Mumbai Court August 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.
Dy. Cit Vs. Manjara Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-2004
Reported in: (2004)85TTJ(Mumbai)369
ORDERM.K. Chaturvedi, V.P.Under section 255(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) has constituted this Special Bench to consider the following questions ..'1. Whether provision of section 40A(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 are applicable to payments made by a co-operative society to its members towards purchase price of cane supplied or as Khodki charges?2. If the answer to Q. No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, any portion of the price actually paid by the assessee for sugarcane supplied as fixed by Commissioner of Sugar (who is also the registrar of Co-op. Sugar Factories representing the state) is liable to be disallowed under section 40A(2) as excessive or unreasonable having regard to the legitimate business needs?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, any portion of sugarcane price and k...
Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)(116)LC814Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Briefly the facts are that during the period 16.11.1996 to 1.6.1998 the appellant availed the services of the goods transport operators.They were issued with show cause notice demanding service tax amounting to Rs. 94,618/- for the said period. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand under Section 68 of the Service Tax Act, 1944 and imposed a penalty of the same amount under Section 68 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 500/- under Section 69 read with Section 75A of Service Act, 1944 besides demanding interest under Section 75. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dt. 24.9.2002 upheld the order of the adjudicating authority to the extent of confirmation of Service Tax liability and levy of interest under Section 75 of the Act, but waived the penalties imposed on the appellant. Thus he allowed the appeal partly. The present appeal is against this order.3. The issue whether a person receiving taxable service of goods transport operators is liable to pay service tax even af...
Krishak Bharati Co-op. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT678Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Heard both sides. The demands are in respect of treated water, demineralised water as well as the inputs used in the production of steam. Such water and steam are supplied to the Heavy Water Plant which has been set up by the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India. The learned advocate for the appellants submits that in view of earlier decisions of the Tribunal in the following cases, treated water and demineralised water are not dutiable :-MEPC Agro Foods Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore 2001 (135) ELT 1352 (T-Chennai); andCCE, Cochin v. Kerala State Drugs & Pharma Ltd. 2001 (132) ELT 705 (T-Bang.) He also states that earlier a demand notice dated 3.1.2002 was issued but the same was dropped by the previous Commissioner. The learned advocate also states that the Atomic Energy Department of the Government of India, to whom the impugned goods have been supplied, has not paid the appellants any amount towards the duty and have informed that they have taken up the matter with the...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Garima Global Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT809Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is a Revenue's appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal).2. Briefly the facts are that the respondent exported sleeves under DEPB scheme claiming credit under Sl.No. 220 of the Product Group 63, which reads as under "Sleeves @ 19% with Valve Cap of Rs. 40/Kg. He filed in all seven Shipping Bills while exporting the goods, three of them dated prior to 20-10-2000 and the rest after that date. The exporter furnished a letter dated 20-10-2000 from DGFT, New Delhi wherein it was stated that their products 'Sleeves' exported with a brand name "Auto Grace" shall be eligible for benefit of Para 14.4 of Exim Policy 1997-2002. In terms of that Para restriction of Valve Cap of Rs. 40/Kg does not apply to goods exported under brand name. The DGFT authorities while approving the appellants' product under Para 14.4 stipulated that the export goods should be embossed with a legend "Made in India" with the brand name. Such legends should also be put on the packages cont...
The Supreme Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT71Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants had imported a consignment declaring it as sythetic resin and claiming classification of the same under Heading 3904.90 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975. The goods were tested and pending the clearance, they were cleared on a warehousing Bill of Entry after classifying the same under 3904.90 and from the warehouse they were cleared under protest under a Ex-Bond of Bill of Entry. The classification of those goods have been claimed to be as masterbatch and their use has been as such Masterbatches is classified under Heading 3204.90.2. Technical specifications of the goods is found to be that it contained 9 to 11 % additive in polyethylene resin. There use was to assist in the moulding of LDPE article which the appellants were engaged. The additive is submitted to be Glycerol Monostearate, there was no technical literature on the said active ingredient available with the appellants. However, it was mentioned in the Hawley's Chemical Dictionary to be a 'well defined chemic...
Navnath Namdeo Maske and Kerba Chandrabhan Gore Vs. the State of Mahar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4756
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. There were in all three accused in a case of gang rape who have been convicted by the trial Court. Appeal No. 694 of 1999 is filed by original Accused Nos. 2 and 3 and Appeal No. 690 of 1999 is filed by original Accused No. 1.2. Mr. Ramrao Adik, counsel, appearing for Accused No. 2; Mr. Hudlikar, counsel, appearing for Accused No. 3 and Mr. Thorat, counsel, appearing for Accused No. 1. Even though Appeal No. 694 of 1999 is filed by two accused, I permitted both Mr. Adik and Mr. Hudlikar to make their submissions separately in respect of each accused and so also I heard Mr. Thorat. Mr. More, the learned APP, appearing for the State, gave replies to all the submissions.3. All the three accused have been convicted by the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Solapur by his judgment dated 26.11.1999. Accused No. 1 Dattatray Gaikwad is convicted under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, R.I. f...
Nariman Nassarwanji Dubash and Mrs. Homai Nariman Dubhash Vs. Clover C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR239; 2005(1)BomCR166; 2004(4)MhLj717
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The Respondent was substituted as Plaintiff for one Mrs. Pirojbai Dhanjishaw Poonawala who had initially filed the suit against the appellants herein being S.C. Suit No. 8719 of 1968. By Judgment and Order dated 8th January, 1987 the trial court was pleased to dismiss the suit. Being aggrieved, the Respondent herein preferred an appeal before this court. The learned Single Judge of this Court after hearing the parties, was pleased to allow the appeal in terms of Prayer Clause (a) and (b). In other words suit preferred by the respondent herein was decreed in First Appeal No. 1244 of 1988. The appellants herein preferred Letters Patent Appeal before this court which was numbered as L.P.A. No. 315 of 1998. The appeal came to be allowed by order dated 9.6.2000. The learned Appellate Bench of this Court was pleased to set aside the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15.10.1998 and restored the order passed by the trial Court. The Respondent against the said order ...
Smt. Zubedabegum Wd/O Abdul Hai and ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR648; 2004(6)BomCR624; (2005)ILLJ435Bom; 2004(4)MhLj517
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition the petitioner who is widow of a Government Servant seeks mandamus directing the Respondent-Government to pay pension to her children as per fee Pension Scheme of 1995. Husband of the petitioner died in 1989 and since then the petitioner is getting family pension for her.2. Earlier Family Pension Scheme of 1971 was operative when the petitioner's husband died and family pension was paid to the petitioner under that Scheme of 1971. On 16.11.1995 the Government framed the Employees' Pension Scheme, of 1995 and it became operative from that day and it was applicable to factory workers and other establishments with effect from 1.4.1993.4. The claim of the petitioner is that by reason of para 6 of 1995 Scheme the petitioner is a member of the Scheme being member of 1971 scheme and by reason of savings mentioned in para. 44 she becomes member of the new Scheme of 1995 and consequently is entitled to payment for her children as envisaged by 1995 order. Th...
Devraj Chandrabali Rai Vs. National Textile Corporation (S.M.) Ltd. an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR908; 2005(1)BomCR706; 2005(1)MhLj582
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. By this Petition, the order of the Industrial Court in appeal has been challenged by the petitioner. The Labour Court in an application filed by the petitioner under Section 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act (for short, 'BIR Act') has held that the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages from 20-3-1980. The Industrial Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 84 of Act has set aside the order of the Labour Court and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 78 of the BIR Act.2. The petitioner was employed with Gold Mohur Mills Limited which has been taken over by respondent No. 1, that is, National Textile Corporation (S.M.) Limited pursuant to the Sick Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Ordinance of 1983. He was in employment of the Blow Room Department as a permanent employee and had worked there for about 10 years when he was issued a charge sheet on 21-7-1979....
Keraba Govind Vhanalkar and ors. Vs. Rajaram Yashwant Deshpande and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR470; 2005(1)BomCR723; 2005(1)MhLj866
Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. This writ petition takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Camp at Kolhapur dated September 25, 1990 in Revision Application No.MRT.KP.99 of 1987.2. Briefly stated, the lands in question are R.S.Nos. 157 & 158 admeasuring 0.23 gunthas and 28 acres 2 gunthas respectively situated at Village Chande Taluka Radhanagari. The petitioners claim that they were cultivating the suit land as tenants prior to 1st April, 1957 and were entitled to purchase the same as deemed purchasers by operation of law. It is seen that proceedings under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were initiated. The predecessor of the petitioners did not show willingness to purchase the suit land, for which reason, the same were dropped and proceedings under Section 32-P of the Act were to be started by order dated 22nd December, 1966. In proceedings under Section 32-P of the Act order...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »