not exceeding 8 hours. The appellant firm M/s. Perfect Embroidery were operating under this Rule.During the period 01.05.1997 to 17-11-1997 their production was round the clock and in terms of the definition they were operating in three shifts. However, they discharged the burden of duty as if the production was ...
Ujagar Textile Industries Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC194
1. The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise passed Order No.YG/272/ B-II/94 15.4.1999. This was a combined order in cases of M/s.Shakti Textiles, M/s. Ujagar Textiles Ind. Pvt. Ltd. And M/s. Ujagar Prints and Processors Pvt. Ltd. All the three assessees subsequently filed appeals. The appeals filed by M/s. Ujagar Prints and Processors Pvt. Ltd. were decided by the Tribunal at the stage of hearing of the stay applications while Order No. C-II/1975-76/WZB/2000, dated 14.7.2000. In this order the Tribunal made the following observation: We find that the manner in which the proceedings have evolved thus violates the basic principles of natural justice and that is that an assessee must know what the exact charges against him. Belatedly the thoughts of the department which may have been there behind the issue of the Show Cause Notice have been voiced by the Commissioner in his order. The assessee at this stage therefore would have had no chance to defend their case. They must be given...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Arlabs Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT470Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondent to these appeals manufactures ready for use vat dyes, named 'Arlindone'. This dye is prepared out of duty paid formulated dyes. The respondent states that these dyes are reduced with zinc dust, solubilised and stabilised using chlorosulphonic acid and caustic soda and salted out for ease of transportation and storage. Prior to 20-3-1990 solubilised dyes were exempted from duty made of duty paid formulated dyes by notification 180/61. The respondent prior to this stage therefore paid duty on the standardised formulated prepared ready to use dyes which it manufactured from its factory being formulated and unformulated unprepared dyes, but did not pay duty on arlindone. The exemption was rescinded on 30-3-1990. Thereafter the respondent did not pay duty on arlindone on the ground that the process of conversion of standardised, formulated and prepared ready to use dyes into the solubilised dyes did not amount to manufacture. He said that no excisable product came into ex...
Jagdish V. Gursahani Vs. Air India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR576; (2001)1BOMLR98; [2001(89)FLR436]; (2000)IIILLJ292Bom; 2001(4)MhLj237
Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Petitioner was in the employment of Air India, the First Respondent since, 1980. On 16th March, 1990 he was suspended in view of contemplated disciplinary proceedings. The Petitioner as an employee under suspension was entitled to subsistence allowance. Aggrieved by what he considered as the non-payment of the full amount of subsistence allowance, the Petitioner preferred an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Central Government Labour Court No. 1. The Application was disposed of by an order dated 10th June, 1999 by which the Petitioner was held to be entitled to the payment of a sum of Rs. 2,56,956/- and a direction for the payment of that amount came to be issued against the First Respondent. The First Respondent challenged the order of the Central Government Labour Court in Writ Petition No. 1621 of 1999 before this Court. By an order dated 4th February, 2000 passed by the learned Single Judge, the aforesa...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. WIn Laboratories P. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2000
Reported in: [2002]254ITR187(Bom)
1. In this appeal we are concerned with the assessment year 1988-89. The Ratlam unit of the company manufactured bulk drugs which were sold to the Generic Division. The latter division prepared drugs formulations. The Rat-lam unit sold the goods to the Generic Division at market value. The Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax valued them at cost. The Assessing Officer/Commissioner of Income-tax accordingly found that deductions were wrongly inflated by the company. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal reversed the decision. Hence, this appeal. In this connection, it was argued by the Department that the Assessing Officer has invoked Section 80HH(7).2. We do not find merit in the above contentions. Section 80HH(7) has no application. It does not deal with intra-unit transfer. The Assessing Officer has not invoked Section 80HH(7). Moreover, Section 80HH(6) directs the Assessing Officer to value the goods at market value. This has been done by the company. Here the company ha...
Durga Mazdoor Co-op. Society Ltd., Bhandara and ors. Vs. Divisional Jo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR832; 2001(2)BomCR485; (2001)1BOMLR327; 2000(4)MhLj786
D. D. Sinha, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. Shri S. P. Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that the petitioners are the primary members and shareholders of the respondent No. 6/Bank. The respondent No. 6/Bank is the Apex Bank of the District. Respondent No. 6/Bank is registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and is the Specified Society as contemplated under section 73G thereof. It is contended that respondent No. 3, Narendra @ Nana Patole, was a Member of the Board of Directors and so also a Member of the Working Committee of the respondent No. 6/Bank. The term of the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 6/Bank, is of five years, had expired on 22.2.1999.2. Shri Dharmadhikari further contended that the respondent No. 1, Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Nagpur, has declared Gondia as a separate distric...
Laxman Keraba Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2000
Reported in: 2001(5)BomCR45
P.V. Kakade, J.1. The appellant, found guilty of patricide, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 4-4-1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1996, wherein he was convicted for commission of an offence punishable under section 302 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default he was directed to suffer R.I. for three months. 2. The facts giving rise to the case, in nutshell, are thus:--- The complainant Tanaji and accused Laxman are real brothers and they used to reside jointly with their parents and families. Their father deceased Keraba Patil was an agriculturist. The accused never worked and was given to bad habits and was spending life as a vagabond which was not liked by father Keraba, who made futile attempts to convince the accused to behave properly. This aspect gave rise to frequent quarrels in the family. The accused used to abuse family members in...
Unit Trust of India and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC441
1. These four applications relate to four appeals filed against the same order. These are therefore being disposed of vide this single order.2. M/s. M.N. Furniture undertake manufacture, fixtures etc. M/s. Unit Trust of India had office at New Mumbai. A contract for furnishing a part of that office was given to M/s. M.N. Furniture. One of the terms of the contract was that all taxes, duties etc. required would be paid by the contractors. The work was accordingly done. At a later date the officers of Central Excise visited the building and investigated into the fact whether the burden of payment of Central Excise Duty on the furniture was discharged or not. At the end of the investigation show cause notice was issued alleging non-payment of duty amounting to Rs. 28,73,673. The Notice also alleged that the goods totally valued at Rs. 3,51,92,143 were liable to confiscation and that the firm of M/s. M.N.Furniture, two partners thereof namely Shri N.D. Kularia and Shri M.G.Mistry, as well...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »