Mumbai Court September 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.
S. Narendra Kumar and Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC879Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the product known as Jaljira powder that the appellant manufactured and whether the extended period of limitation will be available to the department.2. The counsel for the appellant bases his case on limitation and does not wish to go into the merits. He contends that the appellant in the classification list that it filed on 30-3-1994 had classified Jaljira powder as a spice in heading 09.03 of the Tariff claiming the exemption contained in Notification 2/94. The basis for the Notice dated 26-9-2000 demanding duty on clearances between July, 1999 to September, 1999 is only that the appellant claimed wrong classification and has thus wilfully misstated the facts. The appellant had classified the goods bona fide. There is nothing to show that it wilfully suppressed any fact and therefore the extended period will not apply.3. The departmental representative emphasises that the classification list that the appellan...
Taxchem Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT610Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal revolves around interpretation of Note 6 to Chapter 34, Note 3 to Chapter 35 and Note 5 to Chapter 38 of the Tariff. Each of the notes which are identically worded reads thus - "In relation to products of this Chapter, labelling or relabelling of containers and repacking from bulk Backs to retail packs or the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer, shall amount to "manufacture"." 2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has held that by application of these notes, the activities undertaken by the appellant before us, must be deemed to be manufacture, and demanded duty and imposed penalty on the appellant.3. The appellant is a trader in textile chemicals. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Commissioner's order narrate the activities of the appellant, which are under consideration before us, as follows : "2. M/s. TC procures the orders from the customers through their marketing staff speci...
Sesu International Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT161Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant imported in November and December 1995, five consignments of D.L. Glutamic acid monosodium and after following the procedure it warehoused the goods. On 3-7-1996 the appellant presented to the Customs officers bills of entry for home consumption. In these bills of entry, it sought the benefit of the total exemption from duty contained in Notification 17/95 dated 16-3-1995. The customs authorities had, in the meantime, received a communication dated 3-1-1996 from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence that the goods imported by the appellant had been examined under the supervision of the authorities of that organisation and informing the Assistant Commissioner that while there is no objection to permit the goods to be deposited in the bonded warehouse, clearance should not take place without permission of that organisation. Similar letter was written on 11-1-1996. Accordingly no action was taken on the bills of entry for home consumption that were filed.2. Notice was ...
Datar Switchgear Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT106Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Datar Switchgear Ltd., the manufacturer of excisable goods had taken under Rule 57Q credit of the duty paid on capital goods that it received for the manufacture of its final product. The notice issued to it in June 1996 by the jurisdictional Superintendent demanded duty of Rs. 777 lakhs approx. on the capital goods that it removed from the factory on the ground that in terms of the Sub-rule (1) of Rule 575, the credit that was taken should have been reversed. Penalty under Rule 173Q was also proposed. By a subsequent corrigendum issued on 10-12-96 by the Commissioner, imposition of penalty under Section 11AC and recovery of interest under Section 11AB was also proposed. In its reply, the appellant contended that the credit taken of the duty paid on capital goods had already been utilised in the finished excisable goods. It had not cleared the capital goods for home consumption, but shifted them to another of its plant and hence the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 57S were not a...
Metropolitan Trading Co. Vs. the D.C.i.T., Spl. Range 9
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: (2004)89ITD662(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 6.3.96 passed Under Section 263 of the IT Act by the CIT, Mumbai City-IX, Mumbai. The relevant facts leading to passing of the impugned order, briefly stated, are that assessment for the AY 92-93 was completed Under Section 143(3) of the IT Act on 29.3.94 at a total income of Rs. 87,31,050/-, after allowing deduction of Rs. 1,18,25,582 Under Section 80 HHC of the IT Act. On a perusal of records, the CIT observed that while computing the deduction Under Section HHC, the AO did not deduct supervision charges of Rs. 1,45,38,373/- received by the assessee, from the business profits before computing deduction Under Section 80 HHC. The CIT was of the view that as per Clause (baa) of the explanation to Section 80 HHC, supervision charges were required to be reduced from the business profits. But, the AO did not consider this issue at all. The learned CIT observed that as per the mandatory provisions of Section 80 HHC, 90% ...
Upendra M. Dalal Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: (2004)89ITD629(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A), XLI, Mumbai dt. 1.10.1999 is respect of the assessment year 1996-97. The grounds raised by the appellant are argumentative and narrative. In substance the assessee seeks to challenge taxation of capital gains arising out of sale of membership card of the Bombay Stock Exchange and levy of interest Under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. We would first spell out the essential facts. The appellant is an individual. He was a member of the Bombay Stock Exchange since 1974 and was allotted clearing Number 691 by the Stock Exchange. On Ist November, 1994 the appellant entered into an agreement with M/s.Saurashtra Capital Services Pct. Ltd., in regard to the sale of membership card of the Bombay Stock Exchange. The said agreement describes the assessee as the 'SELLER' and the aforesaid company as the 'BUYER'. Clauses 1 to 5 of the said agreement are of relevance and are, therefore, r...
Vinayak S/O Sadashiv Pande Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)366; 2003(1)MhLj224
R.S. Mohite, J. 1. Rule. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. As the common point is involved in all these applications, all the applications are disposed of by way of common judgment. 3. In this criminal application, the applicant who is a police head constable, in-charge of Malkhana seeks to quash and set aside the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur dated 3-4-2000 refusing discharge on the ground of non obtaining of sanction under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code as well as the order of the Revisional Court dated 4-8-2000 rejecting the revision against the aforesaid order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur. 4. It is an admitted fact that the prosecution is under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. On behalf of the applicant reliance is placed on two judgments of the Apex Court reported in : 1955CriLJ857 and : 1955CriLJ865 . It is contended that from the ratio laid down in these judgments, the sanction is required to for the prosecution un...
Sanjay R. Kothari and anr. Vs. South Mumbai Consumer Disputes Redressa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom15; 2002(4)ALLMR617; 2002(6)BomCR637; (2002)4BOMLR760; 2003(1)MhLj804
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. These two writ petitions involve common issue as to whether parties before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short 'Consumer Forum') and Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, 'State Commission') are entitled to be represented by authorised agents who are not enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961 and such Authorised Agents have the right of audience. The counsel appearing for the parties confined their arguments only on the aforesaid issue and hence we have not gone into the facts and merits of the complaints filed before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short, 'Consumer Forum') by the petitioners. 2. The petitioners in the first writ petition (Writ Petition No. 1147 of 2002), who are advocates by profession, filed complaint bearing No. 428 of 2000 against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - tour operators before respondent No. 1-Consumer Forum complaining deficiency in their service. It is the case of the petitioners that after numerous adjourn...
P.N.P. Nair, Manager of Vijay Transport Agencies Ltd., Vs. the Board o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom285; 2003(2)ALLMR956; 2003(3)MhLj279
J.G. Chitre, J.1. The appellants who were original obstructionists Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in Obstructionist Notice No. 17 of 89 connected with Eviction Application No. 79/351 of 75 are hereby invoking the jurisdiction and authority of the High Court in view of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for assailing the judgment and order passed by Small Cause Court in EA No. 79/351 of 75 and Appeal No. 109 of 1993 - Obstructionist Notice No. 17 of 89, for quashing those orders, the result of which was the eviction of the petitioners from plot of land bearing Old RR No. 1520, Gamadia Road, Elphinstone Estate, Bombay. As per the case of the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay (hereinafter referred to as Post Trust for convenience) they own the said plot which was given to Lakhamashi Ghelabhai initially on a lease in 1941. The said lease expired by efflux of time. However, LRs of Lakhamashi Ghelabhai remained in possession of the said property. Their predecessors in title had constru...
Shah Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Bom)287; [2003]259ITR741(Bom)
1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. The respondents waive service. By consent, the petition is taken up for final hearing.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner/assessed seeks to challenge the order dated October 19, 2000 (exhibit G), as also order dated March 4, 2002 (exhibit I), passed by the revisional authority under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of brevity, as 'the said Act').Facts :3. For the assessment year 1995-96, the assessee returned its net taxable income, after claiming deduction under Section 80HHC, at Rs. 5,500. However, that was not the full deduction. The chartered accountants of the asses-see did not include the receivable export incentives of Rs. 2,45,000 on two export bills dated May 26, 1994, and January 7, 1995, as the assessee failed to receive the export earnings during the assessment year 1995-96. The incentives were given to the assessee in the form of R. E. P. licences. These licences were sold on January 18, 1996...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »