Mumbai Court August 2002 Judgments

Atul Electro Formers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT162Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of nickel like screen which form part of filters. The appellant had classified the goods under sub-heading 10 of heading 84.21 whereas the Asst. Collector, whose order has been confirmed by Collector (Appeals), has confirmed the classification in sub-heading 90 of this heading.Centrifuges, including centrifugal dryers; Filtering or purify-ing machinery and apparatus, for liquids or gases If the goods in question are other than parts of the items mentioned in the heading they will be classifiable under sub-heading. 10 if parts they will be classifiable under sub-heading 90. The contention in the appeal that the screen constitute independent articles the fact that they are goods does not mean that they are independent articles. The relevance of these goods being "independent articles" the scope of which has not been explained is unclear. The literature produced by the appellant indicate that the screen's form port of...

Vimal Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The notice issued to the appellant alleged that it had wrongly availed credit of the duty shown to have been paid on four invoices issued by dealers in June 1994, as the dealers who issued them were not registered with the department, as required by the rules. The Joint commissioner confirmed the demand for duty, and imposed a penalty. The appeal by the assessee against this order having been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for failure to deposit the entire duty and pendency, the appellant is before us.3. The contention that was taken by the assessee before the Joint Commissioner, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was that the rule, as it stood at the relevant time, did not require that the invoices on which credit could be taken should be issued by the dealers who were registered with the department. The requirement of registration of dealers came into effect by notification 32/94, which was issued on 4.7.1994. Prior to this date, an invoice issued by an unspecified dealer wa...

Vipul Dye Chem Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)86ITD851(Mum.)

1. This appeal of the assessee has been directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XLV. Mumbai dt. 28th March, 2001, for the asst. yr. 1997-98.The grounds of appeal taken up by the assessee reads as follows : "1. The AO erred in not granting the deduction under Section 80-I of Rs. 3,26,450 and CIT(A) in confirming the same. 2. AO erred in computing deduction under Section 80HHC at Rs. 84,91,223 and CIT(A) in confirming the same against Rs. 1,34,36,127 as it correctly works out and as submitted to CIT(A). 3. AO erred in arriving at computation of book profit under Section 115JA without reducing the same to the extent of deduction allowed under Section 80HHC of the IT Act and CIT(A) in confirming the said computation. 4. AO erred in levying interest under Section 234A based on tax on the total income assessed under Section 115JA in confirming the same. It is submitted that same is leviable on tax on total income as returned or at the most on tax on total income assessed under normal provi...

isbc Consultancy Services Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)88ITD134(Mum.)

1. The vital issue for adjudication in this appeal by the assessee is whether the assessee is engaged in "manufacture" or "production" of software programmes as mandated in Clauses (iii) and (vi) of Explanation to Section 10A of the IT Act, as it then stood for the asst. yr. 1998-99, i.e., the year under consideration.2. The assessee-company has a software unit located in Santacruz Electronics Export Processing Zone (SEEPZ). The approval granted by the Development Commissioner to the assessee-company to create the unit in SEEPZ is in pursuance of guidance issued by the Government of India for setting up of a unit in export processing zones exhaustively enunciated in the Exim Policy (p. 202 of paper book No. II). In conformity with the sanction letter of the Development CIT (pp. 231 to 233 of paper book No. II), the assessee-company has to "manufacture" computer software systems and attain an overall value addition of 85 per cent for the project as a whole.3. In furtherance of its busi...

Nagorao Alias Arun S/O Narayan Yerawar, Vs. Narayan S/O Nagan Yerawar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2003Bom178; 2003(2)BomCR148; 2002(4)MhLj615

V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This revision application is directed againstthe order passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 6/95 passed on6-8-1996 below (Exh.114) in Regular Civil Suit No. 56/92whereby the order of status-quo was granted. The learnedappellate Court vacating the order of status-quo grantedinjunction in favour of the appellants before it and,therefore, the unsuccessful respondent has come up inRevision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. When this matter came up for arguments, it wasnoticed that several revisions of such nature are pendingin this Court. All these revisions challenged the orderspassed by the trial Court and the appellate Court eitherwhen they are concurrent or when they are reversing. Thelearned Counsel appearing in the above revisionapplication No. 803/96 desired for some time to argue thematter. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned tilltoday. In the meantime, the office also identified about150 revision applications wherein identical question oflaw arose...

Shri Nilesh K. Shah Vs. Shri S. M. Shangari, Commissioner of Police,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)368

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Tripathi counsel for the detenuand Mr. B. R. Patil the learned Acting P.P. for theState.2. This is the second petition of the detenuPravin Bhuramal Jain challenging the detention orderdated 4.1.2002. He had filed earlier petition videCriminal Writ Petition No. 281 of 2002 and it wasdecided by this Bench on 29.4.2002 and the petition wasdismissed.3. The present petition is filed on threegrounds. One of them is that the detention order ispunitive in nature and not preventive and other twogrounds are as per grounds (D) and (E) about nonconsideration of the representation of the detenu dated4.6.2002 (which is actually dated 7.6.2002) and theother representation sent through his advocate on11.6.2002 by the State Government expeditiously.4. So far as the first contention of Mr.Tripathi is concerned, preliminary objection was raisedby Mr. Patil that second petition on the grounds whichwere originally available to the detenu is notmaintainable. In reply to this o...

Vinod S/O Pralhad Balap Vs. Smt. Chhaya W/O Vinod Balap

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)184; I(2003)DMC580; 2002(4)MhLj937

R.S. Mohite, J.1. Heard the advocate for the applicant. None for the respondent, though served.2. This is a revision filed by the applicant who is husband of the respondent. The respondent-wife had filed a petition being Petition No. E-307/99 in the Family Court No. 2, Nagpur for grant of maintenance @ Rs. 1500/- per month. In the said application she preferred an application for grant of interim maintenance and by an order dated 8-12-2000, she was granted an interim maintenance @ Rs. 800/- per month. The husband was not paying the interim maintenance, but was in arrears from November, 2001 till February, 2002. In the circumstance, the respondent-wife preferred an application on 29-1-2002 making a grievance for non payment of interim maintenance and seeking a striking out of the defence of the non applicant.3. It appears that on the application, on 29-2-2002 the Court passed an order asking the other side to say. On 5-3-2002 the Court passed the further order that there was no say file...

Padmaranjana W/O Arunkumar Deshmukh Vs. Dilip S/O Ramrao Tote and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR750; 2002(4)MhLj403

S.A. Bobde, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 28th November, 2001, passed by the Additional Collector, an appellate authority, under the C. P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949, by which the appellate authority has allowed the respondent No. 1 to amend his written statement. 2. The facts are the petitioner/landlord has applied for permission to terminate the tenancy of the respondent No. 1-tenant, under Clause 13(3)(i)(ii) and (v) of the Rent Control Order, before the Rent Controller, Amravati. 3. To the said application filed by the petitioner-landlord, the respondent-tenant has filed his written statement on 14-7-1998. In the said written statement he annexed the Schedule, showing the payment of rent. The schedule indicates that the rent has been paid at one time for a long period ranging from 5 months to 1 year. By the Written Statement, the respondent-tenant has claimed that he is running a retail medical shop-cum-godown and still carr...

Chief Engineer (Generation), M.S.E.B. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)BomCR370; 2003(1)MhLj890

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition assails the demand of non-agricultural cess in respect of 286 acres and 12 gunthas land in possession of the petitioner and which was converted as non agricultural land. Various contentions were raised and while admitting the petition vide our order dated 28-11-2000, we confined the scope of this petition only to the following issues, viz :(A) Out of 286 acres and 12 gunthas land, only 23 acres and 12 gunthas land was in the urban area and the balance was in non urban area and it was used for gardens, play grounds, entertainment centres, schools,hospitals, post office, bank, market, gas godown, recreation centers and roads, etc. (civil amenities)(B) The petitioner was not liable to pay non agricultural cess on the land utilised for civil amenities, on par with the exemption granted to the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) and by reading the provisions of Rule 22(2) of the Maharashtra land Revenue Code (change in the use of land and...

Hydroclave System Corporation and ors. Vs. JaIn Hydraulic Pvt. Ltd. an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR54; 2003(1)BomCR642; (2003)1BOMLR407; 2003(2)MhLj670

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Admit. By consent, heard forthwith. 2. The appellants/original plaintiffs are challenging the order passed by the lower Court disposing of the application for temporary injunction in the suit filed by the appellants to restrain the respondents/original defendants from passing off the respondents goods and/or business as those of the appellants. 3. The records disclose that in the said Suit No. 14 of 2001, pending before the Vth Additional District Judge, Pune, in the application Exhibit-5, filed by the appellants, ex parte order was granted and since the respondents failed to appear before the Court in answer to the notice thereof, the same was confirmed and the application for temporary injunction was allowed on 14-2-2001. Subsequently, the respondents appeared in the Court on 7-1-2002 and submitted their explanation for non-appearance in the Court in answer to the notice ad summons and also fi...