Mumbai Court July 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.
Sau. Rabu Ismail Pathan Vs. Raju Jaysingh Bhise and the State of Mahar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ741
J.G. Chitre, J. 1. The petitioner absent. None present for her. Respondent No. 1 absent. None present for him. Shri Shringarpure, Additional Public Prosecutor, present for the State of Maharashtra, who happens to be protecting the interest of the prosecution.2. The present petitioner assails the correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by the trial Court in the matter of Sessions Case No. 65 of 1995 wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati acquitted the respondent No. 1 of the charges levelled against him for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC.3. In view of the provisions of Section 403, it is not necessary for the revisional Court to hear the parties in person or through their lawyers unless it is necessary to do so in the ends of justice. In this case, it is not necessary to wait for the petitioner or her lawyer. Firstly because the petition is pertaining to the year 1997 and secondly, keeping in vie...
Rotopacking Materials Industry Vs. Ravinder Kumar Chopra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR584; 2003(6)BomCR6
Vazifdar S.J., J.1. The plaintiff's Notice of Motion No. 885 of 2001 seeks interim reliefs in aid of the final relief in the suit. The defendant's Notice of Motion No. 526 of 2002 seeks the rejection of the plaint on the ground that it is barred by law and a dismissal of the suit on the ground of jurisdiction. This Notice of Motion also seeks to have an ad interim order passed in the plaintiff's Notice of Motion vacated.2. The plaintiff is a company incorporated in Dubai under the law of the United Arab Emirates, carrying on business of manufacturing packing material for household goods and products. It owns and operates a factory in Dubai. Defendant No. 2 an Indian National, was one of the promoters of the plaintiff and occupied different positions in the plaintiff which I shall refer to. Defendant No. 2 is the State Bank of India.3. The plaintiff has sought a permanent injunction against the 1st defendant restraining him from transferring, disposing of, alienating, encumbering, parti...
Principal and Secretary, K.J. Somaiya College of Engineering Vs. Ravin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR865; 2004(2)BomCR255
Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard. Perused the records. 2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 6-4-1994, passed by the College Tribunal in Appeal No. 21 of 1992. The challenge is on four grounds. Firstly, that no appeal was maintainable against the order dated 8-2-1992 as the respondent (No. 1) was only a probationer and not a regular employee. Secondly, there was no sufficient cause disclosed for the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Thirdly, the Tribunal erred in placing reliance upon various rulings without ascertaining whether they are applicable to the facts of the case and, fourthly, that merely because the employee was asked to hold additional charge, it could not have been construed as a promotion to the employee. On the other hand, the impugned order is sought to be justified on the ground that the petitioner never disclosed the reason for termination of the services of the respondent and it was never the case of the petitioner, either in the appeal o...
Cit Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN788(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J. At the instance of the department, the following two questions have been referred to us for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act concerning assessment year 1972-73.2. For the sake of convenience, question No. 2 is required to be answered in the first instance :'2. Whether the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(b)(viii) of the Income Tax Act in connection with expenditure incurred for performance of service outside India ?'Facts3. Assessee - M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co., have been carrying on business in building construction. In 1970, assessee submitted a tender for constructing a Palace at Muscat for His Majesty, the Sultan of Oman. For assessment year in question, the assessee submitted his claim for weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income Tax Act. The deduction claimed by the assessee was for expenses relating to commission paid to National & Grindlays bank Limited, which executed Performance Bond of Rs. 37...
Agro Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT705Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upholding the Deputy Collector's order of imposition of penalty of Rs. 6,35,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and upholding his finding that star aniseed imported by the appellants is liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act.3. The goods in question have been held to be spices and are therefore consumer goods of agricultural origin requiring specific licence for their import which the appellant did not possess. The plea of the appellant that the goods are crude drugs finding specific mention against Serial No. 35 of the Appendix VI, List IV of 1990-93 policy has been rejected. Without going into the question as to whether the goods are consumer goods or other than the consumer goods, I find that it is possible to dispose of the appeal on the submission that penalty has been imposed in lieu of confiscation and hence not sustainable in the light of the Tribunal's decisio...
Godrej Pacific Technology Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT410Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the adjudication order by which the claim for refund of duty paid on one consignment of Electronic typewriters imported by the appellants was dismissed. On the ground that the importers had not established that the incidence of excess duty paid by them had not been passed on to any other person, and the claim amount of Rs. 2,36,403/-was ordered to be credited to the Welfare Fund under Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. None appears for the appellants in spite of notice; hence we heard Id. DR and perused the records.3. We find that the evidence placed before the authorities below by the appellants to show that they had not passed on the incidence of higher duty to their customers consisted of price lists for the months of December, 1994 and January, 1995 to March, 1995. However, this material is not sufficient for substantiation of their plea. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that the ...
Patel Field Marshal Industries Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT483Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Since the issue involved in all these appeals is common, they are being disposed of by this common order.2.a) M/s Patel Field Marshal Industries (hereinafter referred to as "PFMI") are engaged in the manufacture of, interalia, diesel engines.There are classified under hearing 84.08 of CETA.b) Engines are cleared for home consumption on payment of excise duty.Diesel engines are also removed for captive consumption for the manufacture of centrifugal pumpsets commonly known as couple sets.Centrifugal pumpsets consists of diesel engine as well as centrifugal pumps. These two items are coupled together and mounted together on a common base plate. The resultant product is called as pumpset or couple-set.c) The department too the view that diesel engine when cleared for captive consumption is not chargeable to duty in view of Notification No. 4/97-CE, Notification No. 5/98-CE (pg 7-14 of compilation) of similar notifications issued from time to time in each Financial year (hereinafter ref...
Commissioner of Customs (Ep) Vs. Design Point
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT355Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding the impugned goods to be printed books for the purpose of Sr. No. 457 in the DEPB Schedule.2. Shri A. Shukla, learned S.D.R, appearing for Revenue states that the impugned goods merely consist of designs pasted on different pages and do not have any relative texts nor are they bound. It is his submission that a mere collection of pages cannot be considered to be a printed book. He also refers to the grounds of appeal and reiterates the same.Further, he states that the ISBN No. is given on request of a publisher on payment of prescribed fees and mere allocation of an ISBN No. is not sufficient to hold that the impugned goods are printed books.3. Shri K.M. Mondal, learned Consultant for the respondents explains that what are pasted on the pages are not photographs but are printed pictures obtained through scanning of textile prints to a computer and then reproduced by printing on high quality p...
Anup Engg. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT791Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise sanctioned on 23-12-1996 a claim for refund of Rs. 58,436/- filed by the appellant of the amount deposited by it as duty in pursuance of the stay order of the Tribunal in an appeal which was decided in its favour. However, he ordered adjustment of this amount towards duties outstanding from the appellant of Rs. 27.59 lakhs. This order was confirmed on appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, this appeal.2. Counsel for the appellant contends that subsequently, by orders passed in June 1999, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, confirming the demand of Rs. 27.59 lakhs.Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order impugned before me in this appeal requires to be set aside.3. I am not able to accept this contention. The order of the Assistant Commissioner adjusting the demand towards duty payable in terms of Section 11 was not illegal when he passed it. On that day, such a sum was outstanding from...
Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC565
1. The appellant took proforma credit under Rule 56A in 1985 of the duty paid on some inputs that it received from Dass Hitachi Ltd. and Ranutrol Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, each of these manufacturers paid additional sums towards duty on these goods. When the goods were cleared, duty had not been correctly calculated, as a reduction in the level exemption available to the goods under which they had been cleared by issue of notification, had not been communicated to the manufacturers. On being informed of the payment of additional duty by the manufacturers, the appellant wrote in 1988 to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, asking for permission to take credit under Rule 57E of the duty that was subsequently paid. By his letter dated 2.2.1990, the Collector advised the appellant that he had issued necessary instructions to the jurisdictional Superintendent to allow the credit in question. The appellant thereupon took credit of the duty in its modvat account. This resulted in the iss...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »