Mumbai Court February 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.
Baron International Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex., Vadodara
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT112Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. J.R. Electronics (JRE) was a Proprietorship unit of Mr. Z.H.Rizvi. The unit manufactured CTVs. and Audio products bearing 'AKAI' brand. These were sold in their entirety to M/s. Baron International Ltd. (BIL) in terms of an Agreement. M/s. BIL held the right to use the 'Akai'; brand name. The prices negotiated between the manufacturer and its sole buyer was declared as the price for levy of duty. The CTVs.and Audio systems were supplied by JRE to BIL from December, 1994 onwards. On 1-4-1996 the proprietary concern ceased to exist and a Private Limited Company in the name and style of M/s. J.R. Consumer Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (JRCEPL) was formed. The Company had two Directors - one was Mr. Rizvi and the second was Mr. Jaydeep Anand. The assets and liabilities of the proprietary unit were taken over by the private limited company. The manufacture and supply of CTVs. and audio products were continued as earlier.2. There was a substantial difference between the manufacturer's price...
Caprihans India Ltd. Vs. Mr. Prakash Chandra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR80; [2002]256ITR721(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of theparties, rule is taken up for final hearing.2. In this petition, Petitioners challenge thenotice dated 31.1.2001 for reopening of theassessment issued under Section 148 of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (in short Act). January, 2001.3. The assessment year relevant for the purposeherein is Account year 1994-95.4.The Petitioner is engaged in the business ofmanufacturing P.V.C. sheeting, decorative laminates,extruded sheets, etc. In the course of itsmanufacturing operations, Petitioner imports certainraw materials on which it incurs a liability to paythe customs duty. The goods manufactured out of theimported raw materials are liable to excise duty.5. In the assessment year relevant for thepurpose herein, return of income was filed on 30thNovember, 1994 declaring the income ofRs.98,03,840/along with accounts and tax auditreport. In note No.9 to the notes of accounts, itwas indicated that the excise duty on finished goodsand customs ...
Bombay Telephone Canteen Employees Association and anr. Vs. Mahanagar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR303; [2002(95)FLR1114]; (2003)ILLJ694Bom
Nishita Mhatre, J. 1. Petitioner No. 2 is workman who had joined the services of respondent No. 1 in the departmental canteen at the Andheri Telephone Exchange. The workman was working as a bearer and his duty hours were from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. with lunch recess from 12.15 p.m. to 1.15 p.m. Leave was not granted to him. The workman was an active member of petitioner No. 1 who represents the canteen employees working in various Telephone Exchanges in Mumbai. It appears that there was a settlement in conciliation whereby it was agreed between the parties that leave was to be granted to five workmen. Accordingly, applications for leave were filed by the workmen. All the five workmen except petitioner No. 2, Ramchandra Moolya, were granted leave and were allowed to join duty. However, the workman was terminated from service after holding an enquiry. The Enquiry Officer held that the workman was guilty of the misconduct alleged against him and, therefore, respondent No. 1 dismissed the workma...
V.V. Lewis Vs. Superintendent, Acworth Leprosy Hospital and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR226; [2002(94)FLR888]
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order of the Labour Court passed under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act disallowing her claim for Mess Allowance and Conveyance Allowance. 2. A few facts of the case in brief are as under :The petitioner was appointed in the Acworth Leprosy Hospital as a Nurse in 1971. Her appointment letter stipulated that she would be paid a particular pay plus uniform allowance, special allowance, washing allowance, dearness allowance, dearness pay plus additional allowance for messing. The Acworth Leprosy Hospital (hereinafter referred to as 'the hospital'), which was an autonomous body, was taken over by the Bombay Municipal Corporation-respondent No. 2 herein, and the mess allowance which was being paid to the petitioner was discontinued w.e.f. 1-6-1987. The petitioner has informed that this allowance was discontinued since the nursing staff working in the dispensaries were not entitled to the allowance...
Bombay Leprosy Project Vs. Vishnu B. Chavan and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR178; [2002(94)FLR789]
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the Award of the Labour Court whereby the Labour Court has awarded reinstatement with 60% back-wages to the respondent-workman with effect from 7-4-1987. The Labour Court has also directed that an amount of Rs. 350/- per month should be deducted from the back-wages payable to the workman as he had received this amount during the period he was not in service.2. The petitioner is a registered Charitable organisation sponsored by German Leprosy Relief Association. It had engaged respondent No. 1 as a driver from 9-5-1984. It is the petitioner's case that due to financial difficulties and fall in the quantum of work, it decided to retrench one of the drivers from amongst the three that it had employed. The respondent-workman being the junior-most driver, was retrenched w.e.f. 1-4-1987. The letter of termination shows that an amount of Rs. 4,320,40 was offered by way of legal dues on account of retrenchment.3. Being aggrieved by the termina...
Caprihans India Ltd. Vs. Prakash Chandra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Bom)173; [2002]122TAXMAN862(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, rule is taken up for final hearing.2. In this petition, petitioner challenged the notice dated 31-1-2001 for reopening of the assessment issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), January, 2001.3. The assessment year relevant for the purpose herein is 1994-95.4. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing P.V.C. sheeting, decorative laminates, extruded sheets, etc. In the course of its manufacturing operations, petitioner imports certain raw materials on which it incurs a liability to pay the customs duty. The goods manufactured out of the imported raw materials are liable to excise duty.5. In the assessment year relevant for the purpose herein, return of income was filed on 30-11-1994 declaring the income of Rs. 98,03,840 along with accounts and tax audit report. In note No. 9 to the notes of accounts, it was indicated that the excise duty on finished ...
Pragati Plywood Inds. P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT621Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The notice issued to the appellant demanded duty on block board cleared by it during the period between October 1994 and May 1995. It did not invoke the extended period contained in the proviso to Sub-section 3(a) of Section 11A of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner, whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), has confirmed the demand for duty. Hence this appeal.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have read the memorandum of appeal and heard the departmental representative.3. The only contention in the appeal is that the notice is barred by limitation in respect of clearances made during the period from 1-10-1994 to 30-11-1994 being beyond the period of six months from the relevant date. This claim is based on the fact that the appellant had been filing its RT 12 returns totally, in accordance with the permission granted by a trade notice issued by the Collector. The relevant date therefore is to be computed from 10-1-1995, the date of...
Vipul Plastic Industries Vs. Commr. of Customs, (Acc), Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT777Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeal taken up for disposal after waiving deposit, with the consent of both sides.2. The appellant before us received, some time in November, 2000, an order dated 30-10-2000 of the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai. Notwithstanding the fact that this order was unsigned, an appeal was filed against this order before the Commissioner (Appeals). That authority asked for a signed copy of the order of the Additional Commissioner, and this not having been produced, he dismissed the appeal before him. Hence this appeal.3. It will be obvious that an unsigned copy of the Additional Commissioner's order is no order at all. It has no legal force or sanctity. An apeal against it could not have been filed. The Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in dismissing the appeal before him.4. That being the case, the appeal filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be entertained by this Tribunal.5. We are unable to comprehend the request made by the Counse...
Rpg Cables Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT419Tri(Mum.)bai
2. RPG Cables Ltd., the appellant, purchased cable jointing kits from their manufacture and sold them to its own customers. While doing so, it recovered from the customer's amounts as representing excise duty on these kits which were greater than the amounts that the manufacturer actually paid. On this being pointed out to it, it paid to the department the difference between the duty paid by the manufacturer and the amounts that it collected from its buyers. The notice issued to it proposed to appropriate these amounts under Section 11AD of the Act, demanded interest under Section 11AB of the Act and proposed penalty under Section 11AC. Adjudicating on the notice, the Additional Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice, demanded interest and imposed penalty. His order having been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the matter is now before us.3. Counsel for the appellant does not dispute the claim of the department towards recovery of the amounts which it collected from ...
Sunways (i) P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT93Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question as to whether the benefit of Notification 6/94 exempting medicaments from duty will be available to goods manufactured during the period between 6-1-1995 to 9-2-1995 has been referred to the Larger Bench in Surya Pharmaceutical Ltd. v. CC - 2001 (134) E.L.T.776, on account of a conflict between two Benches of the Tribunal holding contradictory views on the subject.2. In the light of this position, we waive deposit of the duty of Rs. 99,957.17 demanded from the applicant on account of medicament that it cleared during the period, and stay its recovery.3. Either side to mention as and when the Larger Bench decision is received....
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »