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.
Jalan Dyg. and Bleaching Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC660Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the liability to duty of the nickel cylinders and printing frames manufactured by the appellant and intended to be used in printing of textiles in its factory that it makes. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has held the goods liable to duty.3. Notification 201/87 granted exemption from duty to printing frames captively used in the printing of textiles. By its letter dated 12-2-1988, the Board has clarified that "design screens" and "cylinder screens" were eligible for exemption under this notification, on its view that they were not different from flat bed screens. The view that there is no difference between printing frames and design cylinders was also expressed by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in CCE v. Piramal Spg. Weaving Mills Ltd. - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 613. Therefore, there is really no difference in identity between printing frames nickel design cylinders. We are concerned with the clearance made betwee...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Ceat Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT200Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of tyres for forklifts that the respondent to this appeal manufactured.The respondent claimed classification of these tyres under Heading 4011.99 of the tariff. The department, by issue of notice, proposed classification under Heading 4011.91. Adjudicating upon this notice, the Assistant Collector confirmed the classification claimed by the department. The assessee appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) applied the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in CEAT Ltd. v. CCE - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 515, which held these tyres to be correctly under Heading 4011.99. She allowed the manufacturer's appeal.2. At the relevant time sub-heading 91 of Heading 40.11 was for tyres "of a kind on vehicles or equipments designed for use off-the-road, subheading 99, "Other". In the decision that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon, the Tribunal concluded that forklifts were not vehicles or equipment designed for use off-...
Satish Dattatray Shivalkar Vs. Pimpri-chinchwad Municipal Corporation, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom244; 2002(4)BomCR183; (2002)2BOMLR25; 2002(2)MhLj619
R.M. Lodha, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the special notice dated 8-1-1991 (Annexure 'D'), special notice dated 8-1-1991 (Annexure 'E'), bill dated 12-12-1991 (Annexure 'G') and bill dated 12-12-1991 (Annexure 'H).2. The grievance of the petitioner arises in the following circumstances :The petitioner has properties bearing Nos. P/B/3/1/101 and P/B/3/1/103 being residential flats at Ajmeera Housing Complex, Pimpri, Pune, (for short, 'the said property'). The petitioner is running his hospital in the said property since 1985. The said property has been assessed as residential complex for the purposes of property taxes. By the impugned notices and bills, the said property is sought to be assessed as commercial complex with retrospective effect from 1985 for the purposes of property taxes. According to the petitioner, the demand raised by the respondents is unlawful and in contravention of the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corp...
Jindal Drugs Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Noy Vallesina Engineering Spa, Italy and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR554; 2002(2)MhLj820
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the Award dated 1st February, 2000. The facts that are material and relevant for considering this petition are that the petitioner is a Company incorporated in India. The 1st respondent is a Company incorporated under the Laws of Italy.The petitioner on 30th January, 1995 entered into four related Agreements with Enco Engineering Chur AG of Sagenstrasse, which is a company incorporated under the Laws of Switzerland. These four Agreements are known as the 'Engineering Contract for Ascorbic Acid Plant (ECAAP)', 'Supply Contract for Ascorbic Acid Plant (SCAAP)', 'Service Agreement for Ascorbic Acid Plant (SAAAP)', and 'Licence Agreement for Ascorbic Acid Plant (LAAAP)'. By these Agreements, Enco agreed to supply to the petitioner their secret knowledge and know-how for the production of ascorbic acid to enable the petitioner to build a new ascorbic acid plant in India. On 1st March, 1995, the petitioner, Enco and th...
Byramji Jeejeebhoy and Co. Ltd., Bombay Vs. Gift Tax Officer, Bombay a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR849; 2002(4)BomCR228; [2003]259ITR647(Bom); 2002(2)MhLj880
V.C. Daga, J.1. The present petition is directed against the notice dated 23rd November 1982 (Exh. 'H') received by the petitioner on 27th November 1982 purported to be issued under Section 16(1) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958 ('Act' for short) alleging therein that the first respondent had reason to believe that the gifts made by the petitioner company in the assessment year 1976-77 had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 16 of the Act. By the said notice the first respondent called upon the petitioner company to file its return under the said Act. The petitioner company replied the aforesaid notice through its Chartered Accountant by letter dated 24th December 1982 setting out relevant facts and challenging the same on various factors and legal grounds. The petitioner company did not receive any reply from the first respondent. The petitioner therefore assumed that the first respondent had accepted the contention of the petitioner and agreed either to withdraw the impugned no...
Mukesh Chandandas Harvani Vs. Pramilabai Wd/O Ramesh Sangole and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR690; 2002(2)MhLj938
J.N. Patel, J. 1. Rule. By consent, heard forthwith. 2. The plaintiff's suit came to be dismissed as he failed to appear on the date it was fixed for recording of evidence i.e. on 7-11-1994. Thereafter, the plaintiff having come to know that the suit has been dismissed in default, moved an application under Order IX, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code for restoration of the suit. This application came to be filed on 14-11-1994. It was the case of the plaintiff that he could not attend the Court due to illness and even could not contact his advocate. It was further stated that his father who was holding of Power of Attorney on his behalf, had gone to attend marriage and, therefore, the suit should be restored to file. The learned Court found that the plaintiff has failed to give sufficient cause for his absence and dismissed the application. 3. Mr. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the application for restoration of the suit has been dismissed only on the ground t...
Hagglunds Drives Ab and anr. Vs. National Heavy Engineering Co-operati ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom305; 2003(1)BomCR721; (2002)2BOMLR681
D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. The appellants before the Court impugn an order dated 1st August, 2001 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune by which the learned trial Judge has declined to grant an interim injunction, restraining the First Respondent from encashing the proceeds of two Bank Guarantees and restraining the Second Respondent, the Bank of Maharashtra from paying over the proceeds of the Bank Guarantees. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in the present case is that the Bank Guarantees in question are not unconditional in nature and the Invocation of the Guarantees by the First Respondent was in the circumstances of the case not in terms of the stipulations contained in the Instruments of Guarantee. 2. The first Respondent had a contractwith a co-operative sugar factory, known asthe Pandavpura Sahakari Sakhar Karkhanafor the supply and commissioning of a sugarfactory. The First Respondent in turnplaced two purchase o...
Veetrag Investments and Finance Co. and Seksaria Sons Pvt. Ltd., Mumba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR169; 2002(3)MhLj455
J.A. Patil, J. 1. The applicant company has taken out this Chamber Summons under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code for the following-main reliefs :-- (a) Delay, if any, in taking out this Chamber Summons be condoned. (b) that the order dated 30th March, 2001 for sanction of sale of office premises situate at 3rd floor, Seksaria Chambers, 139, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai-400023 in favour of plaintiff be set aside and quash attachment if any levied thereon on 23rd November, 2000 or any other date be raised and warrant of sale if any be set aside pursuant thereto. (c) Court Receiver High Court Bombay be directed to re-enter the demise premises if the possession is handed over to the Plaintiff pursuant to the said order dated 30-3-01. 2. The applicant company is the owner and landlord of building known as 'Seksaria Chambers', opposite Commerce House, 139, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai-023. The defendant company is a monthly tenant of the applicant in respect of th...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Maruti Madhav Kerulkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR177; 2002(4)MhLj73
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Original defendant Nos. 1 to 4, the Union of India and authorities from Ministry of Defence, by this revision petition challenge the judgment and order dated 18-7-2001 in Miscellaneous Civil Apeal No. 61/1998 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar, thereby confirming order dated 24-4-1998 passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge (J. D.) Ahrnednagar, in Regular Civil Suit No. 320/1997.2. Present respondent Nos. 1 to 7 are original plaintiffs. Respondent, Nos. 8 to 10, three Grampanchayats are original defendant Nos. 6 to 8. Respondent No. 11-Collector, who was defendant No. 5 in the suit represents the State. [Henceforth parties shall be referred to as plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 1 to 7), defence authorities (revision petitioners), Grampanchayats (respondent Nos. 8 to 10) and the Collector, for the sake of brevity].Plaintiffs approached the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, by Regular Civil Suit No. 320/1997 for declaration and perpetual injunct...
Byramji Jeejeebhoy and Co. Ltd. Vs. Gto
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN461(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.The present petition is directed against the notice dated 23-11-1982 (Exh. H) received by the petitioner on 27-11-1982 purported to be issued under section 16(1) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging therein that the first respondent had reason to believe that the gifts made by the petitioner-company in the assessment year 1976-77 had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 16. By the said notice, the first respondent called upon the petitioner-company to file its return under the said Act. The petitioner-company replied the aforesaid notice through its Chartered Accountant by letter dated 24-12-1982 setting out relevant facts and challenging the same on various factors and legal grounds. The petitioner-company did not receive any reply from the first respondent. The petitioner, therefore, assumed that the first respondent had accepted the contention of the petitioner and agreed either to withdraw the impugned notice dated 23-11-1...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »