Mumbai Court January 2001 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.
Angadpat Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2001
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT427Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The delay of nine months and 21 days in filing this appeal which is attributed to the fact that the impugned order (of the Commissioner, fixing the annual capacity of the stenter) did not have a preamble to it showing that it was appealable, is explained as follows. The applicant consulted the advocate, who advised against filing an appeal and recommended asking the Commissioner to reconsider what he opined was "administrative order" which was duly done within a month and a half. There was no reply. Subsequently when the order of the Deputy Commissioner confirming the demand based on the determination made by the Commissioner was received, the applicant thought it wise to file the appeal and did so expeditiously. The affidavit of S.L. Verma, the advocate confirming his role is cited in support. It is contended that the applicant was genuinely prevented in filing the appeal within time.2. The departmental representative contends that the dyeing master was asked to contact the advoca...
Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Forbes Gokak Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2001
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT271Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In coming to his conclusion that the goods descRuleibed as "semi-finished blanks" manufactured by M/s. Forbes Gokak Ltd., the respondent to this appeal, are lenses which are exempted by Notification 79/90, the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the opinions of the Head of the Department of Ophthalmology of Grant Medical College, Bombay and that of persons dealing in the trade of llenses The Department's appeal questioning this finding on the ground that the lenses are completely different from blanks does not cite the slightest evidence in support of this assertion. The appeal does not say why the Commissioner (Appeals)'s reliance upon opinions of the persons whom he has named is incorrect. The Tribunal's Order referred to in the appeal which is reported in 1995 (80) E.L.T. 801 in the respondent's own case was not concerned with these goods at all, and is irrelevant to the facts of this case....
Exide Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2001
Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT218Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applicant manufactures electric storage batteries (batteries for short). It sells these batteries without charging them to dealers.Manufacturers of motor vehicles, who buy these batteries from the applicant required them to be charged as they are to be fitted immediately into these motor vehicles. In the case of sales to such buyers, applicant got the batteries charged from a job worker, and, after return by the job worker, sends them to buyers. The applicant followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 57F(4) for this purpose.As required by Rule 57F(6), the applicant debited 10% of the value of the goods in its Modvat account while sending out the batteries to the job worker. It cancelled the debit when it received back the batteries.2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the view of the Assistant Commissioner that the provisions of Rule 57F(4) were not available, for the reason that there is no difference between the uncharged and charged ...
Burroughs Wellcome (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2001
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT540Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to duty free clearance, in terms of Notification 11/97, of polymyxin B sulphate imported by the appellant.2. The importer had claimed the exemption contained in entry 43(B) to the table under this notification. This entry exempts bulk drugs used in the manufacture of life saving drugs or medicines listed in entry 43(A). The exemption has been refused on the ground that neosporin, for the manufacture of which the appellant imported this substance, was not a life saving drug or medicine listed in sub entry (A).3. The correctness of this point cannot be disputed. However, polymyxin B sulphate itself is listed as being a lifesaving drug to which the exemption contained in entry 43 (A) will be available. Lists 1 and 2 specify the drugs importable under entry 43(A). Entry 171 of list 2 is polymyxin B sulphate. The failure to claim this benefit at the time of importation cannot debar it from claiming it later. We therefore h...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Diamond Creek
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2001
Reported in: (2002)82ITD291(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A)-XXXI, Mumbai, dt, 29th Sept., 1998. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned GIT(A) erred in directing the AO not to refuse 90 per cent of the incentive including Rs. 3,21,053 interest income from the profits of business for working out deductions under Section 80HHC and directed to include Rs. 3,21,053 as part and parcel of total turnover for working out deduction under Section 80HHC ignoring the provisions of law contained in Expln. (baa) to Section 80HHC(4A)".3. At the time of hearing before us, it is stated by the learned Departmental Representative that the assessee is deriving income from export of Diamond-The assessee received interest of Rs. 3,21,043 and paid interest of Rs. 8,33.298. As per Expln. (baa) to Section 80HHC, the profit of the business is to be reduced by 90 per cent of income received by way of interest. Thus the profit of the business for the purpose of Section...
Maimuna Iqbal Kasam Pathan Vs. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2001
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)269; 2001(5)BomCR501; 2001CriLJ1134
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who describes herself as the wife of the detenu - Iqbal Kasam Pathan has impugned the detention order dated 30-12-1999 passed by the first respondent Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay detaining the detenu under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996). (Hereinafter referred to as the M.P.D.A. Act).The detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 30-12-1999 was served on the detenu on 1-9-2000 and their true copies have been annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this writ petition.2. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned detention order is founded on one C.R. namely C.R. No. 70 of 1999 under sections 392, 394, 34, I.P.C. registered at A...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Gopinath Tanaji Jadhav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2001
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)264; 2001(5)BomCR557; 2001CriLJ1277
Pratibha Upasani, J.1. Both these Criminal Appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 4/5-1-1984 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 138 of 1982 and can be disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. Criminal Appeal No. 719 of 1985 is filed by the appellant/State of Maharashtra for enhancement of sentence of the respondent/original accused Gopinath Tanaji Jadhav, who was convicted for offence punishable under section 376 of Indian Penal Code but was awarded only one year R.I. Criminal Appeal No. 720 of 1985 is filed by the State of Maharashtra being aggrieved by the order of acquittal of the said accused Gopinath Tanaji Jadav vide the impugned judgment and order for offence punishable under section 366 of I.P.C.3. Few facts which are required to be stated are as follows:The prosecution case is that the respondent/accused Gopinath Tanaji Jadhav was residing at 216/8459, Kannamwar Nagar No. 1, Vikhroli (East), Mumbai- 4...
Prem Laxmi and Co. Vs. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR7
K.K. Baam, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the petitioner under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as it was contended on behalf of the respondents that the agreement between the Appellants/petitioners and the respondents did not contain an arbitration clause. A plea was taken on behalf of the respondents herein under sub-section (2) of section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that the Arbitral Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine the dispute between the petitioners and the respondents as the agreement between the petitioners and the respondents did not contain an arbitration clause.2. The learned arbitrator, who was appointed in pursuance of the directions of this Court in the petition filed by the petitioners herein, being Arbitration Petition No. 232 of 1998, with liberty given to the parties to raise all contentions, factual and legal available under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has, by his award da...
Commissioner of Cen. Excise, Pune Vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-2001
Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT1330Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applicant Commissioner seeks reference to be made to the jurisdictional High Court the following question: "Whether it is permissible to construe an item like tool kit (which is not subject to any process in the line of manufacture of vehicle) ane which is not statutorily required under the provisions of any of the law, as eligible input used in or in relation to manufacture of the two wheelers/three wheelers as laid down in Rule 57A?' 2. The Departmental Representative shows reference made by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal to the Jurisdictional High Court on the same question vide order No. R/21/97-NB dated 4.4.1997. In view of the precedence, the question is required to be referred to the jurisdictional High Court. The question is reframed as under :- "Whether it is permissible to construe an item lime tool kit (which is not subject to any process in the line of manufacture of vehicle) and which is not statutorily required under the provisions of any of the law, as eligible ...
Commissioner of Cen. Excise, Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-2001
Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT1320Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applicant Commissioner seeks reference to be made to the jurisdictional High court the following questions: (1) Whether instructions issued by Board not being the instructions issued under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act are binding on the Judicial or quasi Judicial officers in light of Hon'ble Supreme court decision in the case of M/s. Orient Paper Mills Ltd., v. UOI. (2) whether it is permissible to construe an item like tool kit and screw jack with handle (which is not subject to any processes in the line of manufacture of motor vehicle but it is supplied with the motor vehicle) which is not statutory requirements under the provisions of law, an eligible inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of the motor vehicle as laid down in the Rule 57A." 2. The departmental Representative shows reference made by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal to the Jurisdictional High Court on the same question vide order No. R/21/97-NB dated 4.4.1997. In view of the precedence, the quest...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »