Mumbai Court July 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.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mather and Platt (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT318Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This ROM application is filed by the Revenue against this Bench's final order No. A/326/WZB/2004/C-1 dated 20.2.2004. The application, though called a ROM, appears to be an appeal seeking review of the order passed by this Bench. On that count alone, the application can be rejected. In the case of Krishna Ultramarine & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs.CCE (2004 [167] ELT 58 [T]), it is held that rectification of mistake does not envisage rectification of an alleged error of judgment, if any. ROM by no means can be an appeal in disguise whereby an order, if it is not valid, is reheard and redecided. ROM application lies only for patent mistakes. Similarly, in Bhupendra Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, New Delhi (2003 [161] ELT 341 [T]) it is held that a decision on a debatable point of law or facts is not a mistake apparent from the record. Rectification of mistake apparent does not envisage rectification of mistake of an alleged error of judgment. In spite of" these pronouncements, we wish to de...
Beck India Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT70Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant's appeal is directed against the order-in-original, Whereby the demand of duty confirmed against the appellants by the Joint Commissioner was upheld. The demand for Rs. 4,67,125/- was confirmed against the appellants on the ground that there was a shortage of physical . stock of the inputs in the appellants factory, compared to the stock figuring in the Modvat record. This shortage was noticed during the process of stock verification. Accordingly, it was held that equivalent quantity of inputs found short has been removed in a clandestine manner and subsequently penalty of equivalent amount was also confirmed corresponding with the duty demand.3. The appellants have submitted a list of items of inputs which are involved in this case which is as under:- i) Toluene (ii) Mineral Turpentine (iii) Butyl Acetate (iv) Ethyl Acetate (v) Butyl Alcohol (vi) Xylene (vii) Methyl Ethyl Ketone (viii) Monostyrene (ix) Butylated Hydroxy Toluene (x) Solvent CIX (xi) White Spirit 4. It...
Mr. Mahes Gulabrai Joshi Vs. C.i.T(A)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: (2005)96TTJ(Mum.)876
1. This appeal by assessee for A.Y. 1998-99 is directed against the order of CIT(A), Mumbai dated 26.09.2003.2. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and have also perused the records.3. The assessee-appellant has raised four grounds of appeal. Ground No.3 is general. Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 4 constitute single issue disputing the addition of Rs. 2,17,600/- made by Assessing officer Under Section 68 as income from undisclosed sources on account of unexplained cash credit. The ld. AR of assessee has contended that the assessee had made declaration under VDIS but the same was hot accepted. He has contended that the addition of Rs. 2,17,600/- under dispute was made in reassessment proceedings Under Section 147 initiated on the basis of survey in the case of V.D. Trivedi and the statement of V.D. Trivedi was recorded during survey in Trivedi's case, he has contended that the assessee has not been allowed opportunity of cross-examining V.D.Trivedi; and that the report of survey in the ...
Mahes Gulabrai Joshi Vs. Cit(A) Ward 21(1)(3)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: (2005)95ITD300(Mum.)
This appeal by assessee for assessment year 1998-99 is directed against the order of CIT(A), Mumbai dated 26-9-2003.I have heard the arguments of both the sides and have also perused the records.The assessee-appellant has raised four grounds of appeal. Ground No. 3 is general. Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 4 constitute single issue disputing the addition of Rs. 2,17,600 made by assessing officer under section 68 as income from undisclosed sources on account of unexplained cash credit. The learned authorised representative of assessee has contended that the assessee had made declaration under VDIS but the same was not accepted. He has contended that the addition of Rs. 2,17,600 under dispute was made in reassessment proceedings under section 147 initiated on the basis of survey in the case of V.D. Trivedi and the statement of V.D. Trivedi was recorded during survey in Trivedis case.He has contended that the assessee has not been allowed opportunity of cross-examining V.D. Trivedi; and that the ...
Woollen Kamgar Sanghatana, Vs. Seth Industries Ltd.,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR338; (2005)ILLJ1145Bom
Nishita Mhatre, J. 1. The dispute in this petition pertains to whether an unrecognised union in the Woollen Textile Industry can file a complaint under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act claiming wages for workmen who they represent. The Industrial Court has dismissed the complaint on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme court in Shramik Utkarsh Sabha v. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. and Ors. 1995 I CLR 607. The Industrial Court has held that no other union but the representative union under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act (for short, 'BIR Act') or a recognised union under the MRTU & PULP Act can file a complaint claiming wages on behalf of the workmen employed in the Woollen Industry under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.2. It appears that in April 1986, respondent No. 1 i.e., Seth Industries Limited, and Respondent No. 2 i.e., Seth Textiles (against whom the Writ Petition has been dismissed on 12.3.2001 and no steps have been taken to ge it restored) stopp...
Sanjay Kanubhai Patel Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Bom57; 2004(6)BomCR94; 2004(4)MhLj226
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the order dated 30th September, 2002 passed by respondent No. 1 confirming an order dated 21-5-2002 passed by the Superintendent of Stamps.2. The petitioner submitted in the office of the Superintendent of Stamps, Mumbai on 30th March, 1999, under the New Amnesty Scheme declared by the State Government on 26th September, 1998, a document for payment of proper stamp duty. The document referred to was executed on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 20/- only. The Superintendent of Stamps by an order dated 21-5-2002 concluded that the document was a partnership deed attracting stamp duty under Article 47(1)(b) and 47(1)(c) of Schedule 1 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The duty was assessed at Rs. 12,51,650/- along with a fine of Rs. 300/- and subject to the conditions laid down in the Amnesty Scheme. The petitioner preferred an Appeal against the said order befo...
Rajendra Bhagwantrao Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MhLj1134
A.P. Lavande, J.1. When this matter was called out for hearing neither the applicant nor his counsel was present. Mr. M.S. Deshpande who had filed his Vakalatnama for the applicant, has filed an application dated 18-11-2003 seeking leave to withdraw his Vakalatnama for the applicant in the present matter. Mr. M.S. Deshpande also produced the copy of the notice with postal slip. Thereafter, Advocate Shri M.S. Deshpande has filed another application dated 5-7-2004 placing on record the telegram asking the applicant to contact him immediately. According to Mr. M.S. Deshpande the applicant met him and has given him original telegram which he has produced on record. Shri M.S. Deshpande in his application dated 5-7-2004 states that the original papers have been given to the applicant and he has been informed that the applicant would instruct Mr. K. G. Tiwari Advocate. However, Shri M. S. Deshpande is not present today. I am inclined to permit Mr. M. S. Deshpande to withdraw his Vakalatnama f...
Zarina R. Irani and anr. Vs. Shapur Jawanmardi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR408; 2004(6)BomCR142; 2005(1)MhLj293
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Rustam Behram Irani died on 12th November, 1979. He is said to have executed his last Will and testament 12 days before his death on 30th October, 1979. This is what his widow Shirin Rustom Irani and one of the sons Jehangir Rustom Irani set up the case in the testamentary petition filed on 9th February, 1987. We shall refer the widow and the son Jehangir individually as well as collectively 'the propounder'. In the testamentary petition the propounder prayed for the Letters of Administration with the will annexed thereto of the property and credits of the deceased. However the two daughters Zarina R. Irani and Shemiem F. Cutchhi of the deceased objected to the grant of the Letters of Administration and filed their caveat. In the affidavit in support of the caveat, inter alia various objections were taken that; (i) the Will dated October 30, 1979 was not executed by the deceased; (ii) the Will was forged and fabricated; (iii) the deceased at the relevant time suffered ...
Maharashtra Regional Board of Education and Junior Colleges of Educati ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR893
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. Heard Shri Mohgaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Bhure, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 and Shri Patel, A.G.P. for respondents Nos. 1 and 3.2. The petitioners in this petition are the Management and the Head Mistress of Mission High School, Ganeshpur, Bhandara, as petitioners No. 1 and 2 respectively. In this petition, they have challenged the judgment delivered on 29-1-2004 by respondent No. 1- School Tribunal, Nagpur in Appeal S.T.N. No. 143 of 1992. The said appeal was filed by the present respondent No. 2 Shri Gajbhiiye, challenging the order/certificate dated 26-6-1992 by which he was reverted from the post of Head Master of Mission High School, Bhandara, to the post of Assistant Teacher. Respondent No. 3 in the present petition is the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Bhandara, who is the approving authority for all appointments/petitions made by the petit...
Ganpat Khanderao Deshmukh Vs. Ramchandra Tukaram Gawande and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR867
Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay dated 13th July, 1988 in Revision No. Ten. A. 128 of 1985. Briefly stated, the land in question is an agricultural land bearing Gat No. 38 admeasuring 10 acres 33 gunthas of village Chachadgaon, Taluka Dindori, District Nashik. The petitioner claims to be the owner in respect of the suit land, which was originally Class IV-B Inam land. After Inam was abolished, the land has been converted to Rayatwari on payment of regrant charges and the land has been regranted to the petitioner in the year 1965. The petitioner had issued notices to the respondents demanding arrears of rent for the period 1960-61 and terminating the tenancy rights in respect of the suit land. Thereafter, application was filed by the petitioner for possession of the suit land on the ground of default on 1st August, 1974, being Application No...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »