Mumbai Court April 2005 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.
Rishi Steel and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT287Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots falling under Chapter Heading No. 7206.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and during the relevant period, were availing the facility under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. As per their initial production capacity, the appellants were to pay Central Excise duty of Rs. 5 Lakhs. During the period 2-2-1998 to 9-2-1998, the factory was closed and as such they claimed abatement of duty for Rs. 1.25 Lakhs.After awaiting for some time for orders on abatement, they adjusted such duty while discharging their duty liability for the period of 15th July, 98 to 31st July, 98 on their own.2. On the above basis, show cause notice was issued to them on 25th January, 1999 alleging short payment of duty of Rs. 1.25 Lakhs during the second month of July 1998. The appellant contented that their abatement claim has since been sanctioned by the appropriate authority and should be adjusted against the duty demand. Their above...
Chandra Enterprise Vs. Ito
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: (2005)279ITR20(Mum.)
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2002-03. The appeal is directed against the order of the CIT (A) - XXII at Mumbai on 19-08-2004 and arises out of the assessment completed Under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee in this case, a partnership is carrying on the business of trading in electrical switches, water motors, etc. In the original return filed by the assessee firm, there was a mistake of Rs. 61,568 relating to incentives and discounts. In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee firm rectified the mistake and revised its profit & loss account and on the basis of the said revised profit & loss account filed revised return of income, enhancing the taxable income to that extent. Concurrent to the enhanced income disclosed in the revised return of income, the assessee firm claimed higher amount of remuneration to partners in terms of Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. The assessing authority ...
Chandra Enterprise Vs. Ito Ward 22(1)(4)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: (2005)96ITD341(Mum.)
This appeal is filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2002-03. The appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XXII at Mumbai on 19-8-2004 and arises out of the assessment completed under section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The assessee in this case, a partnership is carrying on the business of trading in electrical switches, water motors, etc. In the original return filed by the assessee-firm, there was a mistake of Rs. 61,568 relating to incentives and discounts. In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee-firm rectified the mistake and revised its profit and loss account and on the basis of the said revised profit and loss account filed revised return of income, enhancing the taxable income to that extent. Concurrent to the enhanced income disclosed in the revised return of income, the assessee-firm claimed higher amount of remuneration to partners in terms of section 40(b) of the income-tax Act, 1961.The assessing authority completed the as...
Baburao Marutrao Mane and ors. Vs. Ramchandra Balasaheb Mane and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Bom375; 2005(3)ALLMR251
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard advocate Mr. Godbole for the appellants in both the appeals and advocate Mr. Walawalkar for the respondents in both the appeals. It appears from the Roznama that both the appeals were to be heard and decided at the stage of admission. Mr. Godbole was asked by me, when he opened his arguments, as to what are the substantial questions of law involved and he referred to Ground Nos. (A); (F) and (G) in the memo of appeal, which are as under : A) Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that Ramchandra Balasaheb Mane was the legally adopted son of Krishnabai particularly when, admittedly, he was a 96 Kuli Maratha and taking a son of daughter in adoption was prohibited. F) Whether the Courts below were justified in completely overlooking that the Respondent No.1 herein had moved an Application for Amendment to the effect that the parties are not 96 Kuli Maratha and the said Application for amendment had been rejected and this order has never been challeng...
Hari Hotumal Tanwani Vs. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporatio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR921
1. The petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court the large scale illegal constructions carried out in Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation areas.2. Before dealing with this case any further, we would like to recapitulate the law declared by the Apex Court.3. In M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu and Ors. : [1999]3SCR1066 . The Supreme Court, in para 73 at page 529, observed as follows:'The High Court has directed dismantling of the whole project and for restoration of the park to its original condition. This Court in numerous decisions has held that no consideration should be shown to the builder or any other person where construction is unauthorised. The dicta is now almost bordering the rule of law. Stress was laid by the appellant and the prospective allottees of the shops to exercise judicial discretion in moulding the relief, Such a discretion cannot be exercised which encourages illegality or perpetuates an illegality. Unauthorised construction, if it is illegal and...
Kewal Semlani Vs. Commissioner of Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR25
1. On oral request of the petitioners-parties-in-person, the Director General of Police, Maharashtra State, is impleaded as respondent No. 4 in suo motu Writ Petition No. 3 of 2005 and respondent No. 5 in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 259 of 2005.2. These petitions have been filed in this Court alleging the extremely poor condition of roads in Mumbai leading to many accidents and inconvenience to Mumbaites.3. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, on 26th April, 2005, regarding the respondents preparation to meet coming monsoon, Santosh Korlekar, Deputy Chief Engineer (Roads) (E.S.) has filed a detailed affidavit. It is mentioned in the affidavit that number of meetings have been held of the Assistant Commissioners and the concerned Road Department Staff for pre-monsoon measures to be taken with regard to roads of Mumbai. Accordingly, it has been decided to repair bad patches and potholes on roads prior to monsoon by using departmental staff working under the Assistant Commissioners of th...
Singhal and Brothers and anr. Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR261; 2005(3)MhLj951
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. By consent heard forthwith.2. The main question of law which arise in this petition is as under : Does the Chief Justice or his designate under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, have the jurisdiction to dismiss an application for constitution of an arbitral tribunal on the ground that it is barred by limitation or not made within a reasonable time.The relevant provisions of Section 11, read as under :'11. Appointment of arbitrators : (1)...(2)..(3) ..(4) If the appointment procedure in Sub-section (3) applies and -- (a) a party fails to appoint an arbitrator within thirty days from the receipt of a request to do so from the other party; or (b) the two appointed arbitrators fail to agree on the third arbitrator within thirty days from the date of their appointment, the appointment shall be made, upon request of a party, by the Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him.(5) Failing any agreement referred to in Sub-section...
Bhilwara Melba De Wittle Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR272; 2005(192)ELT111(Bom)
Daga V.C., J.1. This petition raises an important question as to whether or not the interest is leviable on the additional duty of customs/Counter Veiling Duty ('C.V.D.' for short). In addition to this, the petition also raises two incidental questions, viz. (i) whether the Settlement Commission has inherent power to rectify the mistake in the final order; and (ii) whether or not the Settlement Commission has power to correct its accidental error since the submission that no interest was leviable on the additional duty of customs has escaped its attention to the final order.Factual Matrix :The factual matrix giving rise to the present petition, in nutshell, can be summarised as under :2. The petitioner is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the manufacture of automotive furnishing fabrics. The respondent No. 2 is the Settlement Commission, a commission constituted by a notification issued under Section 32 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ('Excis...
Lan Esenda Ltd. and Anup Saxena Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT305Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants have imported certain computers from M/s Tulip Computers Asia Ltd., Hong Kong. The Department alleged that the goods are manufactured by M/s Tulip Computers, Netherlands and mat the company being shown as an authorised dealer of Tulip Computers in their directory and that the prices declared are lower than those of similar computers noticed with similar or identical specifications. The Department, pending investigation, provisionally assessed the Bills of Entry. Subsequently the department finalised the Assessments by taking the values of the goods imported by the Appellants themselves in different Bills of Entry. Since the licence submitted for covering the goods does not cover the enhanced value, the goods were confiscated and fine/penalty imposed.3. Shri Manoj Sanklecha, Ld Advocate for the Appellants submits that there is no allegation that any of the conditions of Rule 4 (2) of the Customs (Valuation of imported Goods) Rules, 1988 are attracted in the present ca...
Tigrania Metal and Steel Vs. the Commissioner of Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT643Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The duly of Rs. 69,73,171.81 (Rupees sixty nine lakhs seventy three thousand one hundred seventy one and eighty one paise only) has been confirmed against the appellants along with imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs. In addition, personal penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs has been imposed on Shri Naresh K. Gupta, partner of the firm and of Rs. 50,000/- on Shri V.N. Dhoot, Manager of the appellant.2. The issue involved in the present appeal is as regards admissibility of Notification No. 208/83 to the manufacturing unit. During the relevant period i.e. from 1983 to 1986 the appellant was manufacturing iron and steel products falling under Chapter 72 of the tariff and was availing the exemption in terms of the notification No. 208/83 dated 01/08/1983. The said notification granted exemption to iron and steel products subject to the condition that the re-rollable inputs and scraps stands duty paid. All the scrap available in the market was considered to be duty paid unless proved othe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »