Mumbai Court January 2002 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.
Precission Press Parts Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT145Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This stay application and appeal is taken up for final decision, after waiver of pre deposit since certain amount has already been paid in this case, and with the consent of both sides.2. After hearing the learned Counsel, Shri Parakh for the appellant and the Departmental Representative, Shri Chopra for the Revenue, we find : (a) this matter has been remanded to the lower authority twice earlier. The last remand by CEGAT was with directions as follows : "2. Shri Satnam Singh, SDR appearing for the appellants/Revenue submitted that the matter is covered by the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of Namtech Systems and Ors. v. CCE, Bangalore [2000 (36) RLT 35 (CEGAT-Larger Bench)]. He is not aware as what happened to the earlier order relied upon by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in his order. 3. As the Appellate authority has relied upon his earlier order and it is not clear as what happened to that order and as similar issue has come up for consideration before...
Darshan C. Sanghvi Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT676Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The appeal is against the order of the Additional Collector, confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), imposing a penalty of Rs. 40,000/- on the appellant under Rule 209A. The appellant, at the relevant time, was a partner of Solid Point Computer. In the same order, the Additional Commissioner had demanded duty from the firm, and imposed penalty, on the firm, on his finding that it did not pay duty on the computers that it manufactured.3. One of the grounds in the appeal is that in view of the fact that a penalty has already been imposed on the partnership firm, a separate penalty could not be imposed on the partner. The Commissioner (Appeals), before whom this point was raised, has said that the penalty imposed on the appellant before us for the offence committed by him in his personal capacity and was therefore distinct from the penalty imposed on the partnership firm. The Additional Commissioner has imposed a penalty on Darshan C. Sanghvi only in his capacity as partner...
Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT356Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The claim by the appellant for refund of excise duty paid in excess was admitted by the Assistant Collector in principle but the refund ordered to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund instead of being paid to the appellant on his view that it had not been shown that the incidence of duty on which refund was claimed has not been passed on.This order having been confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), the matter is before this Tribunal.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented and has requested decision on the basis of its written submission.3. These submissions contend that the ledger maintained by the appellant for payment of amounts payable to and receivable from its customers show that the credit had been made to the account of these customers of the duty claimed as refund. This shows that the incidence of duty has not been passed on. This however does not answer the question as to why customers in question have denied that they had not received any credit. The ...
Vikas Automatic Fasteners Pvt. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Nagpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT650Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an application for stay requesting the Tribunal to waive deposit of sum of Rs. 2,59,345/- being the duty assessed on the goods in dispute viz. Fastening material. The appellants have claimed classification under Chapter Heading 8432 of Central Excise Tariff Act.The department has by means of the Order-in-Original as well as Order-in-Appeal has classified this product under Chapter Heading 7318.This resulted in the demands of a sum of Rs. 2,59,435/-.2. We have considered the pleas raised by the applicant before us as well as the orders passed by the lower authorities. The classification list re lied in the application in our view the prima facie does not reflect the true state of affairs. The product before us is a fastening material and the fact is that this material may be used for agricultural purposes. The implement does not imply that they may not fall under Chapter Heading 7318 of CETA. We are therefore of the view prima facie, the product may fall under Chapter Headin...
Madhusudan Parashramji Gujar Vs. Assistant Registrar for Co-operative ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR846; 2002(3)BomCR645; 2002(2)MhLj285
R.S. Mohite, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The brief facts of this petition, arc as under :-- The respondent No. 16 is not specified society. Under its bye-laws any person, who holds a share of Rs. 100/- is entitled to become a member. Under its bye-laws its election to the Managing Committee are to be held in accordance with the Election Rules, which are required to be framed. Admittedly, such Election Rules were approved by the Assistant Registrar-respondent No. 1 on 23-8-2000. In the Election Rules a person a member, was entitled to file his nomination provided he owned two shares of the value of Rs. 200/-. On 14-11-2001, the election programme of respondent No. 16 society came to be published. Under the Election programme, the dates for filing of nomination were between 10-12-2001 and 14-12-2001. The last date for raising objection was 18-12-2001. The date for scrutiny was on 20-12-2001. It is not in dispute that on the date fixed for scrutiny, the Returning O...
Sahebrao Dhondiba Patekar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR118
S.S. Parkar, J.18.1.20021. These three Appeals arise from the common judgment and order dated 19th August, 1996 delivered by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. 411 of 1996, whereby the two accused were convicted, inter alia, for offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 1996 is filed by the Appellant, original accused No. 2, challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded against her for various offences under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Indian Arms Act. Criminal Appeal No. 533 of 1996 has been filed by the Appellant, original accused No. 1, impugning the order of conviction and sentence recorded against him under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal Appeal No. 559 of 1996 has been filed by the State for enhancement of sentence against both the accused for offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The last appeal does not appear to ha...
Raj International Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Prev.),
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT670Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applications are for waiver of deposit of penalties under Section 114 of the Act of Rs. 35,000/- on Raj International, Rs. 65,000/- on Smruti Agencies and Rs. 5.50 lakhs on Hemeta Agri Equipments and Rs. 1.00 lakh on Mahendra H. Patel. Penalties have been imposed on all the applications, except Mahendra H, Patel on the finding that they wrongly claimed the draw back on agricultural implements exported by them and on Mahendra H. Patel in his capacity as a partner of Hemeta Agri Equipments.2. The contention of the representative of the applicants is that the provisions of clause (i) of Section 113 of the Act will not be applicable and since the goods are therefore not liable to confiscation under Section 113, penalty could not be imposed. He agrees that the draw back was wrongly claimed but it has been refunded to the department. The departmental representative contends that the provisions of clause (m) of Section 113 will apply.3. Whether the clause will apply or not is debatabl...
Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Prakash G. Heblkar
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)83ITD495(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dt. 26th Nov., 19.92, passed by the learned CIT(A). "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and ,in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the amount of Rs. 5,50,000 received by the assessee from his former employer on voluntary retirement was a capital receipt and, therefore, not taxable, without appreciating the specific provisions of Section 17(3)(i) of the IT Act in this regard and without considering that the case cited by him in arriving at his decision apply to cases of "business" and not to "Salaried" professionals, in whose cases, the provisions of Section 17(3)(i) are clearly attracted." 3. The assessee is a management and technical consultant. He is the proprietor of a firm, Profitech. His main activities are consultancy services in the areas of software, business strategies, human resources development and software exports, etc. Prior to starting his own business, the assessee was employed, since 2nd A...
Keki Bomi Dadiseth and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2002
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)761; 2002(3)MhLj246
1. Heard Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for thepetitioners, and Mrs. Jog, Shri Jichkar, Shri Loney,Shri Dhote and Shri Patel, learned Additional PublicProsecutors for the respondent State.2. In all these matters, the accused/Directors are ofM/s. Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited, which isamalgamated with Hindustan Lever Limited with effectfrom 21.3.1997. The sample of product manufactured bythe Company found to be adulterated is also the same,namely, 'Kissan Mixed Fruit Jam'. The Companyprosecuted is also the same, i.e. M/s. Brooke BondLipton India Limited except in Criminal Application No.669/2000 where Company, which is prosecuted is HindustanLever Limited and product is 'Anik Ghee'. Theallegations against the accused/Directors made in thecomplaints are identical in nature and process is issuedby the Magistrates in all these cases for contraventionof provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 and Rules framed thereunder. Therefore, all thesematters are heard together...
Universal Ferro and Allied Chemicals Limited Vs. Member, Industrial Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR191; 2002(3)BomCR650; [2002(94)FLR554]
1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.3. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner, challenging an order dated 1.8.2001 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur, below Ex. 36 in Complaint (ULPN) No.1024 of 1999. The aforesaid complaint has been filed by the present respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in the Industrial Court, Nagpur, on 29.11.1999, inter alia, challenging the validity of an agreement dated 2.6.1999 entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.4 - representative union, for alleged violation of items No. 5 & 10 of Schedule IV and item No. 3 of Schedule III of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The challenge in this petition is on several grounds, which can be formulated herein under:(a) That the Industrial Court has not properly appreciated the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Express Newspapers (P.) Ltd. Vs . The Workers and others, repor...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »