Mumbai Court March 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.
Compack Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT581Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue in this case involves interpretation of Notification No.67/82-CE., dt. 28-2-1982. This notification exempts printed Cartons, Boxes, Containers and cases from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is in excess of 20% subject to the condition that the appropriate duty of excise or additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act has already been paid in respect of the base paper or paper board used in their manufacture. The notification is however not applicable to a manufacturer who avails of the special procedure prescribed under Rule 56A or 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, in respect of the duty paid on the base paper or paper board. The explanation to the notification clarifies that base paper or paper board purchased from the market shall be deemed to have paid the duty.2. It is not disputed that the appellant used duty paid LDPE coated paper in manufacture of composite containers and that they have availed of Mod-vat credit in respe...
John Barretto Vs. Commr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT320Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri S.N. Kantawala, learned counsel appeared on behalf of Shri John Barretto and Shri Santosh Talpade. Shri H.H. Dave, learned advocate appeared on behalf of Shri Abdul Sattar. Shri Aftab Qureshi, learned advocate appeared on behalf of the Shri Arif Khan and Shri Firoz Zafar and Mrs. Ansari, Advocate is present on behalf of Shri Munif Ahmed and Shri Shakil Patel.2. Shri S.N. Kantawala, learned advocate submitted that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte without giving opportunity of hearing to Shri John Barretto and Shri Santosh Talpade. Shri H.H. Dave, learned advocate submitted that Shri Abdul Sattar was also not given an opportunity: of hearing and ex-parte order has been passed against him.Shri Aftab 'Qureshi, learned advocate submitted that the department has not supplied the relied upon documents to his clients despite repeated requests. Mrs. Ansari, learned advocate submits that the same is the position with Shri Munif Ahmed and Shri Shakil Patel. Thus the learned co...
The State of Maharashtra (Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR852; 2003(5)BomCR813; 2003(3)MhLj661
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. The petitioner challenges the order dated 31.8.1994 by which the District Judge, Raigad has dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. By application under Section 152 of Code of Civil Procedure, it was sought to be contended by the petitioner that after passing of the award by the land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as'the said Act'), the Government had granted ex-gratia payment of Rs. 14,353=75 paise to the respondents. However, while enhancing the compensation in the reference case under Section 18 of the said Act and while calculating the final figure of the amount of compensation payable to the respondent on account of such enhancement being granted, the Reference Court did not give credit to the said ex-gratia amount already paid to the respondent, and that, therefore, the award passed by the Ref...
Motiram Yeshwant Gaikwad Vs. Sou. Akkatai Uttam Trimukhe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Bom325; 2003(2)ALLMR761; III(2003)BC299; 2003(5)BomCR573; 2003(3)MhLj929
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the judgment andorder dated 28/4/1994 by which the trial Court hasdismissed the suit for recovery of an amount ofRs. 1,500/-. It is the contention of the learnedAdvocate for the petitioner that in view of theprovisions contained in Section 96(4) of Code of CivilProcedure which debars filing of appeal against thejudgment and decrees passed by the lower Court involvingthe claim or valuation below Rs. 10,000/-, the Petitionerhas no remedy, other than the revision application.3. The records disclose that suit filed by thepetitioner for recovery of money of Rs. 1,500/- againstthe respondent has been dismissed by the trial Court onthe ground that the petitioner is engaged in moneylending business but does not possess necessary licencefor such business and, therefore, no suit for recoveryof money t the instance of the petitioner ismaintainable in terms of the provisions...
Mr. Bharat Shantilal Shah, Vs. the State of Maharashtra Overruled
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)947; (2002)1BOMLR527
Palshikar, J.1. By these petitions, the petitioners havechallenged the constitutional validity of theState Legislature called Maharashtra Control ofOrganized Crime Act 1999 (hereinafter referred toas M.C.O.C.A. for the purposes of brevity).2. Taking into consideration the growingmenace of organized crime within the State ofMaharashtra and finding it extremely difficult todeal with it effectively within the lawsavailable, it was considered necessary by theState of Maharashtra to enact a comprehensivelegislation for the purposes of providingadequate provisions of law to deal with thismenace of organized crime. It was also thoughtnecessary that the present provisions of law arenot adequate in respect of certain aspect whichwill have to be controlled, if there has to beeffective preventive control on organized crime.3. Therefore, the Governor of Maharashtrapromulgated the Maharashtra Control of OrganizedCrime Ordinance 1999 being Ordinance No. 3 of 1999on 21-2-1999. This Ordinance was almo...
Shri Murlidhar Datoba Nimanka, Vs. Shri Harish Balkrushna Latane,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR123; 2003(6)BomCR153; 2003(4)MhLj196
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned advocates for the parties.Perused the records. Rule. By consent, the rule is madereturnable forthwith.2. The Petitioners challenge the judgment andorder dated 16.10.2002 passed by Maharashtra StateCooperative Appellate Court, Pune in Appeal against orderNo. 194 of 2002. By the impugned order, the AppellateCourt has allowed the appeal filed by the Respondentsagainst the order dated 3.10.2002 passed by theCooperative Court, Kolhapur in SCCK No. 1238 of 2002. bythe said order, the Cooperative court had rejected theapplication filed by the Respondents for action underOrder 39 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure against thePetitioners. Consequent to the appeal being allowed bythe impugned order, the Cooperative Appellate Court hadset aside the said order of the Cooperative Court and hasallowed the application filed by the Respondents tostrike off the defence of the Petitioners in exercise ofpowers under Order 39 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure,and ac...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. TexspIn Engg. and Mfg. Works
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Bom)497; [2003]263ITR345(Bom); [2003]44SCL239(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 11-12-2000 in Appeal No. 5814/Bom/99, the Department has come by way of appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1996-97 with the following questions of law for our opinion :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that the provisions of Section 45(1) and (4) are not attracted even though there was transfer of assets from the firm to thenewly constituted company on conversion of firm to company and Part IX of the Companies Act, 1956 ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in directing to allow depreciation for the year even though the W.D.V. of the block of the assets at the end of the year was nil as per the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 43(6)(c)(i)(B) of the Act ?'Facts2. A firm by the name M/s. Texspin Engineering & Manufacturing Works was engaged in the busin...
Citibank N.A. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Bom)294; [2003]262ITR47(Bom); 2003(3)MhLj465
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. By order dated October 9, 1991, the Tribunal has referred to this court, common questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for our opinion.2. The following two questions have been referred to us at the instance of the assessee :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the interest received by the bank on the sale of Government securities held by it is assessable to tax as 'income from business' and not as 'interest on securities' ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the discount on treasury bills is assessable as 'income from business' and not as 'interest on securities' ?'Answers :In this reference, we are concerned with the assessment year 1981-82. In the present case, there is no evidence on record to indicate the nature of the Government securities. There are dated Government securities and there are securities which ar...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.M. Holding and Finance (P) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Bom)312; [2003]264ITR370(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Both the above appeals raised a common question of law and fact and, therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. Both the appeals have been preferred by the Department. They concern asst. yrs. 1995-96 and 1996-97, respectively. For the sake of convenience, we reproduce herein the facts in IT Appeal No. 215 of 2001. The following question is referred for opinion of this Court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 54,75,000 made on account of l/5th (1/10th) of premium on the redeemable debentures without considering the fact that no liability had accrued during the year under appeal and it was a contingent liability which was payable only after the expiry of 10 years and directed the AO to follow the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT : [1997]225ITR802(SC) where facts of the case are ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Asian Cable Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Bom)293; [2003]262ITR537(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. This review petition is preferred by the Department against the order of the Division Bench dt. 12th Dec., 2002, in IT Ref. No. 530 of 1987.Facts:2. IT Ref. No. 530 of 1987 related to asst. yrs. 1979-80 and 1980-81. That reference was made at the behest of Department. In that reference, two points arose for determination viz., whether value of work-in-progress should be treated as part of capital employee for purposes of Section 80J of the IT Act and secondly, whether deduction under Section 80-O should be calculated on the gross fees received by the assessee. These were the two questions referred to the Division Bench. Question No. 1 was answered in favour of the assessee in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alcock Ashdown & Co. Ltd. : [1997]224ITR353(SC) . Question No. 2, which related to Section 80-O was also answered in favour of the assessee on the following concession made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the Departmen...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »