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.
Cce Vs. N.C. Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(104)LC104Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by the Revenue is whether waste and scrap manufactured by the assessees/respondents herein is entitled to exemption in terms of Notification No. 171/88-CE. It is the contention of the Revenue that ferrous waste and scrap arising during the manufacture of metal containers, although covered by Clause 3(i) of Notfn. No. 171/88-CE dt. 13.5.1988, was not eligible to the benefit of Notification since modvat credit had been availed on the inputs out of which the waste and scrap arose.2. None appeared for the respondents in spite of notice; hence we heard Shri Pardesi, DR and perused the records. We find that in the case of Universal Containers v. CCE, Bombay , the Tribunal has held that waste and scrap arising during the manufacture of metal containers, although covered under Sub-clause (i) of sr. no. 3 of the Notification, is not entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 171/88 since the modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs ha...
Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Vickers Systems International
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: (2003)87ITD182(Mum.)
1. These three appeals by the revenue rotate around the identical issue. For the sake of convenience, these appeals are consolidated and disposed off by a common order.2. The only issue raised in these appeals relates to the allowability of ex-gratia payments to the employees.3. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee paid ex-gratia bonus in excess of 8.33%. As such he disallowed a sum of Rs. 4,81,660 for the assessment year 1986-87, Rs. 16,80,717 for the assessment year 1987-88 and Rs. 24,60,294 for the assessment year 1988-89. It was explained before the CIT(A) that these payments were made to the employees as per the agreement. The purpose was to buy industrial peace. It was stated before the CIT(A) that the expenditure incurred on ex-gratia payments are to be allowed under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). It was further stated that as the amount did not exceed 2096 of the salary, this is also allowable under Section 36(l)(ii) of the Act....
Boots Company Plc, England and anr. Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR36; (2002)3BOMLR574; 2002(2)MhLj834
J.A. Patil, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (for short, the Act, 1958) challenging the order dated 27-3-1998 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks allowing the application of the respondent No. 2 for registration of a trade mark of 'CROFEN' and rejecting the opposition filed by the petitioners. The relevant facts in brief are as under.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated and registered under the laws of England carrying on business inter alia of manufacturing and marketing medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations throughout the world. The petitioner No. 1 was the owner of the trade mark 'BRUFEN' as on 25-7-1968, registered under No. 2506671 in Class 5 of Schedule IV of the Act, 1958. The petitioner No. 2 is a company incorporated and registered under laws of Germany also carrying on business inter alia of manufacturing and marketing pharmaceutical products, By a deed of assignment dated 9th August, 1995, the...
State Bank Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Pune Vs. Ashutosh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR567; (2002)3BOMLR459; 2002(3)MhLj592
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against an Order passed by the learned Single Judge dated February 1, 2002 in Arbitration Application No. 15 of 2001 making appointment of an Arbitrator.2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Jamdar, a retired Judge of this Court, as an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes and differences between the parties, in the place of Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Deshmukh, a retired Chief Justice of this Court.3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.4. It is not in dispute by and between the parties that the case is governed by the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Certain orders passed under the Act were made appealable only under Section 39 of the Act. Section 39 read thus :'39. Appealable orders. -- An appeal shall lie from the following orderspassed under this Act (and from no others) to the Court authorised bylaw to hear appeals from original decrees of ...
Durgadas Ukhaji More and ors. Vs. Additional Commissioner, Nashik Divi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)3BOMLR747; 2003(1)MhLj420
D.G. Karnik, J.1. In pursuance of the notice before admission issued by this court the respondents 1 to 8 appeared through their respective counsel. Respondent No. 9 though served is absent. By consent of all, heard finally.2. Respondent No. 4 was elected as a Sarpanch of respondent No. 3 Village Panchayat. Respondents 5 to 8 are the elected members of respondent No. 3, village panchayat who are supporting respondent No. 4 Sarpanch. The petitioners and respondent No. 9 are members of Village Panchayat who had moved the resolution of no confidence against respondent No. 4.3. The petitioners and the respondent No. 9 gave a notice of their desire to move a motion of no confidence against respondent No. 2 to the Tahsildar under Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act 1958 (for short the Act) read with Rule No. 2 of Bombay Village Panchayat, Sarpanch and Upsarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules 1975 (for short the Rules). The notice was accompanied by 7 additional copies thereof and w...
Dy. Cit Vs. Vickers System International Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: (2004)88TTJ(Mumbai)284
ORDERM.K. Chaturvedi, V.P.These three appeals by the revenue rotate around the identical issue. For the sake of convenience, these appeals are consolidated and disposed of by a common order.2. The only issue raised in these appeals relates to the allowability of ex gratia payments to the employees.3. Assessing officer observed that the assessee paid ex gratia bonus in excess of 8.33 per cent. As such he disallowed a sum of Rs. 4,81,660 for the assessment year 1986-87, Rs. 16,80,717 for the assessment year 1987-88 and Rs. 24,60,294 for the assessment year 1988-89. It was explained before the Commissioner (Appeals) that these payments were made to the employees as per the agreement. The purpose was to buy industrial peace. It was stated before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the expenditure incurred on ex gratia payments are to be allowed under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). It was further stated that as the amount did not exceed 20 per cent of th...
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus., Nhava Sheva
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC113Tri(Mum.)bai
1. ONGC Limited, imported molecular sieves and in the bill of entry filed for their clearance claimed benefit of Notification 333/88. This notification "exempts the goods specified in the Table below, when imported into India in connection with the purpose of on-shore oil exploration or exploitation" from basic duty in excess of 30% and completely exempts additional duty. The exemption is subject to the condition that the importer produce at the time of clearance of the goods a certificate issued by the Member Secretary of the Empowered Committee on the Indigenisation of Oilfield Equipment and Services of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, certifying that the said goods are essential for on-shore oil exploration or exploitation. The table to the notification lists 45 items, including oilfield chemicals'. It is under this heading that the exemption was claimed.2. The department noted that molecular sieves were nothing other than the synthetically produced c...
Commr. of Cus. Vs. Gripwell Forgings and Tools
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC67Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Gripwell Forging & Tools, the respondent to this appeal imported a consignment which contained two milling machine, a tool grinding machine, diesel forklift, one automobile diesel engine and tools and claimed clearance of the goods in terms of paragraph 25 of the Import Policy 1992-1997. The department was of the view that the diesel engines which it found on examination to be part of Mercedes Benz automobile and were not of the machine and of the type required for industrial establishment and therefore the provisions of paragraphs 25 and 29 of the Policy would not be utilised to clear them. It was found that the diesel was not covered by paragraph 29. The importer having waived the issue of written notice was heard by the Deputy Commissioner. That authority passed orders confirming the proposal permitting the goods to be cleared on payment of fine.2. The importer appealed this order. It was submitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) that the diesel engine "was meant to provide ex...
Mukesh Shah and anr. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: (2002)(104)LC1091Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above applications have been field under Section 129(B)(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 for rectification of mistake which is apparent on the face of the record in our Order CI-88-91/WZB/2001 dated 15.1.2001 made in Appeals 1792/93 and 1789/93.2. The matter arises in this way. There was an import of 450 metric tons of Gum Rosin which was imported some time in July, 1991 and the same was put under seizure by an order dated 17.9.1991. The Adjudicating Authority, i.e. the Commissioner of Customs-II adjudicated the Show Cause Notice issued on 31.12.1991 in respect of above import of 450 Metric Tons of gum rosin of the declared value of Rs. 28,70,865/-imported under 5 Bills of Entry dated 11.12.1990; 414 Metric Tons of gum rosin of value Rs. 24,54,391/- vide Bills of Entry Numbering 4 in the name of Gulmohar Industries and 79.8 Metric Tons of Hydrogen Peroxide imported vide Bills of Entry Numbering 3 in the name of Metal & Alloys Industries. Show Cause Notice proposed to initiate ac...
Amit Rakesh Janbandhu Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)561; 2003CriLJ600; 2002(3)MhLj90
V.M. Kanade, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the detention order dated 27-7-2001, issued by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, under Section 3 of The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drugs Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and is seeking an order of quashing the said detention order by invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Facts: The petitioner, a young boy aged about 18 years, was served with the order of detention, passed by Respondent No. 2 on 27-7-2001 along with the annexures and translation, in Nagpur Central Prison on 30-7-2001 through the Jail Authority. The Copy of the order of detention is annexed at Annexure 1 and the grounds of detention are annexed at Annexure 2 of the petition. In the grounds of detention, the Commissioner of Police has stated that since April 2001, the petitioner has been found to be engaged in the com...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »