Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat mumbai Year: 1999 Page 1 of about 3 results (0.230 seconds)

Jan 20 1999 (TRI)

Kalanidhi and anr. Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-20-1999

Reported in : (1999)(82)LC417Tri(Mum.)bai

..... unit.14. virtually the same line of argument has been taken by the second appellant m/s. colour prints who have mentioned, inter alia, that they were a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act since 21.9.1966 and shri gopal ram salian and shri k. ugappa malli were partners of the firm since its inception. apart from being registered by other ..... ), my views and orders in the matter are as follows.11. it is observed that the appellants m/s kalanidhi have mentioned, inter alia, that they were a partnership firm registered in the indian partnership act since 14.10.1972 and engaged in the manufacture of printed cartons, labels etc. shri gopal ram salian and smt. k. rajani ugappa malli are the partners of ..... other. in these circumstances, jdr contended that the adjudicating officer had rightly concluded that the separate registration for purposes of sales tax and income tax and separate registration of the partnership firms was only to camouflage the actual fact that both the entities were, in fact, one and the same. he referred to the recent decision of the tribunal step cosmetic ..... the department.the ld. advocate contended that m/s. kalanidhi and m/s. colour prints were separate and independent partnership firms. m/s. kalanidhi were registered under the income tax act, bombay sales tax act, central sales tax act and the shops and the establishment act and had separate bank account. m/s. colour prints were likewise holder of central excise licence for the manufacture .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 12 1999 (TRI)

Sp Rubber Chem Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : May-12-1999

Reported in : (1999)(111)ELT771Tri(Mum.)bai

..... .4. financial hardship is pleaded on the ground that none of the partners of the two firms has any property except sonia gathani who was a self occupied flat. the partnership firm is not functioning from 1991. at present only kaushik gathani is having some export in fruits and vegetables from which he gets some income.5. the departmental representative contends ..... . on three occasions the consignments were tested by the custom house and found to confirm to this description. on the fourth occasion, the consignment on test was reported by the indian institute of technology to be silicon rubber material which is synthetic rubber.3. he contends that one of the test memo relating to these two consignments had written on it ..... bayer silopren and the other viton chloropolymer. on these facts, he contends, no misdeclaration had been established. further, the extended period under the proviso to section 28 of the act has been wrongly invoked since from the test memos the department was aware that the goods were either silicon or viton. he contends that the commissioner has brushed aside without .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 13 1999 (TRI)

Nanalal K. JaIn and ors. Vs. Cc (Prev.)

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-13-1999

Reported in : (2000)(88)LC36Tri(Mum.)bai

..... the case, we however reduce the penalty imposed on him to rs. 1.00 lac.10. appeal c/126/95 of shah k.p. & co., the partnership firm is not clear to us why its appeal was required to be filed when each of the two partners have separately filed appeals. in our view, that ..... the statement was given under pressure. equally significant is the statement of nanalal jain that he was unaware of these activities. one would expect that in a partnership firm both partners are aware of what goes on. if we accept that nanalal was only a sleeping partner, the question that comes up is the failure ..... also professed ignorance of this gold.the initial conduct of these two appellants therefore does not lead one to conclude that the gold was acquired by the partnership firm from aboobakar. this person enters the scene only on 2.9.1993 more than two weeks after the seizure. the failure of sagarmal jain to produce ..... whose address he does not know. he could not produce any proof of purchase. nanalal disowned any knowledge of the gold. subsequent to the seizure, the partnership firm by its letter dated 2.9.1993 raised a claim that the gold in question was legally brought into india by a person name aboobaker abdulla, who ..... . here again the only evidence is the admission of sagarmal jain that indian currency is the sale proceeds of smuggled gold. it is now settled law that for currency to be seized under section 121 of the act, it has to be established that it is in fact the sale proceeds of smuggled gold and .....

Tag this Judgment!

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