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. Asian Leather Cloth Mfg. Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT738Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The assessees M/s. Asian Leather Cloth Mfg. Co. purchased knitted cotton fabrics as well as knitted man-made fabrics and subjected them to process of PVC coating. In both cases the knitted fabrics were classifiable under chapter 60. The processed cotton fabrics fell under sub-heading 5903.19 and the processed man-made fabrics fell under sub-heading 5903.29. To this extent there is no dispute between the assessees and the department. During the period 1988-89 and 1989-90 Notification 63/87 prescribed the effective rate of duty on both varieties of fabrics processed. The relevant entries read as under:02. 5903.19 Textile fabrics, Rs. 6.50 per square metre plus the duty impregnated, for the time being leviable on the base coated, cov- fabrics under Chapter 52, if not already ered or lami- paid.03. 5903.29 Textile fabrics, Rs. 8.00 per square metre plus the duty impregnated, for the time being leviable on the base coated, cov- fabrics under Chapter 54 or 55, as the ered or lami- case m...
Olympus Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2000
Reported in: (2002)81ITD290(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXI, Mumbai dated 6-12-1996, for the assessment year 1989-90. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXI, Mumbai erred in upholding the action of the DCIT Spl. Range, 47, Mumbai, by not allowing the relief in respect of advance-tax paid on 13-12-1988 amounting to Rs. 1,15,500.3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed a rectification application dated 26-8-1994 under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1989-90, in which they pointed out that it had filed return of income on 27-12-1989 declaring loss of Rs. 3,50,310. Prior to the filing of the return and advance-tax of Rs. 1,15,500 was also paid on 13-12-1988 but due to oversight no mention in respect of the said advance-tax paid was made either in the return of income or in the computation of income. The 4th counterfoil of the receipted challan was also not enclosed with the return. It has also ...
Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Parikh Petro Chemicals Agencies
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2000
Reported in: (2002)81ITD18(Mum.)
1. In this appeal by the department, the following grounds have been taken : (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred, failed to appreciate the facts that:- (i) the assessee had been consistently following the accounting system of showing the receipts as also expenses on cash basis in the past years, (ii) it changed the accounting system during the assessment year under consideration in respect of expenses only and claimed expenses on mercantile basis whereas the receipts were shown on the old basis only, (iii) on the basis of departure from past practice it claimed expenses of Rs. 12,82,313 for the period from 1-8-1988 to 31-3-1989 on mercantile basis without showing corresponding receipts on mercantile basis for the same period, and thereby erred in not disallowing the claim for said expenses of Rs. 12,82,313 while deleting the addition of Rs. 98,14,543 made by the Assessing Officer towards receipts on mercantile basis. (2) On the fac...
The Custodian Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR313
ORDERS.H. Kapadia, J.1. This petition has been filed by the Custodian for consideration of the Scheme for Sale of shares of the notified parties under Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of brevity, 'the said Act').2. Before coming to the Scheme, the following facts are required to be mentioned :3. FACTS :---Prior to the coming into force of the said Act on 18th August 1992, large scale irregularities and malpractices were noticed in the course of investigations by RBI with regard to transactions in Government and other securities indulged in by some brokers in collusion with the employees of various banks and financial institutions. The said irregularities and malpractices led to diversion of funds from banks and financial institutions to individual accounts of certain brokers. To deal with the above situation and in order to ensure speedy recovery of huge amounts involved, the Special Courts (Trial...
Bses Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Bom128; 2001(1)BomCR394
B.P. Singh, C.J. 1. The First Petitioner herein, BSES Limited, is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, having a Thermal Power Station at Dahanu, in the State of Maharashtra, which has challenged the decision of the Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Authority ('DTEPA', for short), an Authority constituted under the provision of Section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 ('the Act', for short) dated 12th May, 1999, whereby it has directed the Petitioners to Install a Flue Gas' Desulphurisation (FGD) Plant for environmental safety and protection and for the well-being of the people of Dahanu. It has been directed to start the Installation of the EGD Plant within a period of 6 months, and to complete the work within a reasonable time. The Petitioners had preferred an Appeal before the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, against the impugned Order of DTEPA, but the same was not entertained on the ground that no Appeal was provided for...
Haran Bidi Suppliers and anr. Vs. V.M. and Co., Through Ambubhai S/O J ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR209
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard both sides. By consent revision application heard finally.Only question involved in this revision application is whether the trial Court was right in directing the defendants to enter the witness-box in the first instance, by the impugned order dated 28th February, 1996. The order is very short which reads thus:'Heard Shri Hundra for defendants, Shri Bhadu Pote for plaintiff.There are about 14 issues. Only Issue No. 4 casts burden on the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendant in view of certain arrangements they are utilizing the trade mark of the plaintiff. Considering the onus, I direct the defendants to enter in the witness box and plaintiff would be rebutting.Application is allowed.'The only reason indicated in the said order is that burden is cast on the plaintiff to prove only four issues out of total 14 issues and, therefore, the defendants have been directed to enter the witness-box. According to the non-applicant/plaintiff, the said order was in...
Olympus Enterprises Ltd. V.Dy. Cit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2000
Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Mumbai)1100
ORDERS.K. Mehrotra, A.M.:This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XXI, Mumbai, dated 6-12-1996, for the assessment year 1989-90.2. The ground taken in this appeal reads as under :'The Commissioner (Appeals)-XXI, Mumbai, erred in upholding the action of the Dy. CIT, Spl. Range, 47, Mumbai, by not allowing the relief in respect of advance tax paid on 13-12-1988, amounting to Rs, 1, 15, 500.3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed a rectification application dated 26-8-1994, under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1989-90, in which they pointed out that it had filed return of income on 27-12-1989, declaring loss of Rs. 3,50,310. Prior to the filing of the return And advance tax of Rs. 1, 15,500 was also paid on 13-12-1988, but due to oversight no mention in respect of the said advance tax paid was made either in the return of income or in the computation of income. The 4th counterfoil of the receipted c...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pankaj Aero Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT136Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The very short point involved in this case is the classification of the product "Geraniol" manufactured by the respondents. The product was classified under heading 3302.90 by the Asstt. Collector. The Collector (Appeals) accepted the alternate classification proposed by the assessees under heading 2905.90. In the appeal, the Commissioner states that the classification under Ch. 3302.90 is more appropriate. In the cross-objection the assessees stand by their classification.2. We have heard Shri K.M. Patwari for the department and Shri K.V.Sahasrabudhe for the respondents. We have also seen the Ch. heading, Ch. note and HSN classification.3. In terms of Rule (1) of the rules for the interpretation of the schedule to the Excise Tariff, the classification of a product would be governed by terms of the headings as well as the sections and Ch.notes. The description of heading 3302 reads as follows "Mixtures of Odoriferous substances and mixtures (including alcoholic solutions) with a ba...
Yogeshwar Steel Re-rolling Mills Vs. Cce and C
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT499Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applicant is absent and unrepresented, by letter dated 19-6-2000 requests decision on merits.2. A sum of Rs. 1,16,353.41 is required to be deposited by the as-sessee as duty payable on the mild steel bars manufactured by it and cleared without payment of duty under notification 208/83. The Assistant Commissioner has denied benefit of the notification on the ground that the rerollable material out of which the finished goods were made was itself exempted from duty by notification 386/86 since it was obtained by breaking of ship. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal before him for failure of the applicant to pay about 50% of the duty as ordered by him.Maharashtra Steel Industries v. CCE -1997 (95) E.L.T. 342 could not be denied solely for the reason that no duty had been paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of the finished goods; it had gone by the fact that there was no requirement in the notification 208/83 that any specific duty has to be paid on the input...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. J.K. Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT803Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-VI. The scrutiny shows that the copies of the Order-in-Original were not enclosed herewith. Several memoranda were sent to the Commissioner for correcting the lacuna. Ultimately, a notice was sent asking the Commissioner why the appeal should not be dismissed. Shri Choubey, JDR also separately sent a letter on 9-5-2000. In response to the letter, the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise sent one copy of the Order-in-Original to Shri Choubey vide letter dated 6-6-2000.2. We are amazed at the lack of knowledge displayed by the Appellant Commissioner. In spite of several reminders and notice the Commisisoner has not ensured the survival of the appeal. The appeal is dismissed under Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.3. A copy of this order be marked to Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai for his information....
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »