Mumbai Court September 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.
Krupp Industries India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT374Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant is a manufacturer of parts of machinery used for setting up sugar, cement and other such plants. For this purpose it purchases various items which are manufactured by others for supply by it to its customers in pursuance of contracts for such plants. In order to issue invoices in terms of notifications 32/94 and 33/94 it applied to the Assistant Collector for permission to register the factory under rule 174. The Assistant Collector, whose order was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected this application. He informed it that since it had not obtained permission required under rule 51A for bringing or retaining in the factory duty-paid goods the permission under rule 174 could not be granted. Hence this appeal.2. The contention of the advocate for the appellant that rule 174 is to be read independently of rule 51A and that therefore absence of permission under rule 51A it cannot be barred for grant of registration under rule 174 is not acceptable. The provisi...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Indian Trading Corpn.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT379Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Relying upon the report of the licensing authority clarification to the Commissioner of Customs that the subject goods [Titanium Dioxide (Rutile) Grade] are not Pigment falling under heading 3206100 but are classifiable under Heading No. 2823002 of HSN (ITC) classification and hence they are not covered by the sensitive list and that Pigment are not specifically covered as sensitive under handbook of procedures. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the DGFT's opinion was binding in this case, as the lower authority should have accepted under para 20 of the Export Import Policy 1992-97 and benefit of the licence should not be denied on the ground that the goods imported are classifiable as Pigment. He also relied on the clarification and certificates issued by Indian Institute of Technology to indicate that the subject goods has multi-purpose uses and by the technical clarification given at page 396 of Vol. 20 of the Encyclopaedia of chemical technology; thereafter he set aside the...
Ownes Brockway (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT710Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These three appeals have been filed by the assessee as well as the two other Noticees on whom penalties have been imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules have been filed against Order-in-Original No. 45/CEX/1998, dated 10-12-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I whereunder, he confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,14,30,340/- under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act against the assessee demanded under show cause notice dated 26-6-1998. He also imposed a penalty of equal amount under Section 11 AC of the Act. He further imposed penalties of Rs. 10 lakhs on appellant in Appeal No.E/1048-V/99 and Rs. 5 lakhs on appellant in Appeal No. E/1047-V/99, who were employees of the assessee.2. The appellants have manufactured at their factory at Pimpri, Pune, imprinted soft drink at their unit No. 1. They have also another manufacturing unit called Unit II at Chinchwad, Pune. It is stated by the assessees that the said imprinted bottles were cleared on payment of ...
Novartis India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT117Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applicants manufactured pesticides. On 21-3-1994 they applied for maintaining computerised records of production clearances of excisable goods and thereafter maintained records in that format. At the end of the day would take a printout day's (sic) of the based transaction and make manual posting in the registers maintained. On 14-11-1997 the officers went to the factory and found that the manual entries had not been made. The explanation given by the factory personnel was that the printer was not working and therefore the printout could not be taken even then this was taken to be a contravention and formed an allegation in the notice later issued. The officers also found some pesticides lying in the factory premises. It was claimed by the assessees that they were defective goods returned which would be used by them as inputs claiming credit of the duty already paid thereupon. The procedure was reflected in the declaration filed in terms of Rule 57G of the Rule, by them earlier...
Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. MexIn Medicaments Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT398Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Mexin Medicaments Pvt. Ltd., Piparia, Silvasa manufactures medicaments. It takes credit of the duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of such medicaments for use in payment of duty on finished goods. Part of the credit was taken on goods which were not invoiced directly to it but to a person who in turn endorsed it. This was objected to on the ground that law prohibits such endorsement. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice issued to it disallowing such credit. The assessee appealed this order.Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of this appeal along with other appeal on this issue by a common order. He noted invoices were issued between 7-4-97 and 26-4-97 by taking into account the fact that M/s. Ipca Laboratories acted as loan licensee in the premises of the assessee and therefore did not find reason to deny credit. He also relied upon Tribunal's decision in C.C.E. v. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited -1986 (26) E.L.T. 57 in which it has held that a m...
Vijay Singh Padode and anr Vs. Sicom Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR382; (2001)1BOMLR322; [2001]104CompCas492(Bom); (2000)4CompLJ296(Bom); 2000(4)MhLj772
Vijay Daga, J.1. Admit. Respondents waive service. By consent, appeal is taken up for final hearing. The two questions fall for our determination in this appeal from the order dated 6th April 2000 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Summons for Judgment No. 1012 of 1998, in Summary Suit No. 2361 of 1998. Firstly, whether section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, ('the said SICA Act') is applicable to the suit against the guarantor of a loan or advance that has been granted to the concerned industrial company. Secondly, whether the permission granted under section 22 of the said SICA Act by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('BIFR') by an order dated 29.3.2000 to proceed with the recovery suits filed against the Company can be made use by the creditor to proceed with the recovery suit filed against the guarantors of the company. The sequence of events leading to the institutions of the suit, by the respondents SICOM gi...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Bharatkumar Modi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)164CTR(Bom)273; [2000]246ITR693(Bom)
S. M. Kapadia, J.1. Since the above appeals raise common question of law and fact, they are disposed of together by this common Judgment.2. The short question which arises for determination in this appeal is as follows :-'Whether the Tribunal erred in annulling the assessments on the ground that the A.O. had decided the matter without making relevant enquiries and without confronting the assessees with all the material against the assessees [i.e. on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice)?'3. To decide the above question, briefly, the facts are required to be stated :-4. In Appeal No. 127 of 2000 the assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 1993-94. The total income included agricultural income of Rs. 64.90.951/- which was taken for aggregation for rate purpose. The return of income declared total income of Rs. 3,63,400/-. During the Assessment Years 1991-92 and 1992-93 investigations were carried out. The farmers and Tahsildar were examined to ascertain gen...
Mr. MohsIn Haider Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)2BOMLR848
Vishnu Sahai. J. 1. This is an application for anticipatory bail in C.R. No. 213/2000 u/ss. 323, 324, 342. 363. 387 r/w section 34 of the I.P.C. of D.N. Nagar Police Station, Mumbai.2. The allegations in the F.I.R. which was lodged on 27.4.2000 at 10.00 p.m. at D.N. Nagar Police Station by Sayyed Asif Ziauddin Sayyed in brief are as under : -Since the last four years, the informant was affiliated to the Samajwadi Party as a party worker and did social work with Mohsin Haidar (the petitioner) a Municipal Corporator. Since the informant from the last two months was getting messages that he had been called to the petitioners office at Andheri at about 10.00 a.m. on 30.3.2000, he visited the petitioner's office. At that time, the petitioner and one If taker were present. 'Turn bahot paisa kama rahe ho, Tera hisab karna hai'. In the meantime, some other people came to the office and the informant escaped. Thereafter, he was called to the petitioner's office many times but, did not go, inspi...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Antifriction Bearings Corporat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Bom)126; [2000]246ITR295(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Two questions of law have been raised by the department in this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 1989-90. They are as follows :(a) Whether the A.O. was right in adding Rs. 29,410/- to the closing stock on account of Modvat credit?(b) Whether the A.O. erred in disallowing the assesee's claim under section 32AB on Rs. 13.80.955/- in respect of advance for purchase of machinery?2. In view of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 191 of 2000 and Income Tax Appeal No. 3 of 1999 decidedon 14.8.2000 the addition made to the closing stock on account of Modvat credit is ordered to be deleted. Accordingly, question No. 1 is answered in favour of the assesses and against the department. Accordingly, this appeal on question No. 1 is dismissed.3. On question No. 2, the facts are as follows :4. The assessed claimed the benefit of section 32AB in respect of purchase of plant and machinery for Rs. 85,89,784/-...
Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: [2001]247ITR727(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Since the above two appeals arise from common orders of the Tribunal, the same are disposed of together by this common judgment.2. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, directing the addition of Rs. 1,53,02,226 for the assessment year 1988-89, this appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the assessee.facts :The assessee is a partnership-firm. It is engaged in the business of dealing in bullion, gold and jewellery. For the assessment year 1988-89, it filed its return declaring an income of Rs. 33,18,400. The assessee claimed that in the year of account, relevant for the assessment year 1988-89, it had purchased gold ornaments of Rs. 1,53,02,226 weighing 58.803 kgs. from the partners of the firm and their family members. In other words, gold ornaments were purchased from 18 individuals, out of which five were the partners of the firm and the remaining 13 are their family members. In the audit report furnished under Section 44...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »