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.
Dupen Laboratories P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT458Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The short point involved in the present appeal relates to the refund of duty of Rs. 22,416/-, which the appellants excess paid on physician's sample sold to their customers, which are further meant for free distribution to the doctors. The said duty was paid in excess by wrongly adopting the assessable value of the said physician samples as Rs. 25.35 per strip instead of Rs. 20.68 per strip. The said claim was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner on merits but he rejected the same on the basis of unjust enrichment. The said order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The appellants, in support of their plea that the excess duty paid has not been recovered from their customers, produced the commercial invoices raised against their customers at the lower assessable value to the effect that they have paid lesser assessable value and less duty amount than to the appellants what has been paid by them to the Revenue. The above documentary evidence has not been accepted by the Commis...
Radhavallabh Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT94Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The instant appeals from the appellants raise a short point as to whether or not doubled or multifold yarn falling under chapter Nos. 54 and 55(converted yarn) manufactured by them is liable for payment of duty, notwithstanding the fact that, the said converted yarn was manufactured from duty paid single yarn. The dispute pertains to the period from 1.4.94 onwards when the duty exemption available to the said yarn in terms of Notification No. 31/93-CE dated 28.2.93 was withdrawn. It is to be noted that, the benefit of non-requirement of payment of duty on the doubled or multifold yarn was available subject to the condition that the procedure contained in Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules 1944 (known as proforma credit procedure) was followed by the appellants. It is an admitted position that, the appellants, for whatever reasons, did not come forward to seek necessary permission for following the said procedure, nor did they file the D-3 intimations with the range office, intima...
Shri Lilachand R. Solanki and Shri Vs. the Commissioner of Customs,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT279Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned order Passed by the Commissioner of Customs, whereunder a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs each was imposed on the appellants, under Section 112 (a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has held that, the appellants had aided and abetted in the act of smuggling of 92 gold bars which were valued at Rs. 38,56,421/- IMV and Rs. 48,70,179/-LMV.The said gold was absolutely confiscated. Through the instant appeals the appellants are contesting the basis on which the Commissioner held the appellants liable for penalty. On 30/10/93, on specific information that two Air India employees named Mr. Solanki and Mr. Godambe attached to the Air India Cabin Catering would be removing gold from Air India aircraft arriving from Dubai at abut 1900 hrs. on 30/10/93 in a Maruti Gypsy Vehicle No. Mh-02-J-4745. Accordingly officers of Air Intelligence Unit kept a watch on the said aircraft which arrived as Flight No. AI 710 from Duba...
Nirmal Metal Fabricators Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT168Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Tribunal vide its order NO.C-I/4526-28/WZB/2002 dtd.27/12/2002 set aside the penalties imposed upon all the three appellants by observing that there was no proposal to impose penalties upon the two companies and the proposal was only for imposition of penalties upon the directors. As regards penalty on Shri S.P. Sheth, same was set aside on the ground that he was not shown any evidence against him and was not asked to clarify his position.2. Subsequently, Revenue filed three miscellaneous applications for modification of the said order, which were disposed off by the Tribunal vide its order dtd. 09/03/2004. It was seen that the observations as regards the non proposal for imposition of penalties in the show cause notice was factually incorrect. Accordingly, the said order was recalled.3. Shri D.H. Shah, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant fairly admits that the show cause notice in question proposed penalties upon the companies as also upon the directors individually, ...
Swati Enterprises, Overseas Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT291Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue involved in all these appeals being common, these appeals are being disposed off through a common order.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of diesel engines, which they clear on payment of duty as well as use captively. The captive use is for manufacture of a "Couple set", which is a combination of diesel engine, with a Power Driven Pump mounted on a common platform. The couple sets are fully exempt from payment of duty.Since the appellants had obtained duty paid components of diesel engine and taken modvat credit of duty paid on such inputs, in respect of diesel engines used in the manufacture of couple sets, the appellants were required to reverse the amount of 8% of the value of the final goods cleared without payment of duty, as stipulated in the Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules 1944. It is an admitted position that the appellants had reversed the amount at the rate of 8% of the value of only the diesel engine portion of the couple set and not of th...
Kumudini Damodar Magar and ors. Vs. Bhushan Damodar Magar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Bom397; 2004(4)ALLMR782; 2004(3)MhLj214
V.C. Daga, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith.By consent of parties petition is heard finally.2. This petition is directed against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag below Exh. 62 in Special Civil Suit No. 59 of 2000, whereby the trial Court in exercise of powers under Order 18, Rule 16 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('C.P.C' for short) allowed defendant No. 2 to lead evidence before the evidence of the plaintiffs is opened.Outline Chronology:3. The outline chronology giving rise to the present petition, in nutshell is that, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/original plaintiffs filed a suit being Special Civil Suit No. 59 of 2000 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag for declaration that they are the children born to respondent No. 2/original defendant No. 2 and Shri Damodar Sitaram Magar, who, was original defendant No. 1 in the suit, left for heavenly abode during the pendency of the suit. The petitioners herein are the original defendant Nos. 3 to 6....
Govind Kanu Madhavi (Since Deceased, Through His Legal Heirs and Repre ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR61; (2005)107BOMLR790; 2004(4)MhLj216
P.V. Kakade, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 6.1.1988 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr.Divn., Alibag in L.A.R. No. 62 of 1982.2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant claimant as well as the learned A.G.P. for the State.The Special land Acquisition, Metro Centre No. 1, Panvel, Dist. Raigad Acquired lands for New Bombay Project admeasuring 8330 sq. mtrs. from Survey Numbers belonging to the claimant for which notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') came to be issued on 3.2.1970. The awarded rate of compensation was Rs. 3/- for Survey No. 44/3 and Rs. 5/- for Survey No. 45/5. The award came to be passed on 18.6.1981. The claimant filed reference under Section 18 of the Act making grievance that the market price awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'the S.L.A.O.') was unreasonable and inadequate considering the N.A. potentiality, capitalization and sale instances. Therefore...
Nirmala L. Mehta Vs. A. Balasubramaniam, Commissioner of Income-tax an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)BomCR645; (2004)191CTR(Bom)8; [2004]269ITR1(Bom)
R.M. Lodha J.1. The petitioner is a citizen of India and is a resident of Mumbai. In the month of August, 1987, she won a lottery of the Government of Sikkim having a prize money of Rs. 6,30,000. The Government of Sikkim deducted income-tax in the sum of Rs. 62,088 as per Sikkim tax laws from the prize money of Rs. 6,30,000 and the balance amount of Rs. 5,67,912 was paid. The petitioner filed a return of income on June 30, 1988, declaring total income of Rs. 55,630. She declared the prize money of the lottery received from the office of the Director of State Lotteries, Sikkim. After deducting a sum of Rs. 5,000 therefrom under Section 10(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, she showed the prize money of Rs. 6,25,000 from the lottery. The petitioner in her return claimed deduction of Rs. 62,088 on the ground that the said sum was deducted as income-tax at source while making the payment of Rs. 5,67,912. The Assessing Officer, however, did not give credit for the said sum of Rs. 62,088 as the...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Madhavdas S/O Jankidasji Mohta and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR817; 2004(4)MhLj853
S.T. Kharche, J. 1. The State of Maharashtra, original defendant No. 1, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15-3-1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 8/82 has filed this appeal on the contentions that the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below directing the appellant defendant to pay Rs. 13,996.25 with future interest @12% per annum from 25-10-1973 till realization, are not sustainable in law.2. Brief facts are required to be stated as under :The respondent No. 1 plaintiff is an agriculturist and in the year 1972-73 he had sold cotton of MCU 5 variety. On 9-2-1973 he had tendered cotton of the aforesaid variety weighing about 40.22 quintals worth Rs. 12870.40 to the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 for sale. The cotton was graded in 'B' quality and the declared rate of the cotton at that time was Rs. 320/- per quintal. The weight of the cotton was taken and after the defendant No. 2 took the possession of the same. The plaintiff was en...
Baliram S/O Rupaji Nagulkar Vs. Ganpat S/O Kashiba Tadas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR44; 2004(6)BomCR864; 2005(1)MhLj543
S.T. Kharche, J.1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the unsuccessful plaintiff has filed this appeal taking an exception to the judgment dated 8-6-1988 passed by the Joint District Judge whereby the appeal has been allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 31-1-1986 directing the defendant to pay Rs. 5,000/- with costs, has been set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.2. Brief facts are required to be stated as under :The parties are resident of the same village Sawargaon and the relation between them are cordial. On 1-2-1981 the defendant is said to have taken a hand loan of Rs. 5,000/- to meet his household and agricultural expenses and executed usanwar chitthi in favour of the plaintiff. This loan amount was demanded by notice dated 19-1-1983 to which the defendant gave reply on 3-2-1983 and refused to pay the amount of loan and therefore, the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of the said...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »