Mumbai Court December 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.
Cit Vs. B.G. Shirke and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: [2003]127TAXMAN245(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.The question of law relating to assessment year 1978-79 referred to this court at the instance of the revenue, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is as follows :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the contribution of Rs. 12,03,000 to the three welfare trusts created by the assessee, is an allowable deduction under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in computing the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1978-79?'2. The relevant facts are that the assessee is a registered firm having seven partners. The assesses/firm is carrying on business of construction and structural engineers. For the assessment year 1978-79 the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 37,59,610. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee had created three welfare trusts for the welfare of its employees of various grades and had contri...
Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT213Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For reasons recorded below, we waive pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 16,52,803/- confirmed against the appellants, on the ground that they had wrongly availed Modvat credit and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed upon them, and proceed to hear and decide the appeal itself with the consent of both sides, as the issue lies within a very narrow compass.2. In this case the show cause notice was issued to the appellants who are manufacturers of cotton yarn and cotton fabrics falling under Chapter 52 of the Schedule to CETA, 1985, proposing denial of Modvat credit on three grounds: viz. (1) although the goods were received during May, 1997 to March, 1998 declaration under Rule 57T(1) was filed only in August and September, 1998; (2) goods were not capital goods as per the definition in Rule 57Q; and (3) some of the invoices did not bear preprinted serial numbers as required under Rule 57G.3. The Assistant Commissioner, however, adjudicated the notice denying the credit only on the ground mentioned...
Jyoti Overseas Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT820Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri. K.M. Mondal, learned Consultant appearing for the appellants stated that in this case no notice was issued to the appellants as there is no formal adjudication order by the Assistant Collector but merely a letter dated 23-8-1994 was issued by the Assistant Collector requiring the appellants to pay duty on the materials which are otherwise exempted under Notification No. 33/90-C.E. (N.T.), dated 5-9-1990. He further states that the amount to be paid has also not been quantified. He prays for remand of the case back to the original authorities for re-decision if necessary after issue of a Show Cause Notice.2. Shri. J.M. George, learned J.D.R. agrees to the suggestion as no speaking order has been passed by the Assistant Collector.3. After hearing both sides and perusal of the case records, we find that the Assistant Collector neither issued a Show Cause Notice to the appellants nor has he passed a speaking order. We, therefore, set aside the impugned direction of the Assistant ...
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT162Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 7,94,728/- confirmed on denial of Modvat credit on capital case, it appears that the issue being settled the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the denial of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q on various articles. First two articles were solution vessel and cylindrical vertical tank. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that they had not participated in the production of goods.Shri Jain relies upon the Tribunal order in their own case C-II/2122-25-WZB, dated 16-8-2001 [2002 (147) E.L.T. 645 (T)] where such vessels were held as admissible under Rule 57Q. The appeal for these items succeeds.3. The modules fitted with membranes used for processing of chemicals was denied on the ground that the specific usage thereof was not explained. The original authority had claimed that they were not covered under the scope of Rule 57Q. Shri Jain shows that the explanation to the s...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Standard Synthetifs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT240Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Heard both sides. The issue involved is classification of Geraniol.The original authority has classified the product under Sub-Heading No.3302.90 whereas the Commissioner (Appeals) has classified the product under Sub-Heading No. 2905.22. The explanatory note to H.S.N. includes Geraniol (obtained by fractional distillation of citronella oil and containing 50 to 77% geraniol together with varying amounts of citronella and nerol) under heading 3302. It is the contention of the learned Advocate that the impugned product is not a mixture but pure geraniol and hence merits classification under sub-heading 2205.22. We have seen the relevant chemical report which is as follows :- "The sample is in the form of colourless volatile liquid having characteristics aroma. It has the characteristics of Geraniol- an organic chemical." 2. We find that the chemical report does not categorically state the percentage of geraniol which is crucial to appropriate classification under Chapter 29 or Chapte...
Mafatlal Industries Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT808Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri J.C Patel, learned advocate arguing the case for the applicants submitted that the applicants are engaged in the production of fabrics falling under Chapters 52, 54, 55 and 58 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; on 11-3-1999 the fire broke out in the factory premises of the applicants which has destroyed the finished excisable goods; that the applicant had claimed remission in terms of the first proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules 1944; that the Insurance Company vide their letter dated 29-5-2000 have confirmed that they have settled only the product cost and not the Central Excise Duty; that vide BIFR Order dated 19-9-2000 as per paragraph 12 thereof the applicants have been declared as a Sick Industrial Company. He further, submitted that the applicants have got a strong prima facie case in their favour both on merits as well as law for waiver of entire duty and penalty.2. Shri M.H. Sheikh, learned J.D.R. appearing on beha...
Unity Organics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT159Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 97,605/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- confirmed by the authorities below, we find that it was possible to dispose of the appeal itself as the ground raised before us is that the demand is barred by limitation. Hence after waiving the pre-deposit we take up the appeal itself for final disposal with the consent of both sides.2. Show cause notice dated 17-11-1994 was issued to the appellants proposing denial of Modvat credit of the above mentioned amount on the ground that credit was availed on the strength of a debit note which is not a valid duty paying document for Modvat purposes. The notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner who confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. He, however, did not record any finding on the plea raised by the appellants that the demand was barred by limitation as the show cause notice issued on 17-11-1994, despatched subsequently and received late...
Kopran Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT214Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Heard both sides. The issue relates to grant of exemption to Dane Salt required for manufacture of Amoxycillin under Notification No. 64, dated 6-3-1979. The Notification required production of the certificate regarding receipt of imported goods in the manufacturing premises within a period of three months or such extended period allowed by the Assistant Collector. Admittedly, the appellants have produced the certificate much beyond the period of three months. The case had travelled up to Tribunal earlier and it was remanded to the Collector (Appeals) for fresh order on merits. However, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has again rejected the claim of the appellant stating that it is the jurisdiction of the earlier authority to accept delayed end use certificate and since the Assistant Commissioner was not satisfied with the reasons stated by the appellants for the delay, he has confirmed order of the Assistant Commissioner and rejected the appeal.2. We find that the order in...
Sambappa S/O Babappa Teli Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the Of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR252; 2003(4)BomCR374
A.B. Naik, J.1. In this petition the petitioner soughtfollowing reliefs. :'(A)Call for the Record and Proceedings ofRev. RevisionNo.RTS-5391/CR-199/L-6/CR-44/93, A & R.from the Respondent No.ls Office i.e. fromthe Officer on Special Duty and Secretary,(Appeals and Revision), Revenue and ForestDepartment, Government of Maharashtra,Bombay, and (B)The writ petition be allowed and theimpugned judgment and order passed by therespondent No.l on 2.ll.1993 vide ExhibitH be set aside and to sanction therectification of ROR entries in favour ofthe petitioner i.e. Mutation No.666 videExhibit C' based on the actual possessionof the land in question.' 2. Few facts that are necessary to beconsidered in deciding this writ petition. Therespondents herein/original revision petitioner filedrevision Application U/s 257 of the Maharashtra LandRevenue Code before the Additional Commissioner,Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad in which the presentpetitioner was the opponent. The parties will bereferred to as p...
Vitthal S/O Rambhau Kulat Vs. Mathura W/O Bhaurao Wankhede
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR950; 2003(4)BomCR763; 2003(3)MhLj237
R.S. Mohite, J.1. Heard Shri Ghare, Advocate for the petitionerand Shri Thakkar, Advocate for respondent No.2 -Caveator.2.Rule. By consent, rule is made returnableforthwith.3.By the impugned order dated 8.8.1996, thetrial Court had rejected an interlocutory applicationfiled by the petitioner - plaintiff for subjecting thedefendants to a D.N.A. test. Defendant No.1 is themother of defendant No.2 and the contention of thepetitioner is that he is not the father of defendantNo.2. It is the contention of defendant No.1 thatdefendant No.2 is illegitimate child of the plaintiff.4. The apex Court in the case of Goutam KunduVs. State of West Bengal, reported in : 1993CriLJ3233 ,held that the Courts in India cannot order blood test asa matter of course. It is further held by the apexCourt that no one can be compelled to give sample ofblood for analysis. The judgment of the apex Courtarose out of the proceedings under Section 125 of theCriminal Procedure Code and the father against whom thesaid p...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »