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.
Upendra M. Dalal Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: (2004)83TTJ(Mumbai)828
ORDERV.D. Wakharkar, A.M.This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), XI-D, Mumbai, dated 4-10-1999 in 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 1971 and was allotted clearing number 691 by the stock exchange. On 1-11-1991 the appellant entered into an agreement with M/s. Saurashtra Capital Services (P) 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 rele...
Indian Petrochem. Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT565Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The dispute in this appeal relates to availment of Modvat credit in respect of inputs. The impugned order has disallowed the Modvat credit amount of over Rs. 2.5 crores and have imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lacs on the appellant. The entire demand falls outside the normal period of six months for issue of show cause notice.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the credits had been rightly availed of inasmuch as there is no dispute that the inputs had been used in the manufacture of dutiable final products. The learned Counsel pointed out that the objection raised is of technical nature inasmuch as it has been held that inputs had not been declared, final pro-ductwise, the inputs being (1) C-4 Raffinate (2) Law Aromatic Neptha (3) LSHS and (4) C-5 Reformate.3. The learned Counsel for the appellants also submitted that the entire demand has to be held as time barred inasmuch as full facts about the availment of Modvat credit for the purpose of payment of du...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ark Laboratories
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-2002
Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT164Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal at the instance of the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) vide order dated 4-11-1996.2. The respondent is manufacturing products, namely Triben, Triben-B and Triben Plus classified under sub-heading 3003.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. The issue arising in this appeal is whether they are entitled to the benefit due to small scale industry under Notification No. 1/93, dated 28-2-1993. The department took the view that the products were manufactured under the brand name of M/s.Jenburkt Pharmaceuticals. The assessee is not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1/93. In coming to the above conclusion, reliance was placed by the adjudicating authority on the logo of M/s. Jenburkt Pharmaceuticals on the printed cartons containing the product. The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the assessee. Aggrieved by the above, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commiss...
Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. Vikas S/O Ramchandra Balki a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR291; 2002(4)MhLj864
S.A. Bobde, J.1. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties. 2. The only question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is as to the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller under Clauses 14 and 14-A of the Rent Control Order, 1949 to direct installation of electricity in new premises. 3. Clauses 14 and 14-A of Rent Control Order read as follows :'14. No landlord shall interfere with the electric fittings, water connections or the structure of the [premises] so as to affect materially the enjoyment of the house by the tenant. 14-A. No landlord shall, except with the previous written permission of the Controller, take any steps for discontinuing the supply of water or electricity to a [premises] under occupation of a tenant.' 4. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner which is incorporated under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 constructed certain shop premises and auctioned them. The 1st respondent was one of the bidd...
Usha D/O Ramchandra Mule Vs. Presiding Officer, Additional School Trib ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR618; 2003(2)BomCR787; [2003(96)FLR1111]; 2003(1)MhLj90
S.A. Bobde, J. 1. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties.2. This petition is directed against an order dated 19-4-2001 passed by the School Tribunal upholding the order terminating petitioner's service during the period of probation.3. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was appointed as a teacher with effect from 2-9-1996 to 30-4-1997 on a clear and permanent post. It is also undisputed that by an order dated 10-6-1997 the petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of two years and the period would have ended on 9-6-1999.4. Petitioner's services came to be terminated by an order dated 3-8-1998. This order states that the petitioner's clarification has been found to be unsatisfactory, the management is of opinion that the petitioner's work is found to be unsatisfactory and, therefore, her services are being terminated.5. Mr. Jibhkate, learned counsel, for the petitioner submits that the order terminating petitioner's service is punitive and must...
Chandulal Mehta and Co. P. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)BomCR824; (2003)1BOMLR57; 2003(86)ECC427; 2002LC580(Bombay); 2003(153)ELT504(Bom); 2003(1)MhLj221
V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 21st February 1989 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs being Order No. S/3748/89 A.C.C. (Ex. 'M' page 69). The petitioner is engaged in business of import of several items including insulating material in accordance with the provisions of import-Export Policy for April 1985/March 1988. The 1st petitioners were inter alia importing multi cable transit for Power Cable (Cable Sealing System, also known in trade as termination and jointing) (hereinafter referred to as 'the said goods'). 2. According to the petitioners the said goods were permissible for stock and sale in terms of the description given against Sr. No. 42 of Appendix 6, List 8, Part III of Import and Export Policy for 1985-1988 (Vol. I). The same position continued to exist under the New Import-Export Policy for April 1988 to March 1991. At all material times the said goods were classified for the purposes of basic and auxiliary customs duty by the Cu...
Lakhansingh S/O Nyhalsingh Padwale Vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR760; 2003(2)BomCR292; [2003(97)FLR606]; 2003(1)MhLj371
S.A. Bobde, J.1. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties.2. This petition is directed against an order dated 26-3-2002 passed by the School Tribunal by which the petitioner's appeal has been dismissed by a single line order which reads as follows :'Appellant is untrained. Hence appeal is dismissed.'3. The petitioner has been found to be untrained teacher who was required to be appointed on year to year basis, as observed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has given no reason as to why the teacher should have been appointed on a year to year basis. Presumably, it is because of Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Employees' of Private Schools Rules 1981. It would have been desirable if the Tribunal had made it explicit why it was taking the view it did. The only thing that is stated in the judgment is that the petitioner is untrained. This hardly qualifies as a judgment.4. At this point, it would be useful to bear in mind that the Tribunal, by virtue of Section 10 of the Code of ...
Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Govind Phopale and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR311; (2003)1BOMLR72; [2003(96)FLR145]; (2002)IIILLJ1036Bom; 2003(2)MhLj944
R.J. Kochar, J. 1. Rule. By consent of the parties the Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. Heard both the learned Counsel.The petitioner bank is aggrieved by the order dated 5th June 2002 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 in an interlocutory application dated 6th August 2001 filed by the respondent workman in the approval application CGIT-1/2002 filed by the petitioner bank under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. As far as the order in respect of the amendment in the cause title of the reference is concerned, there is no dispute or challenge by the respondent workman. It appears that from the erstwhile name of the Bank, ANZ Grindlays Bank, Mumbai, the present name has to be substituted and the tribunal has rightly allowed the application filed by the petitioner bank.Though the facts in the present petition are in a very narrow compass, the question of law involved is of utmost importance in the adjudication of in...
Shaikh Burhan Shaikh Mannu Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)MhLj861
S.B. Mhase, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. J. Choudhari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. E. P. Savant, learned Government Pleader, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. V. D. Salunke, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5.Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith.2. This is a petition filed by one of sitting Directors of the respondent No. 5 - Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Hingoli, which is established and functioning under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963. The elections to the Board of Directors of the said market committee were held on 3-7-1997 and the first meeting of the Board of Directors was held on 13-8-1997. The term of the market committee is of five years, and therefore, the term of the Board of Directors of the said Market Committee has come to an end on 12-8-2002. The Collector was expected to complete the elections before 12-8-2002. As there ...
Bharat Bijlee Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-2002
Reported in: 2002LC577(Bombay); 2003(154)ELT564(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. In this Petition, the Petitioners have challenged the three show cause notices issued by the Respondents wherein the Petitioners have been called upon to show cause as to why excise duty should not be collected from the Petitioners for wrongly availing the Modvat credit during the periods set out in each of those show cause notices.2. The facts having bearing on the subject matter of the present petition are as follows :-(a) The Petitioners inter alia manufacture final products falling under Chapter 84 & 85 of the Central Excise Tariff. In the budget for the financial year 1986-87, the Central Government introduced Modvat procedure by Introducing Rules 57A to 57J to the Central Excise Rules. Under Rule 57A, the Central Government was empowered to issue a notification specifying the inputs on which the credit of duty paid thereon would be available to the final products and for utilising such credits towards payment of duty leviable on the final products as specifie...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »