Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act 1932 section 17 rights and duties of partners Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat mumbai Year: 2003

Jun 24 2003 (TRI)

Rex Arts Castors Pvt. Ltd., Rex Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-24-2003

Reported in : (2004)(177)ELT179Tri(Mum.)bai

..... the brief facts of the case are these. rexello castors pvt. ltd. (rcpl) is a company registered in the year 1976 under indian companies act, 1956, which was originally a partnership concern as rexello industries and it is situated at 23/d, mahal industrial estate, mahakali caves road, andheri (e), mumbai 400 093 ..... other firms m/s. rcpl i.e. ourselves would have to exceed the turn over of exemption limit and would have been required to pay duty @ 15% right from the beginning of the year. we may point out that in our said letter. we have nowhere asked the buyers to transfer the ..... .1978, by observing as under: "different firms will be treated as different manufacturers for purposes of the exemption limit. but if a firm consisting of certain partners say, a, b & c has got more than one factory, all the factories should, of course, be combined; limited companies whether public or private ..... other formalities in law. the appellate authority following the government of india letter no.350/57/77-tru dated 20.1.1978 extracted at paragraph 17 of its order.the grounds of appeal filed by the department simply stated that the goods were supplied by rbe and payments were received by rexello ..... pvt. ltd. this is specifically and demonstrably not proved by means of proper evidence. apart form that, in paragraph 17 of the impugned order, it has been specifically held as follows:- "17. the central board of excise and customs has also accepted the above legal position in its circular letter no. 5, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 2003 (TRI)

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Gammon India Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-04-2003

Reported in : (2003)(156)ELT883Tri(Mum.)bai

..... by the joint venture. the joint venture in question is not a legal entity. it is not registered under any of the provisions of the companies act, 1956 or of the partnership act, 1932.the contract to the national highway authority of india has not been signed by a joint venture as such but by gammon india ltd. and atlanta infrastructure ltd. the letter ..... ).6. during one of the hearings, in response to a question that had earlier been put by the bench as to what exactly the legal status of joint venture in indian law, the departmental representative submitted an opinion signed by the additional legal adviser to the ministry of law. in this opinion, the additional legal adviser has said that the joint ..... for and on behalf of the partners of the joint venture. the goods were required for the purpose of the project and "the statutory authority has also issued the necessary certificate for duty free import.... may be due to some technical reasons the goods have been imported in the name of gammon india ltd. still out right denial of the exemption notification was ..... of entry that it filed in the bombay custom house in july, 2001 for clearance of this plant, it claimed exemption from duty in terms of entry 217 of the table to notification 17/2001. this entry exempts from duty goods specified in the notification required for construction of roads subject inter alia to the condition that the goods are imported by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 14 2003 (TRI)

Stonemann Marble, Mukesh Shah and Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-14-2003

Reported in : (2004)(166)ELT85Tri(Mum.)bai

..... . it is not open to the customs to invoke the provisions of section 114 of the act, where no offence under the customs act, in so far as the export goods are concerned is committed. we also notice that the commissioner imposed separate penalties on the partnership firm m/s. stonemann and its partner.7. the commissioner's order in so far as it related ..... confiscation and rendered themselves liable to penal action under section 114 of the customs act, 4. the commissioner confirmed the allegations contained in the show cause notice. in the impugned order the commissioner ordered de-logging of the 20 shipping bills already logged ..... stated in the licence took place. the customs authorities allege that m/s. stonemann and m/s. satyam enterprises connived with each other to defraud the goof of their import duty on the 10 chemicals mentioned in the deec licence had being imported therin and that by making false declaration before the licensing authorities they rendered the export goods liable to ..... kandla, are taken up for disposal together.2. the facts are that m/s. satyam enterprises filed 8 deec shipping bills before the customs authorities at kandla for export of indian guargum treated and pulverised. the exports are sought to be made on behalf of one m/s. stonemann mumbai, who applied for a deec licence. on verification the customs authorities .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //