Mumbai Court November 2004 Judgments
Shree Dhootapapeshwar Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT477Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Shree Dhootapapeshwar Ltd. is manufacturer of excisable products failing under No. SH No. 3003.39 of the Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.A team of the officers of headquarter preventive wing of Mumbai-VII Commissionerate visited the said unit on 19.01.2002 for conducting antievasion checks.2. On scrutiny of the production challan/voucher, it was noticed that the assessee has not accounted for the production in their RG-1 register. The assessee intended to evade Central Excise Duty, have clandestinely removed the finished goods from the factory without accounting for the same in their statutory records. i) why the Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 29,291/-, as recovered Under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the shortages of the finished goods; ii) the Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,68,372/-, as detailed in Annexure-B, on the quantity of Swamala and Chyavanprash sent to Filling Department, but not accounted in the RG-1 register; iii) the...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. V.V. Patil and S.S.K. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT53Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Though the appellants has made request for adjournment, we are of the view that the appeal can be disposed off in their absence in as much as commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for non compliance of his stay order. Accordingly, after rejecting the request for adjournment, we proceed to decide the matter.2. Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the stay order in the absence of the appellant. Subsequently, modification application was filed by them which the appellate authority has dismissed by observing that there is no provision for any modification of the stay order passed under Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act. We do not agree with the above reasoning of the appellate authority. Ex-parte stay order passed by the said authority can definitely be modified by him, in as much as there is no specific provision under the act debarring him to do so.Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the mater to Commissioner (Appeals) with directions to consider the m...
Tag this Judgment!Consolidated Chemequip (Mfr) Corporation Vs. State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR377; 2005(2)MhLj664
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. This is a Revision Application dated 10th April, 2003, filed by the applicant/original complainant against the order dated 10th December, 2002, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, whereby, the Revision Application filed by the original accused-respondent No. 2, was allowed and the process issued against the accused-respondent No. 2 was cancelled. The order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon (hereinafter referred to as 'the Magistrate'), dated 25th February, 2002, was set aside and the process was recalled and respondent No. 2/accused was discharged.2. The applicants' complaint No. 1093 S/1997 dated 15th March, 1996, against respondent No. 2 for the offences under Section 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') was considered and the process was issued by the Magistrate. Respondent No. 2, by an application dated 12th February, 2001, prayed for recalling the process and had also prayed...
Tag this Judgment!Chem Amit Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR53; (2005)194CTR(Bom)141; [2005]272ITR397(Bom)
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard K. Gopal, learned counsel for the assessee.2. The assessee has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, aggrieved by the order dated April 24, 2003, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'H' Bench, Mumbai, on the application under Section 254(2) seeking rectification of mistake in the order of the Tribunal dated October 24, 2002.3. Section 260A of the Income-tax Act provides for appeal to the High Court and the said provision reads thus :'260A. Appeal to High Court.-(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.(2) The Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner or an assessee aggrieved by any order passed by the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court and such appeal under this Sub-section shall be-(a) filed within one hundred and twenty days from the date on which the order ap...
Tag this Judgment!Chem Amit Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: [2005]143TAXMAN348(Bom)
R.M. Lodha, J.Heard K. Gopal, learned counsel for the assessee.2. The assessee has preferred this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, aggrieved by the order dated 24-4-2003, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'H' Bench, Mumbai, on the application under section 254(2) seeking rectification of mistake in the order of the Tribunal dated 24-10-2002.3. Section 260A of the Income tax Act provides for appeal to the High Court and the said provision reads thus :'260A. Appeal to High Court.(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.(2) The Chief CIT or the CIT or an assessee aggrieved by any order passed by the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court and such appeal under this sub-section shall be-(a) filed within one hundred and twenty days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the...
Tag this Judgment!Psl Holdings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)(181)ELT26Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed earlier ex parte. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the notice was not received by them and as such no appearance could be caused. His contention is that even though the appeal has been rejected on merits, the same is liable to be restored in terms of Supreme Court decision in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 472 (S.C.) 2. We find that on the last occasion the registry was directed to find out the registered acknowledgement card under which the notice was sent by them. No such acknowledgement card has been placed on the record. As such, we, by accepting the appellant's contention that the notice was not received by them, recall the earlier order and fix the main appeal for hearing on 28-12-2004....
Tag this Judgment!Alembic Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC565
1. Heard both sides. This is an application for granting Stay Order by dispensing pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 4,20,000 imposed and further recovery of the same, pending disposal of the appeal.2. The appellant is Depot of M/s. Alembic Ltd. It appears that M/s.Alembic Ltd. originally has paid duty on the manufactured goods and subsequently additional duty. During the period 1.4.2000 to 27.9.2000, M/s. Alembic Ltd. had issued Supplementary Invoices to its buyers under Rules 54AA, enabling them to claim the credit.3. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the appellant that the Department had issued Show Cause Notice on 22nd November, 2001, proposing penalty on the appellant. According to the counsel for the appellant, the demand for the penalty is time barred and consequently invocation of the provision under Rule 173Q for imposing a penalty without confiscation of the goods is illegal. On this context, the following decisions have been relied upon.4. The contention of the Department i...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT1031Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Heard both sides. This is an application under Section 35F for granting stay of the implementation of the impugned order and to dispense with the pre-deposit order, pending disposal of the appeal.2. The amount of duty involved is Rs. 8.00 lakhs on MODVAT credit and penalty of Rs. 1.50 lakhs pertaining to the period from March 1999 to July 1999. The ultimate issue involved in the appeal is that whether the availment of basic excise duty for payment of additional duty under Textile & Textile Articles Act, 1978 is permissible or not.3. The ld. counsel relied upon the Notification No. 5/94 C(NT) dated 1.3.1994 and subsequent Circular No. 20/89 dated 26.06.1989. Paragraph 2 of the proviso under Notification No. 5/94 reads - "The matter has been examined by the Board. As per Notification No. 177/86 dated 1.3.1986, credit of specified duties can be taken on inputs and the same cane be utilized for payment of specified duties on final products. It is not necessary that credit of a part...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagyachandra Ramrakshamal Khatri and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR244; 2005(2)BomCR622; 2005(2)MhLj71
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.2. Mr. Bhangde, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 are the owners of Plot Nos. 1/35, 1/36, 1/37 and 1/38, admeasuring 4800 sq. ft., 4800 sq. ft., 4280 sq. ft. and 4800 esq., respectively situated at Rajapeth, Amravati. It is submitted that in the year 1974 the Final Development Plan came into force and in the said Development Plan, the above plots were shown in the residential zone. It is submitted that the revised draft Development Plan was published on 3-11-1988 and in the said revised draft Development Plan, the above referred plots were shown to be reserved for play-ground and recreation activities (appropriate Proposal No. 194). It is submitted that the above revised Development Plan was sanctioned by the State Government on 4-12-1992 and came into effect from 25th February, 1993.3. Mr. Bhangde, the learned Counsel for the petitioner states that as per...
Tag this Judgment!Parashram Bhikaji Raut and ors. Vs. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR767; 2005(3)BomCR294
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. Heard learned Advocate Z.A. Haq for petitioner, learned Advocate Sable for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and learned A.G.P. Mr. Mandpe for respondent No. 1.2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India the petitioner, who claims to be a tenant, is challenging orders passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Balapur and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur holding that the petitioner is not tenant of field Survey No. 17 of Mouza : Alegaon, Tq. Patur and reversing the order of Tahsildar, Patur by which the said Tahsildar had held that the original petitioner Parashram had right of the tenant holding suit land and was entitled to purchase it under Section 41 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as Tenancy Act). During pendency of the petition Parashram has expired and his heirs have been brought on record as per order dated 26-11-1992. It appears that Parashram presented the application under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »