Mumbai Court June 2002 Judgments
Harbanslal Dawar Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC934Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The circumstances leading to filing of these two appeals are briefly as follows. Dawar Radios, appellant in appeal C/205/2001 is stated to be a manufacturer, inter alia, of audio systems. Harbanslal Dawar, appellant in appeal C/204/01, is the proprietor of this firm. Sometime in June, 1999, the officers of the department visited the premises of Dawar Radios at Ahmedabad and found there a stock of 40 pieces of audio systems and two air-conditioners. These audio systems had labels bearing the name of Aiwa and Sony. The goods were seized by the officers on the ground that the documents showing legal importation of the goods were not produced. Bimal Dawar, son of Harbanslal Dawar Vimal, who was available on the spot said that he agreed with the contents of the panchnama. He said that these goods have been manufactured by his father from components imported by him and suggested that his father would be the proper person to give necessary clarification. Harbanslal Dawar was contacted by ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Aarem Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC999Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Aarem Enterprises, one of the two respondents to the appeals filed by the Commissioner, is engaged in the manufacture of a stationary bicycle. It affixed on the cross bar of this bicycle the only brand name "Slimmer". The entire production of these machines is marketed by United Teleshopping, a teleshopping network, the advertisements for the product being made over the teleshopping network. The representative of these teleshopping network inspects each machine in the presence of the appellant, and if satisfied with the quality places a sticker on it.The sticker bears upon it the logo of this marketing firm, comprising the letters UTS in a distinctive style along with the letters TSN and the word "checked" followed by serial number.2. Notices issued to the manufacturer and United Teleshopping marketing alleged non payment of duty on goods that it manufacturers and cleared and proposed penalty on the manufacturer and the marketing company. The manufacturer in reply accepted that dut...
Tag this Judgment!Tilaknagar Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT382Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This application claims that there existed an error in Order No.C-I/2261/99/WZB, dated 28-8-1999. In this judgment the Tribunal approved the Collector's finding that the issue on excisability of the sugar cubes separately from input sugar was extraneous to the scope of the appeal before him when the assessee had voluntarily filed the classification list and where the contest was on availability of exempion notification the issue of excisability could not be raised before the Commissioner. The Tribunal observed that he assessees could file a fresh classification claiming that the product was not excisable.2. In the present application relevance is placed upon the following judgment: The application further mentions that these decisions had not been brought to the notice of the Tribunal.3 We find that these three judgments do not relate to tne issue before the Tribunal. When the applicants themselves accept that these decisions had not been brought to the notice of the Tribunal in th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. National Leather Cloth Mfg. Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC623Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in these appeals revolves around the interpretation of Notification 274/86. The notification is reproduced below : 'Exemption to damaged or sub-standard textile fabrics. - In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957), the Central Government hereby exempts damaged or sub-standard textile fabrics of area not exceeding 1.3 square metres and chindies, falling under sub-heading No. 5903.19 or 5903.29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957) : Provided that the aggregate quantity of clearances of such damaged or sub-standard textile fabrics or chindies from any factory, for home consumption, in any month, or by o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Cus. Vs. Sampat Industrial and Cons. Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC619Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M.V. Ikan Sela Vang carrying the goods imported by the respondent to this appeal from abroad arrived at Bombay on the morning of 17-7-1996 but was waiting at outer anchorage due to bad weather. She came into the inner anchorage on 22-7-1996 but could not be boarded because of bad weather prevailing. After the stormy weather condition subsided, the vessel was granted entry inwards on 24-7-1996. In the meantime, various importers, whose goods had been carried by the ship including the respondent to this appeal, had filed bills of entry for clearance of these goods. As a result of amendment made by the budget presented on 22-7-1996, which, by virtue of provision of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act came into effect immediately, the rate of duty on the goods imported by the respondent increased from 23-7-1996. The importer therefore made a representation to the custom house to amend the date of entry of inward of the vessel to read 17-7-1996. This was not accepted by the Assistan...
Tag this Judgment!Sunrise Structurals and Engg. P. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC625Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the liability to inclusion in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the appellant supplied to some customers on job work, of the cost of inspection of these goods carried out on behalf of these customers by third party. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has refused to accept the submission made by the appellant before him that these charges for inspection by third buyer party would not ordinarily form part of the assessable value, on his view that this was the only inspection carried out of the goods, and that it was this inspection that rendered the goods marketable.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented. We have read the memorandum of appeal including the written submissions and heard the departmental representative.3. The departmental representative emphasises the reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals). We are however not able to accept it. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied exc...
Tag this Judgment!indexco International Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2002
Reported in: (2004)88ITD293(Mum.)
1. These appeals by the assessee arise out of two separate orders dated 30-3-1998 and 30-9-1999 of the Commissioner passed by him under Section 263 of the Act, for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 respectively.2. On examination of the assessment records, the learned Commissioner found that the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-O on the following amounts of commission received in foreign convertible exchange on services stated to be rendered outside India.------------------------------------------------------------------------------S. No. Name of the party Commission in Commission in A. Y. 1993-94 A. Y. 1994-95------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rs. Rs.1. Target Australia PTY 41,23,360 48,06,855 Ltd.2. Cardex Services India 73,87,871 60,04,729 Ltd.5. Foreign Exchange 14,11,153 - difference6. L.M. Buying Ltd. - 31,250------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. The learned Commissioner was ...
Tag this Judgment!Shivaji University and anr. Vs. Vasant Bapusaheb Magdum and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR484; 2002(6)BomCR569; 2002(4)MhLj113
R.J. Kochar, J. 1. The present petition is filed by the Shivaji University Kolhapur through its Vice Chancellor and the Registrar to impugn the Judgment and Order of the Second Joint Civil Judge (SD) Kolhapur passed on 19-8-1991 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1165 of 1990 filed by the present respondent No. 1.2. In the Suit respondent No. 1 (Orig. Plaintiff) had sought declaration that the promotion Orders dated 20-3-1989 and 20-10-1990 of the Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 to 16 were illegal, bad in law and void ab-initio and that the Defendant Nos. 4 to 16 be precluded from accepting those promotions given by the aforesaid promotion orders and further the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the present petitioners be restrained from implementing the aforesaid promotion orders. A further direction was sought against the petitioners that they should prepare seniority list as per the Standard Code applicable to Shivaji University and to give promotions as per the seniority list.3. The petitioners and the ot...
Tag this Judgment!Balasaheb S. Landge Vs. Gurudayal Singh Mander and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR62; 2003(1)ARBLR181(Bom); 2002(50)BLJR2532; 2002(4)MhLj562
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard Advocate for the applicant. None present for the respondents, though served. Notice was issued for final disposal of the matter at the admission stage and the respondents have chosen to remain absent.2. The applicant challenges the order, dated 4-3-2002, passed by the trial Court in R. C. Suit No. 63 of 2001, dismissing the objection raised by the applicant regarding jurisdiction of the Court at Pune to entertain and try the suit. The objection was mainly on the ground that the parties having agreed for exclusive jurisdiction of the Court at New Delhi, it is not permissible for the plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein) to file the suit in the Court at Pune.3. The suit has been filed for declaration that the election of the defendant No. 1 to the post of President and the consequent nomination of the defendant Nos. 2 to 15 as the office bearers and of the defendant Nos. 16 to 24 as the members of the executive committee of the defendant No. 29 in the specia...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak H. Mewani and anr. Vs. District Deputy Registrar Co-operative S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR307; 2002(6)BomCR579
C.K. Thakker, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 2347 of 2001. Before the learned Single Judge three petitions came to be filed making grievance against an order passed by District Election Officer. 2. The complaint before the learned Single Judge was that the order of repoll of five reserved seats was illegal and contrary to law. 3. The learned Single Judge observed in the order that certain irregularities were found so far as the poll in reserved constituencies was concerned. In respect of reserved constituencies, therefore, repoll was ordered in consonance with the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies, Rules, 1961. Accordingly, an order of repoll was passed keeping in mind the provisions of section 73 of the Act and Rule 56-A of the Rules in respect of four reserved constituencies. 4. Several contentions were raised before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge after cons...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »