Mumbai Court February 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.
Capital Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT103Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants during the period March, 91 to October, 92 utilised Modvat credit availed by them on certain inputs for payment of duty on finished products for which those inputs were not declared as inputs.2. Lower authority have denied this Modvat credit utilization and have ordered the reversal of credit availed, with penalties and interests.The inputs on which the credits were availed were used in the manufacture of final products, which was only on entirely exported.Therefore, the inputs credit as available in the books was used to discharge duty on certain other final products in which the inputs were not and cannot be used.3. After hearing both sides and considering the issues involved, we find that it is a well settled position in Modvat credit that one to one correlation of inputs and the final product is not required to be insisted upon and credit availment and utilisation cannot be denied on simple procedural irregularities.4. We find, that the appellants were entitled t...
Maxmann Business Machines P. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT176Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant manufacturers computers. They filed a declaration on 14-8-89, in terms of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rule, 1944 declaring the description of inputs as "Computer parts".2. This was amplified on 18-9-1992 whereby specific details of a number of assemblies and sub-assemblies were given. Show cause notice was issued on 12-11-1992 alleging wrong availment of Modvat credit of Rs. 53,917/-. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the duty of Rs. 30,694/-and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/-, on the observation that the inputs were not specifically declared.3. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) a citation was made of the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Usha Martin Industries Ltd., v.Collector of Central Excise [1990 (46) E.L.T. 392 (T)]. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that it was neither relevant nor applicable. For failure to declare the parts in details he upheld the lower order. Hence, the appeal.4. Shri Mehta submits that the judgment cited before the Commissioner...
Maniar and Company Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT801Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When the matter was called, none appeared. On the earlier occasions also they were not present. The appeal was therefore disposed of after hearing Shri S.V. Parelkar ld. DR and on perusal of the submissions made in writing.2. The appellants were engaged in the activity of Body Building on three wheeler chassis. At different times they had adopted different classifications. They had claimed classification under heading 8707 with benefit of Notification No. 1/93. They also filed another classification under heading 8704 with benefit of Notification No.162/86-CE. They cleared the final goods under two gate passes in April/ 1993 under Classification No. 8704 paying duty of Rs. 525/- per vehicles in terms of Notification No. 162/86-C.E. They later filed refund claim, claiming duty as leviable under Notification No. 1/93-CE.On the ground that heading 8704 did not qualify for the benefit of Notification No. 1/93, show cause notice for denial was issued. The Assistant Commissioner dismisse...
Mr. Homi Phiroz Ranina and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2003
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)793; [2003]117CompCas218(Bom); (2003)4CompLJ125(Bom); [2003]263ITR636(Bom); 2003(3)MhLj34
A.S. Aguiar, J.1. The applicants seek quashing of the orderdated 30.11.96 passed by the learned Additional ChiefM.M., 47th Court, Bandra in cases Nos. 248-S to 251-Sof 1993 and pray for their discharge in the saidcases.2. The brief facts of the case are; a complaintcame to be filed by the Income Tax Officer, TDS VI,Bombay, against the present applicant/accused as wellas M/s. Unique Oil India Ltd. of which theapplicant/accused are Directors as well as againstShri L.K. Khosla, Chairman and Managing Director ofaccused No. 1 Company as well as Gayatri Khosla anotherDirector and one Yogesh Khosla the whole time Directorof accused No. 1 Company before the Additional ChiefMetropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, charging themunder Section 276(b) r.w. 278(b) of the Income TaxAct, 1961. Summons were issued to all the accusedpersons including the present applicants. On receiptof summons the applicants herein (accused Nos. 4, 5, 6and &) filed applications, for discharge before theM.M. Court on 31.10....
Municipal Council Vs. K. Ravindra and Company and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR672; 2003(6)BomCR287; 2003(2)MhLj987
S.G. Mahajan, J.1. By consent recorded on 15-1-2003, this revision is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself.2. The question involved in this revision is whether the sole proprietor of a firm can sue in the name of firm?3. Respondent No. 1 herein, which is a proprietory concern, filed Special Civil Suit No. 33 of 1995 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhandara, for the recovery of the amount, against the State of Maharashtra and other defendants, one out of whom is Municipal Council, Tirora, which is the revision-petitioner in this revision. The suit was instituted by respondent No. 1 in the name 'K. Ravindra and Company, through its proprietor Shri Narayan Sakharam Kantode, aged about 60 years, resident of A/2/2 N.S.K. Society, Civil Lines, Nagpur.' The case was once closed for judgment. Then after the Presiding Officer of the Court was transferred, the case came up before another Judge, who posted it for arguments. At that stage, the present revision-p...
Keshub Mahindra Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(154)ELT562(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. In this case although the petition was filed as far back as on 23rd November, 1989, the Respondents have not chosen to file any affidavit in reply till date. When the matter came up for hearing on 20th January, 2003, Counsel for Respondents sought time with a view to file an affidavit in reply to the petition. In the interest of justice, the request was acceded to and the petition was adjourned. However, even today when the petition is taken up for final hearing, the Respondents have not tendered any affidavit in reply to the petition.2. However, Mr. Chaudhary, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that in the instant case the Petitioners have challenged the show cause notice which is yet to be adjudicated and, therefore, the Respondents must be permitted to adjudicate the matter in accordance with law and no interference is called for in its writ jurisdiction. Ordinarily, we would not have taken the onerous responsibility of adjudicating...
Devgiri Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Anil Ambadasrao Jawale and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ537Bom
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises from the judgment and order, dated December 3, 1990, passed in W.P. No. 3970 of 1989 by this Court (Single Bench). It would be appropriate to list out the factual matrix, in short, leading to Writ Petition No. 3970 of 1989.2. The respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred as the employee, for Short), was issued a chargesheet on December 24, 1983 alleging that while he was on duty in the first shift on December 21, 1983 he had left his work place and instigated the workers of the Ring Frame Department to illegally stop the work and accordingly the work was suspended. He had thus instigated and participated in an illegal strike by collecting the workers from Ring Frame Department, in front of the Spinning office and when they met the Spinning Master he had told them to restart the work, the employee disobeyed the orders. The charges, as per the Model Standing Orders applicable to the Textile Mills read as under:(i) Going on an illegal s...
Homi Phiroze Ranina Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2003
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN100(Bom)
The applicants seek quashing of the order-dated 30-11-1996 passed by the learned Additional Chief M.M., 47th Court, Bandra in case Nos. 248-S to 251-S of 1993 and pray for their discharge in the said cases.2. The brief facts of the case are : a complaint came to be filed by the Income Tax Officer, TDS VI, Bombay, against the present applicants/accused as well as M/s. Unique Oil India Ltd. of which the applicants/accused are Directors as well as against Shri L.K. Khosla, Chairman and Managing Director of accused No. 1 Company as well as Gayatri Khosla another Director and one Yogesh Khosla the whole-time Director of accused No. 1 Company before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, charging them under section 276B read with 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Summons were issued to all the accused persons including the present applicants. On receipt of summons the applicants herein (accused Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7) filed applications, for discharge before the M.M. Court on ...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Amit @ Ammu Son of Gajanan Gandhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)56; 2003BomCR(Cri)1242; (2003)105BOMLR7
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Mrs. Bharti Dangre, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State of Maharashtra and Mr. M.R. Daga, learned Counsel for the respondent in Confirmation Case No. 1 of 2002. as well as Mr. M.R. Daga, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Bharti Dangre, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal No. 625 of 2002.2. The Confirmation Case No. 1 of 2002 as well as Criminal Appeal No. 625 of 2002 filed by the appellant raises common questions of law and fact and, therefore, they were heard together and disposed by this common judgment.3. The circumstances, which have given rise to the prosecution of the accused Amit alias Ammu Gajanan Gandhi, in nutshell, are as follows :-Dilip Ramdas Vaidya (P.W. 5) along with his wife Chitra Dilip Vaidya (P.W. 10) and two children were residing in Nandanwan locality of Nagpur, The deceased Pratiksha was eleven years of age at the time of her death, and was the yo...
Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Vinubhai Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-2003
Reported in: (2002)LC232Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These 77 appeals have common issues and are therefore disposed off vide the single order. The following 42 appeals are filed by the Revenue where the cross-objections are filed by the Respondents.2. The following appeals are filed by the assesses. No cross-objections have been filed by the Revenue.3. The Central Excise duties are multipoint in the sense that during its transformation an article passes through a number of stages, being held separately excisable and dutiable at each stage. The Modvat scheme was designed to alleviate the "cascading" effect of such taxes. Simply put, the credit of the duty paid on the input is available for discharging duty on the final products and goods made therefrom. To ensure revenue neutrality the scheme does not permit taking of such credit where the final products are not dutiable. The manufacturer has to file declaration showing the description of the inputs and of the final goods. He can take credit of the duty paid only when he is in receipt...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »