Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-24-2000
Reported in : (2000)(118)ELT618Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an application for stay of collection of duty of Rs. 6,39,272/-. When the application for stay was taken up, it was thought that the appeal itself could be disposed of despite the objection of the DR. We have taken up the appeal itself after waiving the pre-deposit.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of ayurvedic medicaments. One of the products which they manufacture is "mahabhringraj tel". The product, it is claimed by the appellants, is ayurvedic medicine to cure various diseases namely irritation in eyes, sleeplessness, mental depression, etc. The active ingredients used in the product are hirde, beharde, avalkathi, nagar motha, kachara, makayacha pala and bramhicha pala which are know to possess the curing effect for various diseases. It is also claimed by the assessee appellants that the vegetable oil is also used merely as a medium for the active ingredients to reach the sculp to provide the necessary relief. The aforesaid herbs used as active ingredient...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-21-2000
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals)-XVII, Bombay, dated 19-10-1995 for the assessment year 1989-90.2. The assessee is a firm consisting of two partners, Dr. Hema Purandare and Dr. Amit Chakravarty. During the year the firm purchased one computer machine called "Robotron Computer Aided Image Analyser".The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee was not engaged in business nor is it engaged in the activity of construction, manufacture or production of any one or more of the articles or things other than those specified in the list in the Eleventh Schedule to the Income-tax Act so as to be entitled for investment allowance on this machinery.She noted that the assessee is engaged in professional activity and are consultant medical geneticist and is offering services mainly for prenatal diagnosis of hereditary diseases/defects. The instrument to be purchased being an advance model of machinery would reduce the required manual labour to 15%. S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-21-2000
Reported in : [2001]79ITD14(Mum)
ORDERS.V Mehrotra, A.M.This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XVII, Bombay, dated 19-10-1995 for the assessment year 1989-90.2. The assessee is a firm consisting of two partners, Dr. Hema Purandare and Dr. Amit Chakravarty. During the year the firm purchased one computer machine called 'Robotron Computer Aided Image Analyser'. The assessing officer noted that the assessee was not engaged in business nor is it engaged in the activity of construction, manufacture or production of any one or more of the articles or things other than those specified in the list in the Eleventh Schedule to the Income Tax Act so as to be entitled for investment allowance on this machinery. She noted that the assessee is engaged in professional activity and are consultant medical geneticist and is offering services mainly for prenatal diagnosis of hereditary diseases/defects. The instrument to be purchased being an advance model of machinery would reduce the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-04-2000
Reported in : 2000(4)BomCR773; 2000(4)MhLj417
ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, dated 23rd April, 1990, in Appeal No. 35/1989. 3. The only question involved in this writ petition is whether the school run by petitioner/society for blind, deaf and dumb students, can be said to be amenable to the jurisdiction of the School Tribunal, under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for the sake of brevity). 4. The respondent No. 2, an employee, working with the petitioner's school, was terminated from service, for which, he filed an appeal under section 9 of the Act, being Appeal No. 35/1989 before the respondent No. I/Tribunal. In the said appeal, the petitioner/institution raised preliminary objection as regards...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-21-2000
Reported in : 2001ALLMR(Cri)1819; 2001BomCR(Cri)152; (2001)4BOMLR631; 2001CriLJ3745; 2001(3)MhLj580
S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. In both the above writ petitions, detention orders passed by the first Respondent - Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai under the provisions of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords. Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 have been challenged and the detenus Tukaram Bhaskar Sawant and Raju Bhagwan Gupta have been described as dangerous persons. Earlier both the writ petitions came up before the Division Bench of this Court and in view of the conflicting views of the various Division Benches of this High Court. with regard to the meaning of 'dangerous person' the Division Bench by its order dated 25th April. 2000 had directed the Registrar to seek appropriate orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting a Larger Bench, to resolve the conflict as to whether it is imperative that a person must have to. his discredit two or more convictions before he can be detained as a 'dangerous person', as per Section 2(b-i)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-22-2000
Reported in : 2001ALLMR(Cri)103; 2001CriLJ527
R.K. Batta, J.1. Heard, Rule. With the consent of the learned advocate for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. rule in writ petition No. 235/2000. is made returnable forthwith and with their consent the matter is heard forthwith along with the writ petitions Nos. 75/00 and 273/00. In these writ petitions common questions arise for consideration and as such it is proposed to dispose of the same by common judgment.In Criminal Writ Petition No. 75/2000, the petitioner was charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. In respect of an incident of acceptance of bribe of Rs. 500/- on 11-12-1990. The charge-sheet was filed on 24-12-91 and it was registered as a Special Criminal Case No. 30/91. The charge was framed on 18-1-1994. The matter was fixed for prosecution evidence for the first time on 8-7-1999. On 12-7-1999 the application was filed by the petitioner for closure of the prosecution case. This application was rejected by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-15-2000
Reported in : AIR2001Bom116; 2001(1)BomCR836; 2001(1)MhLj687
R.J. Kochar, J. 1. The plaintiffs have prayed for a judgment and decree against the defendants ordering the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of Rs. 13,77,416-10 ps. and further interest at the rate of 15% per annum or at such other rate as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on Rs. 8,78,453-20 from the date of the filing of the suit till payment and costs of the suit.2. From the averments in the plaint the suit claim appears to have been based on goods sold, supplied and delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendants from time-to-time. By three letters dated 10th April, 1990, 15th April, 1992 and 10th April, 1993 addressed by the defendants to the plaintiffs, the defendants had stated that in their account books in the account of the plaintiff during the year ended 31st March, 1990 a sum of Rs. 6,12,295.71 was due and similarly for the next two years i.e. year ending 31st March, 1992 and 31st March, 1993 an amount of Rs. 7,86,689.70 and Rs. 8,91,476.20 were shown due to them. By ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-05-2000
Reported in : (2002)81ITD372(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assesses and it pertains to asst. yr.1990-91. The assessee gifted a residential house located at Alibaugh to her brother Shri Viraf Irani on 30th March, 1990. In July, 1988, assessee purchased an agricultural land/Bagayati land with building thereon for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000. The assessee made certain alterations and renovations in 1989 by spending a sum of Rs. 2,48,530 and then the property was gifted to her brother. Though the total cost of the property in the hands of the assessee worked out to Rs. 3,98,530 (cost of plot Rs. 1,50,000 + cost of renovation Rs. 2,48,530), for gift-tax purposes, the assessee showed the value of the gift at Rs. 1,29,058 and in support of this valuation, she furnished a registered valuer's report valuing the property as on 31st March, 1990 at Rs. 1,29,058.2. Since however, the assessee has declared the cost of plot and bungalow as on 31st March, 1990 at Rs. 3,98,530 in the return of income filed for the asst. yr. 1990-91...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-08-2000
Reported in : (2001)(129)ELT207Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals involve common facts and are therefore being dealt with in this single order.2. M/s. ICPA Health Products Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called as "the assessees") manufactured "moyzen liquid" claiming classification thereof under heading 3303 and also claiming the benefit of Notification 167/86-C.E. which exempted products falling under certain tariff heading alone from payment of duty when manufactured without the aid of power. Three show cause notices were issued on 27-2-1998, 24-8-1998 and 24-11-1998 covering the period November, 1997 to September, 1998 alleging that the classification warranted was under Heading 3304 and alleging short levy of duty totally amounting to Rs. 2,98,292.15 on that ground. The Assistant Commissioner upheld the allegations, confirmed the duty and imposed penalty of Rs. 30,000/- on the assessees. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the assessees' contention that the goods were toilet water, set aside the lower order and allowed the appeal. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-20-2000
Reported in : 2001(2)ALLMR224; 2001(4)BomCR226
Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 read with Articles 21, 48-A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India, is a public interest litigation filed by the petitioner, the Goa Foundation, which is non-Governmental organization. It is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The objects of the petitioner society amongst others, include appropriate action to halt the ecological degradation of the environment and to formulate and implement programmes for the rehabilitation and development of the Goan environment and to restore ecological balance. The petitioner Society has been pursuing the matter of protection of costal environment in Goa and in the rest of India, since it was set up in the year 1986. The petitioner has been monitoring the costal areas for several years and has approached the Court on numerous occasions for bringing to the notice of the Court violations of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, (hereinafter for brevity's sake r...
Tag this Judgment!