Mumbai Court October 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.
Ashoka Games Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2003
Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT340Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Heard both sides. The dispute relates to the classification of swimming goggles. The appellants claim classification of the impugned goods under Chapter 95 whereas the department has classified the same under Chapter 90. We have gone through the impugned order-in-appeal which has considered all aspects of the case and has reduced the penalty from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 1,000/-.2. As such, we do not see any merit in the appeal and the same is rejected. Our order was pronounced in the Court on the date of hearing on 27-11-2002....
Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)(111)LC917Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing both sides for some time on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 24,87,473/- which represents disallowed Cenvat credit on capital goods and penalty of equal amount imposed upon the firm and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed upon its Director, we found that it was possible to decide the appeals themselves at this stage and hence after waiving duty and penalties, we hear and decide the appeals with the consent of both sides.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various iron and steel products such as M.S. Rods, Bars, Channels, Angles etc. falling under Chapter Heading 72 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The period of dispute is January 1998 to February 2000. According to the department modvat credit was not admissible to manufacturers of hot re-rolled products on any of the inputs or on the capital goods in terms of CBEC Circular No. 326/42/97-CX dated 25.7.1997 and CBEC circular No. 522/18/2000 CX dated 31.3...
Surat Beverages P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2003
Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT313Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the inkjet printer used by the appellant to print the date of manufacture and sale price on the bottles containing beverages manufactured and cleared by it is capital goods within the meaning of Rule 57Q.2. The departmental representative reiterates the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the printer cannot be considered to be capital goods since it does not apply to the requirement in Rule 57Q. I am unable to accept the submission. The law required a manufacturer of beverage to print the sale price on the bottles containing them; even the sale of the beverage not bearing the sale price on the container would have been contrary to law. The printing their price on the bottle of the beverage was therefore a process of manufacture and the printing would have to be considered capital goods....
The Jt. C.i.T., Special Range-13 Vs. Tata Finance Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2003
Reported in: (2004)91ITD9(Mum.)
1. In this appeal for AY 1995-96, the Department leads that the learned CIT (A) erred in concluding that interest tax cannot be levied on interest on debentures, bonds, etc. It is alleged that the learned CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the definition of the term 'interest' under Section 2(7) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974 is an inclusive definition and includes interest received on any loans and advances made in India, excepting those loans which are specifically excluded from the provisions of Section 2(7). Since interest on debentures, bonds, etc. is not specifically excluded from the provisions of Section 2(7), it is liable to tax under Section 2(7) of the Interest Tax Act.2. The assessee is a resident Indian Company. It filed its return of chargeable interest under Section 7(1) of the Interest Tax Act, on 29.12.1995. Chargeable interest was declared at Rs. 18.03,50,820/- The assessing officer found that while computing the chargeable interest, the assessee had considered int...
Hitesh Pravinchand Shah Vs. the State of Maharashtra and the Superinte ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ523; 2004(2)MhLj389
Kakade, J.:1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.2. Heard both sides.3. Can a person - bestowed with only one life span - be subjected to the sentence of two life imprisonments consecutively under different counts tried in the same case for same incident This is the question raised in this writ petition filed by the petitioner convict who was tried and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, in Sessions Case No. 1015 of 1989.It would be just and proper on our part to refer to the facts involved, briefly, in order to appreciate the issue involved in proper perspective. The petitioner was arrested by the police for offence of murder of his distant relative's wife on 27.6.1989 by throttling her neck violently and robbing of gold ornaments and diamonds totally valued at Rs. 2,62,000/-. He was arrested on 13.7.1989 at Vadodara and since then he is in prison. He was charged with offences punishable under Sections 302, 392 and 394 of I. P. C. The prosecution proved that the accu...
iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Inc. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR530; 2004(1)MhLj532
A. P. Shah, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of the learned single Judge, extending the time for the first respondent to file its written statement beyond the period of 90 days, prescribed by Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by exercising inherent power under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned single Judge extended time by holding that Section 148 could be invoked to extend the period prescribed under Order VIII, Rule 1, notwithstanding the Proviso to Order VIII, Rule 1, which curtails the power of a Court to extend time only up to 90 days. The appeal raises important question involving the scope and interpretation of the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code as amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 22 of 2002) with effect from 1st July 2002. The more fundamental issue is whether the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1 would apply to suits on the Original Side or Original Side Rules cont...
Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MhLj761
J.P. DEVADHAR, J.:1. These References arise under Section 39 of the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1962. These References payable by the Applicant is a permissible deduction under Section 8(9) of the Act?3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the amount paid to the harvesting and carting contractors during the periods 1957-58 to 1960-61 written off as bad debts during the previous year 1964-65 are deductions permitted under Section 8(9) of the Act? 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 4,73,522/- allocated by the Income Tax Authorities as relating to Agricultural Operation should be allowed as a deduction under the Agricultural Income Tax Act? 5. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in refusing to allow the deduction of amounts of Rs. 3,150/- and Rs. 8,925/- in Assessment Years 1965-66 and 1968-69 respectively being the amounts spent as perquisite to the General Manager allocated by the Inc...
Jivanlal S/O Kannaiyalal Paliwal Vs. Krishnarao D. Sathone
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Bom89
ORDERS.T. Kharche, J.1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned 7th Additional District Judge, Nagpur, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 189 of 1980, who allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit and declared that the plaintiff is entitled to have access to his field Survey No. 639/1 from the way shown by letters AB in the plaint map through field survey No. 640 owned by the defendant and also granted consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing the user of way.2. Brief facts are as under :Plaintiff is the owner of field survey No. 639/1 and the defendant is the owner of field survey No. 640 situated at village Mowad and the field of the defendant is adjoining on the southern side of the field of the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that he has a right Of way...
Rambhau Bhaduji Bhende (Deceased by Lrs.) Vs. Kisan Bhaduji Bhende (De ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Bom84; 2004(2)ALLMR826
S.T. Kharche, J.1. The short question that is involved in this appeal is, whether a co-owner can claim title to joint ownership property by way of adverse possession as against other co-owner without an overt denial of the title of the latter by the person in possession?2. The original plaintiff Rambhau Bhaduji Bhende and original defendant Kisan Bhaduji Bhende died during the pendency of this appeal and their legal representatives havebeen brought on record.3. This second appeal has been filed by the original plaintiff Rambhau against the judgment and decree passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge dated 4-10-1989 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 203 of 1983, who dismissed the appeal with costs and confirmed the findings of the trial Court dismissing the suit, i.e. Regular Civil Suit No. 571 of 1999 of the plaintiff for partition, possession and mesne profits.4. Brief facts are as under:The original plaintiff Rambhau and original defendant Kisan are real brothers. Defendants Kishan was ...
State Bank of India Vs. Amravati Zilla Krishi Audyogik Sahakari Sangh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2003
Reported in: 2004(4)BomCR434; 2004(2)MhLj80
J. N. Patel, J.1. The appellant is the original plaintiff who filed Special Civil Suit No. 164 of 1986 in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Amravati, against defendant No. 1 which is a co-operative society and at the relevant time was under the management of the Administrator. Defendants No. 2 and 3 are the President and Secretary of the Managing Committee whereas defendant No. 4 to 7 are the guarantors and defendant No. 8 is the Registrar, Co-operative Societies.2. It was the case of the plaintiff that it has to recover Rs. 11,06,937=85 from defendants 1 to 8 and prayed that the Court be pleased to pass a decree for Rs. 11,06,937=85 in favour of the plaintiff rendering defendants 1 to 7 liable jointly and severally with interest at 15% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation and costs. In addition to this, the plaintiff also prayed for ancillary relief in respect of disposal of hypothecated property in case the said proceeds of the stock are found to be insuffi...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »