Mumbai Court April 2004 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.
Elson Packaging Inds. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT171Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The dispute involved in the present appeal is as to whether an assessee who has been debarred from payment of duty on fortnightly basis and is directed to pay duty on consignment wise basis, in terms of the provisions of Rule 173G (1)(e) of Central Excise Rules, can discharge the duty liability by debiting CENVAT Credit account or is required to pay duty out of PLA and whether he would be liable to pay interest and penalty in case of payment of duty out of Cenvat credit account during this period.2. Learned Advocate, Shri V. Sridharan appearing for the appellants fairly agrees that there are number of decisions of the Tribunal holding that during the period of forfeiture of facility to pay on fortnightly basis, the duty is to be paid only from PLA and consequence of interest and penalty also arise, but submits that he would still like to argue the matter in as much as some arguments on the construction of the expression "account current" were never placed before the Benches in earl...
R.L. Makhija Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT150Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both the appeals are being disposed off by a common order vide which penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh has been imposed on each of the appellants under the provision of Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Nobody appeared on behalf of Shri R.L. Makhija. Shri D.H. Shah, learned advocate appears for Shri P.K. Jain and Shri Bidhan Chandra, learned J.D.R. appears for the Revenue.2. After hearing the submissions made by the both the sides and after going through the impugned order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, I find that duty was confirmed against one firm M/s. SKM Silk Mills for indulging in clandestine processing and removal of M.M.Fabrics. The said appellant has not challenged the impugned order. In addition the Commissioner has imposed penalty on number of other noticees including the appellants herein by merely observing that - "Noticees at Sr. Nos. 9, 10,11 & 13 to 16 have wilfully aided and abetted and sent their goods for processing to the unit even though they were awa...
N.V. Kalyankar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)(1)SLJ334CAT
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.2004 issued by Respondent No. 3 transferring the applicant from Nagpur to Pune, the applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 22.01.2004 and 23.01.2004.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicant is a Group-A officer working as Senior Superintendent of Post Officers, Mofussil Division, Nagpur. The applicant was transferred from place to place by the respondents frequently from 20.10.1997 to 05.02.2000. They have also transferred the applicant from Nagpur Mofussil Division on 25.4.2003. The applicant was transferred from 1990 to 2003 for near about 14 occasions, There has been frequent transfers by the respondents he has never objected to such transfer and sincerely obeyed the orders of the respondents. Now he has been transferred from Nagpur to Pune by order dated 22.01.2004 issued by Respondent No...
N.M. Pardeshi Vs. Employees' State Insurance
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)(1)SLJ304CAT
1. The present O.A. is filed for a declaration that the charge-sheet dated 7.4.2000 has been issued illegally and mala fide and is liable to be -quashed and set aside and to declare further continuation of the disciplinary proceedings under charge sheet dated 7.4.2000 as illegal and to close the disciplinary proceedings and directing the respondents to pay the applicant his retiral dues, including the gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of pension and salary for the month of October, 2002 with interest @ 18% per annum from the due dale.2. The applicant was working as an Insurance Inspector/Superintendent in the Finance and Accounts Branch in Mumbai. He superannuated from service at the age of 60 years from the E.S.I.C. with effect from 31.10.2002. A charge sheet dated 7.4.2000 was issued to him alleging that he partly sublet the residential accommodation given to him to one Mr. Dalvinder Sohal. He had denied the charges. One Shri. A.W. Khadgi was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. H...
Sonal Garments Vs. Joint Cit, Special Range 33
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)95ITD363(Mum.)
under section 80HHChe income of assessee was assessed under section 143(3) and deduction under section 80HHC was allowed. However, the CIT invoked section 263 and held that where there was negative profit deduction under section 80HHC could not be allowed and export incentive should be excluded. Held: Even if there was negative profit, which was computed as per clauses (a) to (c) of section 80HHC, the same had to be increased by 90 per cent of incentives referred to in clauses (iiia) to (iiic) of section 28 for the purpose of allowing deduction under section 80HHC.Revision under section 263--ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL ORDERTreatment of depreciation while computing deduction under section 80HHCThe CIT invoked section 263 and held that while computing deduction under section 80HHC deduction for depreciation would be allowed and could not be excluded. Assessee contended that it was optional for him to claim depreciation and non-consideration of the same while computing deduction under sec...
Sonal Garments Vs. Jcit, Special Range-33
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)98TTJ(Mum.)1020
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax dated 19.3.2001 passed under Section 263 for the assessment year 1996-97. "1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Administrate) has erred in passing order under Section 263 stating that assessment order passed by assessing officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and erred directing Assessing Officer, to recomputed the assessee's total income by allowing depreciation and not allowing deduction under Section 80HHC. 2. The Learned CIT(Administration) has erred in not considering that Assessing Officer had made deleted enquiries before passing assessment order and therefore assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue and therefore the same cannot be revised. 3. The Learned CIT (Administration) has erred in over looking that learned Assessing Officer had called for detailed computation statement of depreciation statement and after consider...
In Re: Mrs. Lilly Mascarnehas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Bom313
ORDERAnoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard Shri R.K. Sahu for the petitioner.2. The present Guardianship Petition has been filed under Section 7 read with Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short Act), by the petitioner Mrs. Lilly Mascarnehas for the appointment of the guardian of the present person and the property of the minors, namely, Godfrey Alwyn (boy) (15 years) and Mascarnehas Anita Walter (girl) (14 years). The petitioner is the Paternal Aunt of the minor children.3. The petitioner has filed a Joint affidavit of service to prove the necessary compliances as per law. None appeared in the petition to oppose.4. The parents of the minors named, Smt. Celin Walter Mascarnehas (mother) expired, on 24th September, 1993 and Mr. Valerian Walter Mascarnehas (father) on 30th September, 2002. Both the Christians died intestate. The minors referred above are the survivors and are successors to the estate and credits of the deceased Valerian Walter Mascarnehas. There are no other issu...
Ved Prakash Agarwal Vs. Rama Petrochemicals Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR5; IV(2004)BC232; 2004(4)BomCR578; [2004]122CompCas8(Bom); 2005(1)MhLj599; [2004]56SCL116(Bom)
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This appeal seeks to challenge the order passed by a single judge dated April 22, 2002, granting the summons for judgment taken out by the respondent herein (original plaintiff) against the appellant (original defendant) and thereby granting a decree in the summary suit.2. The suit claim was with respect to the unpaid lease rentals in an agreement of lease finance for equipment, the payment of which rentals was guaranteed by the appellant. The outstanding principal amount due as on the date of filing of the suit was Rs. 43,05,960 to which interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum for the unpaid period till filing of the suit (i.e., an amount of Rs. 5,49,983) was added leading to a claim of Rs. 48,55,943 with further interest at the rate of 18 per cent. per annum on the principal amount from the date of filing of the suit till payment and/or realisation. The appeal was admitted on July 5, 2002, and the impugned decree was directed to be stayed on the appellant dep...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and anr. Vs. Vasudeo Shivram W ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR99; 2004(4)MhLj710
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present two appeals are filed against the common judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge dated 2-9-1994 in Suit No. 422 of 1973 by which the learned Judge has partly decreed the suit by holding that the plaintiff and other villagers of Koliwada Village have all the rights and privileges in respect of Waras Land in terms of the resolution of 1933 of the Bombay Improvement Trust Committee. Some of the relevant facts arising in the present case, briefly stated, are as under:--2. The suit was filed by four of the villagers in their representative capacity claiming right in respect of the area of about 103650 sq. yards equivalent to 83000 sq. mts. The villagers are carrying on business of fishing. They are permanent tenants of their holdings in that village subject to payment of Appeal Nos. 917 of 1995 and 481 of 1996 in Suit No. 422 of 1973 decided on 21-4-2004. (O.O.C.J., Bombay)Fazandari rent to the Fazandari's. The Waras land which is the subject-matter of t...
Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MhLj165
S.T. Kharche, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 2-11-1991 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 117/OA/- l/RCT/NGP/91, whereby the Tribunal allowed the application claiming damages but refused to grant interest of Rs. 43,868/- calculated at the rate of 18% per annum from 13-3-1988 to 26-2-1991.2. Brief facts are required to be stated as under:The appellant - The Maharashtra State Electricity Board through Assistant Controller has filed an application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 claiming damages of Rs. 82,366.61 with per litem interest of Rs. 43,868.00 at 18% per annum from 13-34988 to 26-2-1991 along with notice charges etc. It is contended that the claim arose out of non - delivery of 21.150 kilo liters of L.S.H.S. oil loaded in tank wagon E.R 32642 out of consignment of 5 tank wagons all booked Ex-Bagwa to KTPS siding Chandrapur by consignor Indian Oil Corporation Limited under Railway Receipt 727494 dated 12-3-1988 f...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »