Mumbai Court April 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. Hindustan Platinum Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)(105)LC144Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the product that the respondent manufactured, sputter targets, made from gold. The goods are in fact nothing other than plates of gold of varying dimensions approximately 488mm x 87.9 x 3 mm. These, except the goods of the targets supplied lo Timex Watches Ltd., have holes drilled at the top to enable them to be mounted on the side wall of deposition machine, coating machine. The target supplied to Timex Watches Ltd. is mounted on copper plate which has holes on it for being mounted on the machine.2. The assessee had claimed classification of these goods under heading 71.01. This heading is for articles of precious metal. The assessee has also claimed the exemption available to the goods of this heading as articles of gold, contained in entry 191 of the table to notification 5/99 and the corresponding exemption in notification 5/98. By issue of notice, the department proposed classification in heading 85.43 as p...
Auto Ignition Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT631Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For reasons recorded below, we waive the pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 7,52,213.29 and penalty of Rs. 75,000/- imposed upon the applicants herein by the impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs, Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai and take up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both sides.2. The preliminary objection raised by the appellants is that while the show cause notice was made answerable to the Commissioner of Customs, New Custom House, Mumbai, the said notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner, Airport, Mumbai who does not have any jurisdiction in the absence of any specific order of the Central Government transferring the jurisdiction to him. In this connection, they relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Consolidated Enterprises v. CC (G), Mumbai 3. The Id. Departmental Representative Shri B.B. Sarkar reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority and leaves the matter for decision by the Bench.4. On considering the sub...
Cce Vs. Raptokos Brett and Company
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)(104)LC169Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above appeal by the Revenue arises out of the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) who has held that the respondent herein who were manufacturers of P&P medicines are entitled to modvat credit on waste and scrap of bottles arising in the course of manufacture of P&P medicines due to breakage. According to the Revenue the credit is not available on such glass bottles because the credit was available on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of the finished products.2. On hearing Shri Shaikh, the learned DR and Shri Gupta, learned Chartered Accountant I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order for the reason that the show cause notice and annexure thereof it-self shows that the quantity of bottles on which credit was sought to be denied were issued for the purpose of manufacture Le., packing and filling of the P&P medicines and further the notice itself recognises that the bottles on which the credit was sought to be denied were brok...
Dintex Dyechem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT66Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue in dispute is whether Modvat credit is admissible on naphthalene used in the manufacture of S.O. dyes when the final product was exempt from duty to the extent of duty paid on inputs used for the manufacture of it under Notification 432/86.2. On hearing both sides I note that the issue stands settled against the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal reported in 1998 (102) E.L.T. 105 in the case of CCE, Nagpur v. Abhideep Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. wherein it is held that the credit of duty paid on beta naphthol to the extent of duty paid on naphthalene used in its manufacture. This decision was followed by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Pune v.Sahyadri Dyestuffs & Chemicals, 3. Following the ratio of the above decisions I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeals....
Cc (import) Vs. Avery India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)(104)LC153Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revenue seeks stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who has held that royalty and technical know how fees paid by the respondents herein to the foreign supplier are not includable in the assessable value of two components imported by the respondents from M/s. Gilbarco, USA and Avery Hardoll Fluid Management Ltd., in terms of Section 14(1) of the Customs Act 1962 read with Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, for the reason that there is no material on record to show that the royalty and technical know how fees are related to the goods imported and to show that the payments are pre-condition of sale of the imported goods. It is the contention of the ld. D.R. Shri Jain that royalty and technical know how fees are to be included since the components imported are assembled into manufactured products by using the technical know how without which the Indian Collaborator would not have proceeded to acquire the components and manufactured the final...
Trilok Ship Breakers (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)84ITD48(Mum.)
1. By this application the assesses contends that the order of the Tribunal, E-Bench, Mumbai, dt. 13th Oct., 1998, suffers from a mistake apparent from record in view of the fact that the view taken by the Tribunal is not in conformity with the view taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on 4th May, 2001 [Ship Scrap Traders and Ors. v. CIT and Ors.2. Before the Tribunal the case of the assessee was that the activity of "ship-breaking" undertaken by the assessee is a manufacturing process and thus the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80HH and 80-1 of the Act. The Tribunal has not accepted the contention of the assessee in view of the decision of the Tribunal, Bombay Bench, in assessee's own case for the asst. yr. 1987-88 [Asstt.CIT v. Trilok Ship-breaking Ltd. (1998) 61 TTJ (Mumbai) 80 : (1998) 66 ITD 114 (Mumbai)] wherein it was held that ship-breaking does not amount to manufacture of any article or thing.3. On 4th May, 2001, .i.e., three years after the order pa...
In Re: Icici Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR450
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This petition has been presented by ICICI Lid. under the provisions of Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'), for the purpose of obtaining sanction of this Court to the arrangement embodied in the scheme of amalgamation of the petitioner/company, ICICI Capital Services Ltd. and ICICI Personal Financial Services Ltd. with ICICI Bank Ltd. The petitioner and two other companies are the transferor companies and they arc to be amalgamated with the ICICI Bank Ltd., the transferee company. The petitioner company was incorporated on 5-1-1955 as a public limited company under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, The petitioner company was originally incorporated as the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Limited and its name was changed to ICICI Ltd, on 11-9-1998. The registered office of the petitioner company is situate at ICICI Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 051. The present authorised share capital of the petitioner compan...
Doma Vithu Ramteke Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner, Chandrapur and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR40; (2002)2BOMLR699; 2002(3)MhLj167
R.S. Mohite, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges an order dated 10-3-2000 passed by the respondent No. 1 below Exhibit 24 in Change Report Inquiry No. 377/1993, condoning the delay in the filing of the said change report.2. The petitioner, being a trustee of a registered Trust, by name Yogiraj Shriviktubaba Shikshan Sanstha, filed a change report bearing No. 332/1993, on 29-7-1993 before the respondent No. 1. The said change report pertained to the election of trustees held on 16-4-1993.3. On 15-9-1993, the present respondent No. 2 submitted another change report bearing Change Report No. 377/1993 in respect of the earlier elections of the managing committee of the Trust purported to be held on 25-5-1986. Along with change report No. 377/1993, the respondent No. 2 filed an application for condonation of delay.4. By his order dated 10-3-2000, the respondent No. 1, for the reasons mentioned therein, allowed the application for condonation of delay after giving the reaso...
Atul Kumar Manilal Shah, Proprietor, Annapurna Udyog Bhandar, Ahmedaba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR467; 2002(3)MhLj568
J.A. Patil, J.1. The petitioner who is the proprietor of M/s Annapurna Udyog Bhandar, Ahmedabad has filed this petition under Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Act') and challenged the order dated 3-4-2002 passed by respondent No. 2-Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Bombay in the matter of Application No. 502658 in class 30 filed by respondent No. 1 and in the matter of opposition No. BOM-9977 filed by the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 dismissed the opposition filed by the petitioner and directed the application filed by the respondent No. 2 to proceed for registration. The relevant facts in brief, are as under :--2. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 both have been manufacturing and marketing Asafoetida (commonly known as 'hing'). The petitioner has been manufacturing asafoetida since 1970 in the State of Gujarat. The respondent No. 1 has however, been carrying on the same business since prior to the petitioner i.e. 1967. The respondent No...
Vasant Laxman Mote and ors. Vs. Rajendra Kumar Pande (Dead) by L.Rs. K ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR457; (2002)2BOMLR702; 2002(4)MhLj832
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel for the applicants. None appears for the non-applicants though served.2. The Civil revision application is directed against the order dated 19-41-1994 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amravati in Regular Darkhast No. 73/1987 whereby applications of the non-applicant Nos. 3 and 4/objectors (Exhs. 15 and 16) were allowed.3. Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel for the applicants, states that applicant No. 1 was the owner of suit plot No. 1/1-B, Sheet No. 48 situated at Amravati and it was let out to non-applicant No. 1 Rajendrakumar Pande and non-applicant No. 2 Jagdish alias Jugalkishore Jethmal Mundhada. The said tenants erected their own shed on the suit plot. The applicant No. 1 issued a quit notice to non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 on 26-12-1985 and terminated their tenancy with effect from the end of tenancy month of January, 1986. When the quit notice was issued by the applicant No. 1, the provisions of C. P. and...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »