Mumbai Court January 2003 Judgments
Rajguru Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT676Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These five applications relate to the same order of the Commissioner (Appeals). They are therefore disposed of together by this single order.2. Show cause notice dated 10-3-1997 was issued to M/s. Kwalisynth Chemical Industries, which was a partnership firm of which M.U. Upasani was a partner. M/s. Rajguru Chemicals was the proprietary concern of S.U. Upasani. M/s. Rajguru Industries were also similarly placed. The notice was also issued to M/s. Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Papad and Shri J.S. Thakkar their employee. These three units were on job work basis manufacturing and supplying acid slurry to M/s. Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Papad. The allegation made in the notice was that although the three manufacturing units were claimed to be independent on record, they were in fact one since the premises and the labour force was the same and since all three units were controlled by members of the same family. The duty was demanded on the basis of the combined clearances.Allegations were mad...
Tag this Judgment!Abacus Computers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT227Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants herein imported a consignment of 18 pcs. of personal computers and sought clearance thereof under Apendix 3A, Sr. No. 732 of the AM 1990-93 Policy and submitted REP licence with flexibility provision of para 192 of the same Policy. Sr. No. 732 of Appendix 3A covers - ''Electronic Equipments/Systems excluding all consumer electronic equipment/systems." The department was of the view that personal computers were falling within the category of consumer electronic equipment as its use was not limited to professional or industrial application only and as per para 41(2) of the Policy, import of Computers/Computer based systems and peripherals other than those allowed under OGL require specific import licence for their clearance and prior clearance of the Department of Electronics was also required. Show cause notice was issued proposing confiscation of the personal computers imported without cover of valid ITC licence and proposing imposition of penalty. The Collector of C...
Tag this Judgment!Comfort Coolers (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT315Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 3,47,359/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- involves a very interesting question of interpretation of Rules 57F (20) and 57F (21). The Sub-rules are reproduced below :- (20) On an application made by a manufacturer of the final products, the Commissioner may, subject to such conditions and limitations as he may impose, permit a manufacturer having credit in his account in Form RG23A maintained under Rule 57G and lying unutilised, on account of shifting of the factory belonging to the manufacturer, to another site, or on account of change in ownership, or change in the site of a factory resulting from sale, merger, amalgamation or transfer to a joint venture with the specific provision for transfer of liabilities of the old factory, to transfer such unutilized credit to such transferred, sold, merged or amalgamated factory. (21) The credit under Sub-rule (20) shall be allowed only if the stock of inputs as such or in process is also t...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Conductors Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: (2004)88ITD193(Mum.)
1. The Assessee is in appeal arising out of the order of CIT(A)-I, Mumbai dated 22-3-1993 and raised two issues, first in respect of disallowance of carried forward losses of unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance reserve under Section 115J(2) and second, claim of depreciation on foreign exchange rate difference.2. Apropos Ground No. 1, the claim of the' assessee was that deduction on account of depreciation and investment allowance should be allowed for the year under consideration only to the extent it was necessary to reduce the income to the level of the income computed under Section 115J. The Assessing Officer has not accepted the said claim of the assessee and made an observation that the provisions of Section 1153(2) of IT Act were explicit on the subject which would not effect the determination of amount in relation to the previous year to be carried forward to the subsequent years. Being aggrieved, assessee went in appeal and ld. CIT(A) has endorsed the view taken b...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Conductors Limited Vs. Dcit, Special Range-1
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: (2005)272ITR137(Mum.)
1. This appeal came before me as a Third Member to express my opinion on the following question: "Whether, on facts and circumstances of the case, deduction on account of depreciation and investment allowances should be allowed for the year under consideration only to the extent it was necessary to reduce the income to the level of the income computed under Section 115J and consequently whether the order of the Assessing Officer and the Id. CIT(A) on interpretation of the provision of Section 115J(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 should be set aside." 2. I have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before me and precedents relied upon. The only dispute raised before me relates to the adjustment of the balance figure of investment allowance, i.e. the difference between investment allowance allowed in normal course and as allowed under Section 115J of the IT. Act, 1961.It was contended on behalf of the assessee before the revenue authorities that the balance figure o...
Tag this Judgment!Sagir Ahmed Nanhe Vs. Mrs. Maria Piedade Gonsalves
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR554; 2003(4)BomCR635
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The husband of the respondent was atenant in the premises bearing shop No.1 at 104,Matharpakhadi Road, Mazgaon, Mumbai-10 (for short thesuit premises). During his life time, he carried outbusiness of tailoring in the suit premises in the nameand style of 'Bella Vista Tailors.' After his death in1963, the respondent continued to carry on the saidbusiness of tailoring for several years. In the year1969, she granted a licence to conduct the said businessin favour of the petitioner and one other. The licencewas renewed from time to time and finally by a Leave andLicence Agreement dated 1st March, 1972, the petitioneralone was granted the licence to carry on the saidbusiness of gents tailoring in the same name viz.'Bella Vista Tailors.' Incidental to the licence to carryout the said business, the petitioner was allowed to usethe suit premises for the purpose of carrying on thesaid business. According to the respondent, thisagreement...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Sunil Shantaram Pawar and Shri Indubai Shantaram Pawar Vs. the St ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)55; 2003BomCR(Cri)1137; 2003CriLJ2443
J.G. Chitre, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties in detail.2. Shri Thorat submitted that the complainant is in the habit of filing false complaints against the petitioners and present one is the same. He submitted that on 15.4.1997 a criminal case was amicably compounded in which the original complainant was complainant and present petitioners were accused and thereafter for harassing the petitioners, his wife, the original complainant, filed another complaint which is the basis of a prosecution which is pending in the court of J.M.F.C. Vita, District Sangli in context with C.r. No. 85 of 1997 revolving around offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. He submitted that the said prosecution be quashed by exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court in view of provisions of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'Code' for convenience) and by issuing an appropriate writ in that context.3. Shri Saste, Additio...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal Hastimal Bothara Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1123
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Appeal is filed under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1999.2. The Appellant has approached this Court complaining that extra ordinary procedure has been followed in dispossessing the Appellant from the premises which were lawfully occupied by him as tenant being Room No. 10, admeasuring 140 sq.ft. at Sudama Bhavan, 4th floor, 1st Panjaroole lane, Mumbai-400 004. The Designated Court by order dated October 23, 2002 directed the Investigating Officer to seal and seize the said room and report compliance on 25.10.2002. Incidentally, before passing such drastic order, the appellant was not heard nor put to notice that the court proposes to pass such an order against him. that order was passed by the Designated Court presumably on some representation made by the Depositors that a trespasser was living in the said room with his family, which was the property possessed by the Accused No. 2. On the ...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar Burde, Government Servant Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through th ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR575; 2003(4)BomCR93; [2003(97)FLR239]; (2003)IILLJ304Bom; 2003(2)MhLj845
R.M. Lodha, J. 1. The rule no work no pay whether is attracted inthe facts of the present case and if that be so can theCentral Administrative Tribunal be said to have erred inrefusing to grant arrears of salary to the Petitionerconsequent upon notional promotion given to him is thequestion raised in the preset Writ Petition.2. The aforesaid question arises in thecircumstances which we very briefly indicate hereunder:The Petitioner filed an Original Applicationbefore Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench,Mumbai raising the grievance that he ought to have beenpromoted to Senior Time Scale and J.A.G. post from thedate his juniors were promoted. The Petitioner sought forcorrection of the seniority list by placing him above thejuniors who were promoted without considering his case.He also sought for correction of the combined senioritylist as well as arrears of pay and allowances to him asthe consequence of the above relief. The OriginalApplication was filed by the Petitioner somew...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Signal Mahila Mandal Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR632; 2003(5)BomCR350; 2003(2)MhLj780
R.G. Deshpande, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. The matter is taken up for hearing with the consent of the parties.2. Heard Shri Jagtap, Advocate for the petitioner, Mrs. Jog, A.G.P. for respondents No. 1 to 3, and Mr. Sambre, Advocate for respondent No. 43. The petitioner Mahila Mandal of a locality known as 'Deputy Signal Mahila Mandal' (hereinafter referred to as 'Mandal' for the purpose of brevity) has approached this Court challenging the order dated January 22, 2002 passed by the respondent No. 2 -Commissioner, State Excise, in Appeal No. 34 of 2001, whereby the learned Commissioner set aside the order dated January 9, 2002 passed by the Collector, Nagpur, whereby the Collector for State Excise-respondent No. 3 has directed the respondent No. 4 to shift his shop to some other area by making necessary application for permission to shift, because of objections raised by the residents of the locality.4. The petitioner Mandal through its President Smt. Chandrakalabai Thakur appeared...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »