Mumbai Court March 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.
Blue Star Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Sahar
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC31Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification under the customs tariff, and consequently entitled to exemption under Notification 58/88 of goods imported by the appellant described in the certificate attached to the invoice for the goods as :- "I2CE system 10 MHz 8086/8088 support kit for PC host. Includes III086A9D4D 10 MHz (8086/8088 probe and software), III515 (Instrumention chassis and emulation base module) and III520B954D (Host Interface module and host software)." 2. The claim for refund of the duty paid by the appellant on the ground that the goods should be classified under Heading 84.71 and therefore entitled to the exemption under Notification 58/88 has been dismissed by the Assistant Collector. On appeal from this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground that "there is no evidence to show that the submissions being made before him were made before the assessing officer and that noting that the assessment was finalised on...
Jesia Mistry Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC32Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility of the truck mounted crane imported by the appellant to the benefit of exemption contained in entry 22 of the table to the Notification 61/99.The entry exempts from duty goods classifiable under Heading 84.26 other than those falling under sub-heading 41 of that heading. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has declined to interfere with the order of the Assistant Commissioner holding that the goods were classifiable under sub-heading 41 and hence not entitled to the exemption.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have read the memorandum of appeal and further submission filed before us and heard the departmental representative.3. Entry 84.22 and its sub-headings, as it stood at the relevant time, reads as follows :- Ships' derricks; cranes including cable cranes; mobile fitting frames, straddle carriers and works trucks fitted with a crane Overhead travelling crane...
Bright Brothers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-2002
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT402Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applications are for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 1.53 crore and equal penalty on the assessee and penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs on Indru G. Advani, the assessee's executive director.2. The assessee was engaged in the manufacture and supply of automobile components of plastic to Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. (TELCO for short). TELCO agreed to reimburse to the applicant 60% of the costs that it incurred in developing the moulds which is required to make these components. Notice issued to the applicant proposed to recover the entire amount recovered by it from TELCO on the ground that it was additional consideration. The assessee's claim was that each of the invoices issued for sale of the components in question on which duty was paid on this count. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has not accepted this contention and has demanded duty on the entire portion of the amount received by the applicant.3. It is now settled that the amounts recovered by an ...
Dr. Dina Sohrab Hakim and Dr. Avimoy Sohrab Hakim, Indian Inhabitants ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom387; 2002(6)BomCR277; (2002)3BOMLR646; 2002(2)MhLj851
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard Mrs.M.V.Shetty, learned Counsel forPetitioners and Ms.Savla, learned Counsel forRespondent No.2 viz. Municipal Corporation ofGr.Bombay.2.At the outset, we are constrained toobserve that the first Respondent viz. State ofMaharashtra has not chosen to file any counter orreturn in opposition to the Writ Petition.Shockingly, nobody has appeared for StateGovernment to argue the matter on their behalf.In the circumstances, we heard the learned Counselfor Petitioners and learned Counsel for secondRespondent.3.The Petitioners claimed to be owners of aplot of land admeasuring 3646.23 sq.mtrs. knownas Hakimwadi situate at the junction of FalklandRoad and Eruchshaw Road, bearing Cadastral SurveyNo.176, Tardeo Division, Bombay, particularswhereof are given in Exhibit-A. The said propertywas reserved for a Municipal Recreation ground inthe 'D' Ward Development Plan sanctioned by theState Government under Government Notification,Urban Development, Public Health and HousingDepa...
ishwardas Premkumar Choradiya and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR892; 2002(4)BomCR1; (2002)3BOMLR557; 2002(2)MhLj844
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. Heard forthwith.2. The petitioners by the present petition are impugning the order dated 11-2-2002. Respondent No. 5 has issued the order under Section 110A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 superseding the Board of Directors of respondent No. 7 and appointing Administrator. At the hearing of the petition, on behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that the order of respondent No. 5 is contrary to the principles of natural justice and fair-play. It is submitted that respondent No. 5 has acted on the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India based on a report prepared while carrying out inspection. Inspection can be carried out under Section 35 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Pursuant to such inspection, a report was prepared. It is contended that the said report was not made available to the Board of Directors of respondent No. 7 before the impugned order was issued. In these circumstances, it is contend...
Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR786; [2002(94)FLR376]
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The Divisional Controller of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Pune is aggrieved by the Award dated 8-11-1994 passed by the Presiding Officer, IInd Labour Court, Pune directing him to reinstate the respondent-workman with full backwages and continuity of service. The learned Labour Court also gave liberty to the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman preferably in his original post of 'driver' and alternatively to provide alternate job. 2. The petitioner himself is the employee of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, which is established under the State Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and it is carrying on the industrial activities of transport of passengers and goods within and without the State of Maharashtra. The respondent-employee was in permanent employment of the Corporation as a driver from 1964. He had 22 years of service to his credit under the Corporation. It appears that from 23-8-1986 to 6-9-1986 the respondent wo...
Shivaji Ganpat Mandlik and anr. Vs. Dilipsinha Dinkar Mahadik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR385; 2002(6)BomCR290
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Respondent waives service. Heard forthwith.2. The respondent-landlord filed an application under the provisions of section 43-1B read with section 29(3-A) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'BT & AL Act'). It was the case of the applicant-landlord (the respondent herein) that the opponents in the application who are the petitioners herein, were the tenants of the land. The property was described as 1/3rd portion of the land situated in Village Kasba Karveer, Taluka Karveer, District Kolhapur bearing Block No. 648, Hissa No. 19 admeasuring 18 areas and assessed at Rs. 0-31. The land was situated within the Urban Agglomeration of Kolhapur Municipal Corporation. The name of the opponent stood recorded in the 7 x 12 extract revenue records as tenant in the capacity of Manager of Joint Hindu Family. The applicant-landlord retired from the services of the Indian Armed Forces on the post of Colonel. The landlord invoked ...
Kulkarni Power Tools Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT480Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Gowri Shankar, Member (T) - Duty of Rs. 1.32 lakh has been demanded on the ground that a device described as drill stand, which it claimed/ is intended to hold electrically operated drill, is classifiable under Heading 85.08 of the tariff/ and not as a machine or mechanical appliance having individual functions/ under Heading 84.79.2. After hearing both sides/ we find the issue arguable. While, on the one hand, the fact that drill can be/ and is often, used without its holder supports the applicant's case, the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System of Nomenclature seem to suggest that fittings for electro mechanical tools permitting them to temporarily fixed to a support are classifiable under Heading 85.08. We therefore think it appropriate to ask the applicant to deposit Rs. 60,000/- towards duty within a month from today, whereupon we waive deposit of the balance of the duty and stay its recovery....
Asstt. Cit Vs. Sohanlal Shantilal and Bros.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: (2004)87TTJ(Mum.)264
The common grievance projected in these six appeals by the revenue is that the learned Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in directing the assessing officer that if advance tax has been paid by the sister- concerns, no TDS ought to be made and no interest under section 201(1A) is to be levied.During the course of proceedings before him, the learned assessing officer noted that the assessee-firm had paid interest to its sister-concerns but had failed to deduct tax at source as per the provisions of section 194A. He accordingly initiated proceedings under section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, levied interest as per the following details The assessee appealed to the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) and pleaded that since the payments of interest were to the sister-concems and since it was in the knowledge of the assessee that the said sister-concerns were paying advance tax on such interest income, the assessee did...
Sukhdev Bhimrao Hastapure Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)641; (2002)2BOMLR777; II(2002)DMC721; 2002(3)MhLj302
V.M. Kanade, J.1. The Appellant/accused, in this Appeal, is challenging the Judgment and order passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, in Sessions Trial No. 18/1995, on 6-1-1997 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, convicted the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to suffer further R. I. for one year. The accused is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-and in default to suffer further R. I. for 6 months. It was further directed that both the sentences should run concurrently.2. Facts :The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is as follows :--The appellant/accused married Nirmala who was the daughter of Shripat Bapurao Raut, on 1-5-1992. The marriage was performed as per the customary rites at Abaji Maharaj Devasthan, Babhulgaon and aft...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »