Mumbai Court September 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.
Cce Vs. Deepak Fertilizers and Petro
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)(117)LC395Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing both sides and on considering that Spent Catalyst, the entity, under dispute herein, arises from a Catalyst used, which by definition is not Raw Material & considering the settled position in law as per the Apex Court decision in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. 2003 (158) ELT 3 SC : 2003 (111) ECR 274 (SC) wherein it has been held- 32 ...For being produced and manufactured in India the raw material should have gone through the process of transformation into a new product by skilful manipulation Excise duty in an incidence of manufacture and therefore it is essential that the product sought to be subjected to excise should have gone through the process of manufacture....The levy of Central Excise Duty on Catalyst Spent by use, as such, cannot be upheld. Transformation of a Catalyst into Spent Catalyst cannot amount to manufacture as per the test of Apex Court in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. 2. When manufacture does not take place, there can...
Ekta Enterprises and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT219Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this case, the information on the basis of which the investigations were carried out by the department was that M/s. Shri Govardhan Metals & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (M/s. SGMCPL) and M/s. Jay Agro Chem Ltd., (M/s. JACL), both manufacturer units manufacturing copper ingots, copper alloys, copper sulphate and Nickel Sulphate and M/s.Ekta Enterprises, a registered dealer had indulged in fraudulant misuse of Modvat Credit.2. During investigations, all the above firms were visited and searched including their officers Shri Ashish V. Trivedi, Director of M/s.SGMCPL, Shri Jitendra D. Bhatt, CMD of JACL and Smt. Ekta V. Trivedi (C/o Shri Ashish V. Trivedi) Proprietor of M/s. Ekta Enterprises. The concerned persons were interrogated and their statements were recorded, Besides, there were several others firms and persons who were searched /interrogated during the investigations, amongst them were the following: (v) Shri Mahesh K. Valia, Director of M/s. Ekta Metals and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd....
Vinod Kumar S/O Sudarshan Kelkar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MhLj561
S.T. Kharche, J.1. Rule. Rule taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties.2. The short and important question which requires consideration in this petition is; whether the petitioner prisoner who is undergoing imprisonment on his conviction by the Security Force Court for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 46 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (for short, the B.S.F. Act) is entitled to set off for the period he has undergone detention as an under-trial prisoner, before the date of conviction.3. The petitioner was working as Hawaldar (Constable) in Border Security Force. He was posted at Putshahi village, District Kupwada (J and K) in the year 1991 and was performing internal security duty. He was a member of 132 Battalion Border Security Force. He was put on for the trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 46 of the B.S.F. Act. Consequent upon his prosecution, he was found guilty and...
Sugandh Sagun Sirsat Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR375; [2005]127CompCas697(Bom); 2005(3)MhLj270
N.A. Britto, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 30-8-2002 of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Panaji. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose of the same.2. The plaintiff is the daughter of one Sagun and granddaughter of Sitaram Vishnu Sirsat. The said Sitaram Vishnu Sirsat, as stated in the plaint, had business of import and export and therefore on or about 20-8-1923 he obtained a Bill of Exchange bearing No. 12/1260 from the defendant.3. The said Bill of Exchange was drawn on Deutsche Bank, Berlin for payment of a sum of DM 8,775,000 and was in two sets. The said Bill of Exchange was not used by the said Sitaram V. Sirsat as the transaction for import of goods did not materialize.4. The said Sitaram thereafter expired on or about 4-2-1944. After his death, his son Sagun is said to have made efforts to trace the said Bill of First Appeal No. 2 of 2003 decided on 21-9-2004. (Panaji-Goa) Exchange, but could not find the same until his ...
Supercoats Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-2004
Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT255Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This larger bench is constituted by Head of the Department of CESTAT to consider the issue referred by a bench of CESTAT consisting of two Members.2. The issue referred is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear appeals arising out of a case of loss of goods in storage in a factory, in view of the wording of the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act.Shiva Essential Oils & Chemicals v. CCE, Noida (2004 [61] RLT 282), the Tribunal held that loss or destruction due to unavoidable accident is specifically covered by Rule 49 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules whereas Section 35B of the Act only covers simple loss due to any reason. The Tribunal in that case held that Section 35B does not debar the Tribunal from deciding issues arising out of such loss. "Provided that no appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of any order referred to in Clause (b) if ...
Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Voltas Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-2004
Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT57Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is filed by Revenue against the order of Commissioner (A) who held that vapour absorption unit manufactured by the respondent is classifiable under Chapter heading 8418 of CETA, as against 8415 decided by the lower adjudicating authority. The period under dispute is 92-93 and 93-94.2. Briefly the facts are that the respondents claimed classification of vapour absorption unit in their classification list dated 22.12.92 and 12.8.93, seeking benefit of exemption under Notification No. 155/86 dt.1.3.86 on the ground that their product is a heat pump. The Assistant Commissioner denied the exemption claimed, on the ground that the product is not a heat pump but is classifiable under chapter headings 8415 a heading meant for air-conditioning equipment. The Commissioner in appeal held that the goods are classifiable under 8418 for the following reasons. "Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the product literature does not show any attachment of motor driven fan or elements capab...
Film Shoppe Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-2004
Reported in: (2005)95TTJ(Mum.)1056
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee. We are concerned with the asst. yr. 1996-97. The appeal is filed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-XXV at Mumbai, which is dt. 22nd June, 1999. The relevant assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961.2. The assessee, in this case is engaged in production of TV serial.The assessee produced a serial consisting of 52 episodes during the previous year relevant to the assessment year and sold the serial to M/s Zee Telefilms Ltd. The serial was encapsulated by the assessee by hiring out TV cameras, special lights, generators, sound equipments, etc. Necessary equipments as stated above were not owned by the assessee but they were taken on hire. The assessee had also hired editing studios equipped with sophisticated systems.3. The assessee, while computing its taxable income has claimed Rs. 77,953, being deduction available under Section 80-IA. The AO found that the assessee had not owned any plant and machinery of its ...
Hiralal Maganlal and Co. Vs. Dcit, Sr-52
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-2004
Reported in: (2005)97TTJ(Mum.)377
1. The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the Block Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer ('AO' in short) Under Section 158BC read with Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee has since filed revised grounds of appeal in conformity with Rule 8 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules as under: "The learned Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range 52 Mumbai erred in:- 1. Adding a sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000 Under Section 158BC(c) for the Block period as undisclosed income of the appellant which was not warranted for on the facts and circumstances of the case. (a) in making an addition merely based on a statement of Prataprai M. Sanghvi (who had a medical history of depression) stating Rs. 1.99 crores as stock based on paper Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16 found during the search at his residential premises though no such stock was physically found by the Department in spite of the fact that search operations were carried out at the various places of...
Subhash Choudhary Vs. Deepak Jyala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1034; 2005(99)ECC654; 2005(179)ELT532(Bom)
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. The above numbered Writ Petition takes exception to the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai dated 8th July, 2004 below Remand Application No. 71 of 2004, remanding Mr. Subhash Choudhari, Writ Petitioner to judicial custody till July 22, 2004. The principal ground on which the remand order is questioned on behalf of the writ petitioner is that the offence for which he has been arrested is one under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), which is a bail able offence; for which reason, the Magistrate could not have ordered judicial remand of the writ petitioner. In the accompanying Criminal Application No. 3618 of 2004, another named accused in the commission of the same offence Shri Satish Choudhary has prayed for release on anticipatory bail on the same argument that the said offence is a bail able offence.2. Briefly stated, the Respondent is investigating against fo...
Purushottam Alias Nana U. Sanyasi Vs. A.N. Jog and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR379; 2005(1)BomCR547; 2005(1)MhLj426
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 26-2-2004 passed by the 13th Ad-hoc Addl. District Judge, Pune below Exhibit 8-A in Civil Application No. 689 of 2003. By the impugned order, the lower Appellate Court has allowed the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the respondents.3. While challenging the impugned order, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that by the impugned order the lower Appellate Court has allowed the party to change the case pleaded in the original pleadings and to introduce a totally new case, besides that the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of law in relation to the law of amendment as well as the law permitting the parties to rely upon additional evidence and particularly the documentary evidence at the appellate stage.4. Undisputedly, the suit filed for eviction of the respondents by the petitioner was decreed by the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »