Mumbai Court January 2003 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.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Trinity Plastic
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT400Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The circular No. 577/14/01, dated 11-6-2001 of the Board reproduced in 2001 (131) E.L.T. T-3 has clarified that the polypropylene tubes which arose in the course of manufacture of "satranjs" of plastics are not capable of being marketed and hence no duty is leviable on such material.2. In that situation the claim of the department seeking classification of the goods in heading 54.04 would be only of academic interest....
Shri Mahadeo Shankar Shinde Vs. Shri Maruti Shankar Shinde and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Bom312; 2003(2)ALLMR559; 2003(4)BomCR645; 2003(2)MhLj446
D.G. Karnik, J.1. In this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order of remand dated 20th April, 1992 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangli setting aside the judgment and order dated 7th December, 1984 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division. Sangli in Miscellaneous Application No. 111 of 1981 granting letters of administration with the will annexed thereto in favour of the appellant in respect of the last will and testament dated 16th November, 1975 executed by late Shankar Babaji Dhor (Shinde).2. Shankar Babaji Dhor (Shinde) (hereinafter referred to as the testator) died on 4th December, 1975 leaving behind his last will dated 16th November, 1975. The appellant being the grand son and a beneficiary under the will, filed an application for letters of administration of the said will dated 16th November, 1975. Sons and daughters of the testator challenged the said will and opposed the grant of letters of administration on the ground that the alleg...
Omega Ag Seeds (India) Ltd. Vs. Bank of Baroda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR842; II(2003)BC397; 2003(2)BomCR21; [2003]44SCL28(Bom)
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The order dated 21-5-2002 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal is impugned by the present petitioners.2. The petitioners herein were original defendants in Suit No. 4074/93 filed by the present respondents original plaintiffs for recovery of amount of Rs. 26,44,038 with interest at the rate of 23.75 per cent per annum from 1-10-1993 till payment or judgment as per the particulars of claim in Exhibit 'N'. The said suit was transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, 'Act of 1993') in the year 1999. After the transfer, the suit was registered as original Application No. 2697/1999. Bereft of unnecessary details, for our present purposes, it may be noted that on 3-1 -2002 the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application against the defendants with half costs. The Debt Recovery Tribunal directed the defendants to jointly and severally pay to the applicant-Bank an amount ...
Asstt. Cit Vs. Mafatlal S. Bafna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2003
Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Mumbai)1064
ORDERG.C Gupta, J.M.:These three appeals by the revenue for the assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1994-95 are directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Since identical issue is involved in these appeals, these are being disposed of by this common order.2. The only issue in these appeals is regarding addition on account of disallowance out of interest expenditure claimed by the assessee. The assessee is an individual. He has received loans from outside parties and has advanced loans to sister concerns mainly M/s. Parag Construction (P) Ltd. and M/s. Chetan Consultants (P) Ltd., wherein the assessee was managing director or director. The assessee has not charged interest from M/s. Chetan Consultants (P) Ltd. on an amount of Rs. 1.5 crores. Accordingly, the assessing officer disallowed the interest on the said amount. The assessee's advance balance as on 31-3-1990, was Rs. 3,45,16,906 with M/s. Chetan Consultants (P) Ltd. The figure of advance to M/s. Chetan Consultants (P...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Safex Fire Systems
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-03-2003
Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT389Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether, in computing the value of clearance of goods manufactured by the appellant for the purposes of Notification 1/93, the value of cylinders comprising parts of fire extinguishers that the respondent refills with carbon dioxide is to be included. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that these are not to be included.2. We do not find it possible to accept the contention in the appeal, reiterated by the departmental representative, that refilling of the empty cylinder with carbon dioxide is a process of manufacture. There is nothing in the department's appeal to support such a claim. We do not see how a new product emerges by simple act of refilling a cylinder with carbon dioxide. The object of the cylinder in the fire extinguisher is merely act as a container for carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide is released by application of force on a plunger mounted in the extinguisher the other end of wh...
Videocon Appliances Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-03-2003
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT153Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri Arun Mehta, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants states that these appeals relate to two similar cases. The Assistant Commissioner had sanctioned the refund of basic customs duty which was initially paid @ 40% instead of 30% applicable after the 1996 budget.The impugned orders in appeal have been passed on Department's appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals). Shri A. Mehta states that the impugned orders lack clarity and are vague. The operative portion of both the orders in appeal are identical and are as follows :- "However, in the present case, Department's appeal is limited only for disal lowance of the element of differential CVD payable on the subject import, based upon the lower rate of Basic Customs duties. Impugned order does not reflect refund of the excess differential CVD also paid on the goods initially. Any question of disallowance thereof would arise in case refund of the said differential CVD was also allowed. Accordingly, if this be the case, Depart men...
Shaman Marketing Research Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-03-2003
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT231Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri Z.B. Nagarkar, learned Consultant appearing for the appellants states that the appellants have paid the service tax in the Union Bank of India instead of paying the same in the State Bank of India which is authorised to receive service tax in the jurisdiction of Mumbai-V Commissionerate. He states that since the tax has already been paid, the lower authorities are not justified in asking the appellants to pay tax again along with the interest. He also states that the appellants have a small business and that they should have been properly guided by the department instead of being penalised. He undertakes to produce proof of transfer of the amount from the Union Bank of India to the State Bank of India before the Deputy Commissioner within a period of one month from today.2. Shri M.H. Sheikh, learned JDR appearing for Revenue states that the impugned order has been passed by the lower authorities as the tax was not paid in the designated bank and the returns were not filed in t...
industrial Development Bank of Vs. the Dcit, Spl. Range-36
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-03-2003
Reported in: (2004)91ITD34(Mum.)
1. Committee On Disputes (C.O.D.) approval has not been granted for ground nos. 1 These grounds are, therefore, rendered infructuous and are rejected as such.2. By way of Ground No. 3, the assessee challenges the action of the leaned Commissioner (Appeals) in not allowing the expenditure incurred by it under its Technical Assistance Fund (hereinafter referred to as 'the T.A.F.'), amounting to Rs. 3,97,63,468, on the ground that the said expenditure amounts to application of income 3. The learned Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is maintaining Separate funds, namely, Gratuity Fund, Voluntary Health Scheme Fund, Disability Assistance Fund, Staff Welfare Fund and the T.F.A., that while computing the income from business and profession, the expenses in these Funds were debited and the income earned from all the Funds, except the T.A.F., were credited; that when asked as why the expenditure incurred under the T.A.F. should be allowed as a business expenditure, the assessee stat...
Satidham Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-02-2003
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT401Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These three appeals have been filed by the appellants against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat, confirming the duty and imposing penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs under Rule 1730(1), Rs. 2,000/- under Rule 9(2), Rs. 50 lakhs under Rule 52A(8) and Rs. 2,000/- under Rule 226. The appeals also relate to imposition of penalty on K.M. Jhunjhunwala of Rs. 5 lakh under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules and a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellant S.S. Karandikar under the same rule. The Commissioner also ordered confiscation of goods which were allowed to be redeemed at Rs. 1 lakh.2. The appellants carry on the business of texturising yarn at their factory situate at Silvassa. They imported during the relevant time 174019.900 kgs. of POY under DEEC Scheme. They also purchased 701216.206 kgs. of POY from the local market which is admittedly duty paid. They also textur-ised the yarns and exported 173885.640 kgs. of texturised yarn and sold locally 689681.465...
Marks Aleli (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-02-2003
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT809Tri(Mum.)bai
2. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the provision of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.3. The facts of the case are that the appellant has purchased raw material from First Stage Dealer viz. M/s. Godrej Soaps Ltd. In the invoice raised by the seller it has been stated in 'FIRST STAGE DEALER'. Invoice and the words 'FIRST STAGE' have been written in hand but not printed. But on this ground the Modvat has been denied by the authorities. In our view prima facie this is a curable defect. Hence we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to appellate authority for hearing of the appeal before it without insistence of the pre-deposit....
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »