Mumbai Court November 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.
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Carbon Everflow Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT154Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We have heard Shri M.H. Shaikh, learned J.D.R. for the Revenue and Shri Jagesha, Consultant for the Respondent. The issue relates to Classification of the impugned.goods under sub-heading 2708.11 claimed by the respondent and under sub-heading 2708.19 claimed by the department. The learned J.D.R. states that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not taken into account the test report from I.I.T. and SAIL. He points out that the I.I.T. report is not categorical and it says that the sample is either wholly coal tar distillates or blended products and the SAIL report states that the softening point is 106 Degree Celsius which indicates that the impugned goods are hard pitch rather than blended product. As such, he states that the product is classifiable under Heading 2708.19. Shri Jagesha, learned Consultant defends the order, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the respondent. He has also produce (certificate) from the suppliers in Japan and Spain.2. After hearing rival submis...
Voltas Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(107)LC35Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri D.B. Shroff, learned Advocate appeared for the appellants. He states that the appellants imported Thermal Overload Protectors (TOP), took modvat credit and then sent the same to the job worker for manufacture of motors which on return are used in the manufacture of Air-conditioners in the appellant's factory. He stated that there is no double credit taken as alleged by the department. First time the credit has been taken of duty paid on TOPs and the second time the credit has been taken of the duty paid on motors. He also clarified that the value of the TOPs included in the value of the motors is exclusive of the duty paid on TOPs, credit of which has been taken. He further stated that the penalty is not justified as the department was kept informed all along and the department's permission was taken for sending the TOPs outside the factory premises for job work. He cited the following case laws to support his arguments:CCE, Bhubaneswar v. Konark Wires (P) Ltd. 1995 (77) ELT 3...
Maharashtra Krishna Valley Devp. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT276Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation is a Maharashtra State Government Undertaking engaged in the construction and operation of Irrigation Projects, flood control measures etc. They manufacture pipes from M.S. Plates. While pipes are liable to central excise duty, credit of duty paid on M.S. Plates is available towards payment of duty on pipes under Modvat scheme. The present appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 48/CEX/97, dated 18-6-1997 of the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Pune. Under this order the Commissioner denied credit of about Rs. 1.3 crore in respect of M.S. Pipes. The substantive ground for denying the credit was that, credit in respect of the consignments in question was taken "after six months of date of issue" of the invoices under which the goods were purchased and received and that it is a condition under proviso to Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules that the manufacturers shall not take credit after six months of the date of...
Cc Vs. Panchmahal Steel Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(107)LC320Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue raised in these appeals, at the instance of the Revenue, is whether refractory bricks imported by the respondent can be treated as components. The contention raised by the appellant is that by using the word 'Components" the Notification 77/90-Cus intends to restrict the scope of concession only to those parts which are required for initial setting and does not extend it to subsequent replacement.Reliance was placed on three decisions:Vaz Forwarding P. Ltd. v. CC The issue is now settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Sanitary Ware & Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta have been reversed in the above decision of the Supreme Court. The decision in Kesari Steels has been overruled by Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in Shri Ishar Alloys Steel Ltd. v. CC, Bombay . In view of the above the orders impugned are sustained and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed....
Cc Vs. Super Book House
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(107)LC44Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal by the department filed against the order in appeal dtd. 25.6.1997 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai.2. Shri M.H. Shaikh, learned JDR appearing for Revenue states that the impugned goods are classifiable under heading 4911 as they do not consist of any textual matter. Shri J.C. Patel, learned advocate for the respondents strongly urges that the impugned goods are nothing but books as these have been given ISBN Nos. which are only given to books.He showed a sample on which it is clearly printed that it is "A Peppin Press Design Book". He also cited the decision in the case of Wilco International v. CC wherein 'Jungle' was considered as a book because it was given an ISBN No, 3. After hearing rival submissions and perusal of case records, we are of the opinion that the impugned goods are classifiable under heading 4901 as Design Books. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal filed by Revenue....
Rama Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT244Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether liquid nitrogen gas used by the appellant in the course of manufacture of methanol is an input within the meaning of Rule 57G, and the duty paid on it available as Modvat credit. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has held that it is not an input.2. There is no dispute as to the use of the manufacture of the nitrogen and reproduced below is the narration furnished by the appellant to the Commissioner, relating to the use of the goods. "Raw Naphtha and steam are passed for synthesis gas production. Synthesis gas is then compressed in synthesis gas compressor chamber. Simultaneously nitrogen is passed in gas compressor chamber to create an inert atmosphere and thereafter is vented out in the air. Use of nitrogen is essential to prevent direct contact with oil in atmosphere thus avoiding oxidation of oil and atmosphere. Oxidation of oil increases the organic acidity of oil and formation of undesirable deposits...
A.M. Gurav and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ382CAT
1. The applicants in this O. A. are challenging the order dated 22.10.2001 issued by the Divisional Railway Manager, Solapur and further order dated 18/22.4.2002 by which the representations of the applicants have been rejected in regard to their seniority as Diesel Assistants and consequential seniority as Goods Driver and Senior Goods Driver.2. The applicants were selected as Apprentice Diesel Assistants in response to Employment Notice No. 07/89 by the Railway Recruitment Board. At the time, the selection took place, the pay scale of apprentice Diesel Assistant was Rs. 950-1,500. According to the letter of appointment, the applicants were required to undergo one year's training as apprentice Diesel Assistants. After which they were to be absorbed as Diesel Assistants against working post. The applicants have placed a copy of letter dated 18.5.1992 by which one of the applicants Shri Y.K. Ramesh Babu was informed about his selection pursuant to the recommendation by the Railway Recr...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Bom)357; [2003]259ITR423(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. All the above four references have come to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1978-79, 1980-81 and 1981-82. Since all the four references raise common questions on facts and law, they have been disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, we have reproduced hereinbelow the facts in I. T. R. No. 712 of 1987.Facts : 2. For the assessment year 1978-79, the Tribunal has referred to this court the following question under Section 256(1) of the Act. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled for double income-tax relief under Section 91(1) in respect of income from Tanzania without adjusting the losses from Thailand Branch ?'3. The assessee-The Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd.--had its business in India, Tanzania and Thailand. During the assessment year in question, the assessee suffered ...
Naginbhai P. Desai Vs. Taraben A. Sheth
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom192; 2003(1)ALLMR1006; 2003(4)BomCR313; 2003(1)MhLj994
D.G. Karnik, J.1. This appeal was initially dismissed in limine by an order dated 15th March 2002. In Civil Appeal No. 4926/02, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of dismissal of the appeal in limine and restored to the appeal to the original number directing it to be heard and decided after hearing both the parties. The virtual effect of the order of the Apex Court was that it stood admitted for final hearing. Accordingly, the record was called and the appeal was heard finally.The brief facts necessary for the decision of the appeal may be stated thus:2. The appellant (who was original defendant and referred to as such hereafter) was the owner of the immovable property bearing flat No. 2, situated on 4th floor of Parimal Co-operative Housing Society Limited, 22, Tilak Mandir Road, Vile Parle (East), Bombay 400 057 (for short 'the suit property'). By an agreement to sell dated Igt September 1988, he agreed to sell the suit property to the respondents (who were the original p...
Madhukar Damodar Pawar Deceased Through His Heirs and Legal Representa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR695; 2003(3)BomCR291; 2003(2)MhLj19
S.A. Bobde, J.1. This petition, by tenants, is directed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati dated 25th August, 1987 by which the Sub-Divisional Officer has dismissed the petitioners/tenants application for setting aside the execution proceedings.2. It is not necessary to narrate all the facts of the case. The relevant facts are that after several stages of litigations on 16th July, 1971 the application of the respondent No.1 landlord for eviction of the petitioner under Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was allowed.3. It appears that the respondent's father Purshottam Pandkar made persistent attempts for obtaining possession of the suit land in pursuance of the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Apparently, after a long period of time the Tahsildar, issued a letter dated 19th December, 1986 and the Circle Officer, Walha, issued an order dated 22nd December, 1986 calling upon the petitioners to deliver possession to the respondent....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »