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 C. Ex. Vs. Baroda Textiles Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT135Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeal No. E/786/2000-Mum. was filed on 13-3-2000 challenging the Order-in-Appeal dated 14-12-99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Vadodara. The authorisation for filing this appeal was granted by the Jurisdictional Commissioner. On 2-3-2000 in terms of this authorisation, the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise Division II, Mehsana filed the appeal, in the process describing himself as the appellant. The facts of the case and the grounds of appeal were signed by the Commissioner himself in spite of the authorisation given by him.The verification was however done by the Dy. Commissioner. The stay application was also signed by the Dy. Commissioner in verification of the grounds signed by the Commissioner. The grounds and facts were not separately enclosed along with the stay application. When these defects were noted on 16-5-2000, a notice was sent directing the Commissioner to correct the errors and asking him to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as improperly f...
J.K. Processors Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT633Tri(Mum.)bai
1. J.K. Processors are independent processors of Textile Fabrics operating under Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Sub-rule (3) requires 50% of the duty determined as payable for the month to be paid by the 15th of the month and remainder to be paid by the end of that month. Sub-rule (5) prescribed that in the event of delay interest was payable from the due date to the date of actual payment and also that a penalty equal to Rs. 5,000/-or the amount outstanding was imposable whichever was greater. In the present case the duty was deposited on 16.04.1999, when it was due on 15.04.1999 along with the interest for one day. Show cause notice was issued why penalty should not be imposed. The assessees pleaded that they had gone to the bank, on 15.04.1999 but that the bank did not accept a cash deposit. It was accepted the next day and the delay was beyond the control of the assessee. The Dy. Commissioner did not accept the plea and imposed a penalty of Rs. 7.5 lakhs. The assesse...
Chhabria Marketing Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2000
Reported in: (2002)81ITD314(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assesses is directed against the order under Section 158BD r/w Section 158BC passed by the Dy. CIT, Central Cir. 9, Mumbai. By way of grounds 1 to 11, the assessee has challenged the validity of the initiation of proceedings under Section 158BD as well as the validity of service of the notice under Section 158BD. By way of ground No. 12, the assessee has objected to the assessment on the ground that the assessment has been completed in violation of principles of natural justice. The assessee has also challenged the determination of undisclosed income and non-granting set off of loss determined by the previous order of the Tribunal.2. The facts of the case are thai the assessee is a limited company at whose premises search under Section 132(1) was carried out on 2nd Aug., 1995. The AO had passed order under Section 158BC as on 30th Aug., 1976 in which undisclosed income was determined at Rs. 9,88,82,491. The assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal, which was dis...
P.D. Hinduja National Hospital Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT626Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for waiver deposit of duty of Rs. 1.2934 crores and penalty of Rs. 64.67 lacs.2. The Commissioner has ordered confiscation of the Gamma camera imported by the applicant on which duty is demanded. The camera is therefore in the control of the Customs department and the duty in question is therefore not required to be deposited for the appeal to be heard. The application for waiver of deposit of duty is therefore unnecessary.3. The duty has been demanded, and camera confiscated and the penalty imposed on the finding of the Commissioner that the applicant did not comply with the conditions contained in notification 64/88 under which the goods were cleared free of duty prescribing free treatment of 40% of the outdoor patients and reservation of 10% of beds for treatment to indoor patients. Advocate for the applicant contends that details have been produced showing free treatment of 40% of outdoor patients for the period between 1988 \and 1992, which the Commissioner ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kaylites Electricals Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT804Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondent to this appeal filed a declaration under Rule 57G.This declaration indicated the final product to be lighting, fitting and parts thereof. Following a notice issued to the assessee, the Asstt. Collector held that the declaration was not valid for the reason that details of the final product had not been given and confirmed the proposal in the notice to disallow the credit already taken. On appeal from this order, the Collector (Appeals) accepted the contention of the assessee that failure to describe the final product in terms of the particular brand or trade name would not justify denying the credit and set aside the Asstt. Collector's order. Hence appeal by the department.2. The ground in the appeal that failure to describe the final product is not condonable offence is irrelevant to the facts of this case.There is no denial that the final product has been correctly described by the assessee. The contention of the assessee, noted by the Collector (Appeals), that the...
Prayag Exporters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT819Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has confiscated under clause (d) of Section 113 of the Act, a consignment of footwear tendered for export by the appellant and imposed penalty on the appellant under Section 114 of the Act on his finding that the value of the footwear was inflated in order for it to claim benefits under the duty entitlement pass book (DEPB) scheme. Such benefits are percentage of the export value.2. It has been the consistent view of this Tribunal that clause (d) of Section 113 of the Act did not apply in such cases for the reason that export of the goods was not prohibited. This is the view taken in the Tribunal's decision in Badriprasad Pvt. Ltd v. CCE, 1995 (80) E.L.T, 624, Shilpi Export v. CCE, 1996 (83) E.L.T. 302, to cite only two. We note that an appeal against the last decision has been dismissed by the Supreme Court reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. A219....
Bayer India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT97Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Notification No. 43/88 dated 1-3-1988 exempts several chemicals listed thereunder when used in the manufacture of pesticides. This Notification was amended vide Notification No. 165/88 dated 3-5-88, whereby, the words "pesticides falling under Chapter 38" were replaced by the words "goods falling under sub-heading 3808.10." 2. At the material time, the sub-heading read as under : "Insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, weedicides and pesticides".3. The show cause notice dated 2-4-1993 was issued alleging that during the period 1-3-88 to 2-5-88, the assessee had wrongly availed the benefit of the Notification for their product "Phosphorous Sulfochloride" in as much as it was used in the manufacture of insecticides and not of pesticides. The duty allegedly short-levied was Rs. 10,10,075/-. The allegations were made that they had suppressed the facts with intention to evade payment of duty. The Commissioner having confirmed the duty and having imposed the penalty of Rs. One lakh, the p...
St. Anthony's Co-operative Society Limited Vs. the Secretary (Co-opera ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR730
Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent, taken up for final hearing. Leave to amend granted.2. A Co-operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, seeks to exclude persons other than Roman Catholics from its membership. The State Government, in the hierarchy of Appeal and Revision provided under the Act, has come to the conclusion that to permit the Society to follow the rule of exclusion which is contained in its by-laws would violate the basic precept of open membership accepted by the Act. The issue before the Court, therefore, is whether in its by-laws, a co-operative housing society, which the Petitioner is, can confine membership to a particular religion, sect or group and exclude those who do not profess the religious faith which is a qualifying condition for membership.3. The Petitioner was formed and registered in 1925. The Society owns certain lands situated at Chembur and these lands ...
Pushparaj Surajprasad Modh Vs. Sayyad Altaf Sayyad Wazir and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR831; 2000(4)BomCR624; 2000(4)MhLj492
ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides.2. Briefly stated, the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 instituted suit before the Court of 6th Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nagpur, bearing R.C.S. No. 102 of 2000, praying for declaration that they are the owners in respect of the suit land and for mandatory injunction. A preliminary objection was raised before the trial Court, at the instance of the applicant herein. The trial Court, by order dated 17th February, 2000 held that the plaintiffs ought to revalue the suit as per section 6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 and affix the necessary Court fees on or before 24-2-2000. The Counsel for the respondents states that the respondents have complied with these directions. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the applicant disputes this position. It is, however, not necessary to examine this aspect of the matter.3. The respondents later on filed review petition before the trial Cou...
Kunda Vishwanath Ghodmare Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Bom150; 2001(2)ALLMR211; 2001(3)BomCR744; 2001(1)MhLj557
ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule. By consent, heard both the sides finally.2. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribes Claims dated 28th March, 2000, invalidating the caste claim set up by the petitioner that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe of 'Mana' community which is the sub-tribe of 'Gond'.3. The only question argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the documents produced by the candidate in support of the caste claim indicate that the candidate belongs to Mana community, it is not open for the Scrutiny Committee to make any further enquiry, but to accept the candidate as belonging to Gond tribe which is Scheduled Tribe. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relies on the decision of the Apex Court reported in : (1994)1SCC359 . He has relied on paragraph Nos. 18 and 20 of the said decision, which read thus :'18. These judgment...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »