Mumbai Court May 1991 Judgments
Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-31-1991
Reported in: (1992)LC493Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad bearing No. Collr/No. 20/89 dated 14-3-1989, demanding duty amounting to Rs. 50,007.04 in respect of molasses.2. The undisputed facts involved in this case are that the appellants who are manufacturers of sugar also produces molasses. The duty demand in respect of the molasses was in respect of the same stored in katcha pit No. 9 and was produced during the year 1977-78, when the molasses was liable to duty under T.I. 68. In the case of goods classifiable under T.I. 68, there were relaxation of condition, such as declaration and acceptance of seperate storage premises for storing the excisable goods before removal.3. Shri Shah, the Ld. advocate, for the appellants, referred to the relaxation during the period available under T.I. 68 and pleaded that there was no restriction for storage of molasses produced during the year 1977-78 in katcha pit. The restriction came into existen...
Tag this Judgment!Manish Textiles Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-30-1991
Reported in: (1991)38ITD365(Mum.)
1. The short point for consideration in these appeals by the assessee is whether the assessee is a pucca Arhatia or Kutcha Arhatia (commission agent) and whether the assessee is required to get its accounts audited under Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act. The relevant facts are as follows : 2. The assessee is a registered firm and we are concerned with its assessment for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87. It has been assessed to tax on a total income of Rs. 94,781 for the assessment year 1985-86 and Rs. 1,46,174 for the assessment year 1986-87. Since the assessee had not got its accounts audited under Section 44 AB of the Act, the Income-tax Officer passed orders of penalties under Section 27 1B for an amount of Rs. 53,750 and Rs. 70,770 for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 respectively. The brief reason for levying such penalties was that the audit report was required to be obtained on or before 30-9-1985 for the assessment year 1985-86 and on or before 30-6-1986 for ...
Tag this Judgment!Choksi Tube Co. Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-30-1991
Reported in: (1991)38ITD392(Mum.)
1 to 10. [These paras are not reproduced here, as they involve minor issues.] 11. In the assessment order the IAC (Asst.) has simply stated the fact of filing the revised return and the claim made by the assessee.However, he has neither discussed the issue nor allowed the claim made by the assessee. 5. The fifth ground of appeal pertains to the appellant's claim for deduction of customs duty payable on imported raw material lying in the customs bonded warehouse. It is submitted that since import duty on these goods could have been calculated and quantified as it related to the goods imported during the relevant previous year the claim for deduction should be allowed. The normal procedure followed by the appellant in respect of the customs duty payable on imported raw materials in bonded warehouses has been that the duty is paid whenever the goods are released from the warehouses. Accordingly, the duty payable on these would be allowable only at the time of the actual receipt of the go...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Sabine Laboratories (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-29-1991
Reported in: (1992)40ITD300(Mum.)
1. These two appeals are by the revenue against the orders of the CIT(A), for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. The dispute in these appeals is regarding the validity of the returns filed by the assessee and allowance of loss to be carried forward and set off in future years.2. Originally the returns for these two years were filed within the time prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. For the assessment year 1984-85, it was filed on 29-6-1984 and for the assessment year 1985-86 on 24-6-1985. Both these returns were filed by declaring estimated losses of Rs. 70,000 and Rs. 1,20,000 respectively.The returns were without the support of audited balance-sheet and profit & loss account. The ITO, therefore, did not consider these two returns as valid returns. According to him, they were mere pieces of paper which could not even be rectified under Section 139(9) of the Act. The returns filed by the assessee subsequently on 15-10-1985 for assessment year 1984-...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Express Newspapers Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-29-1991
Reported in: (1991)39ITD276(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal, directed against the order passed by the CIT under the provisions of Section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961.2. The brief facts of the case have to be set out. Assessee belongs to the Indian Express group of companies and is engaged in printing and publication of news papers and journals. The principal ingredient or the raw material for the business is the news print and the source of supply of this news print is either imports or through the news print manufacturing company at Nepa. The supply and distribution of news print in large quantities was not available in the open market. In the event of short-fall or nonavailability of news print by a company in the group, the practice was to borrow news print from a sister concern for which there was an understanding and such understanding is consistent with the requirements of the rules of the news print policy of the Government of India that the stocks taken on loan were returned in kind within a reasonable time to the lo...
Tag this Judgment!inspecting Assistant Vs. British Pharmaceutical
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-23-1991
Reported in: (1991)39ITD105(Mum.)
1. to 8. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.) 9. The next ground is a more substantial ground and raises several issues of fact and law. The brief facts relating to the disallowance of the claim for expenses on commission paid to the selling agents will first have to be stated. The assessee is a registered firm and its first assessment year for the assessment year 1982-83 was completed on 26-4-1985 under Section 143(3) on a total income of Rs. 15,51,048.While completing such assessment, the IAC had made a disallowance of commission paid to three parties amounting in all to Rs. 11,91,114 for the reasons given by him in para 11 of his order. These reasons as appearing in the original order of the IAC are as follows: (i) Para (3) of the agreement with M/s. BIPCO Sales Corporation shows that 'the principals will hand over to the agents the articles manufactured and produced by them at their factory to the agents for sale and distribution by the agents for an...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra Wine Merchants Association and Others Etc. Vs. the State o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-21-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom3; 1992(2)BomCR523; 1991(2)MhLj1258
ORDER1. The Maharashtra Wine Merchants Association and Hotel and Restaurant Association (Western India) along with their respective presidents have filed Writ Petition No. 1824 of 1991 in this Court impugning the validity of order dated 17th May 1991 issued by the Collector of Bombay (City), a copy of which is Exhibit B-1 to the petition. By the impugned order it is ordered that all the wine shops in Greater Bombay shall be kept closed between 18th May 1991 and 29th May 1991 in view of election to Lok Sabha scheduled to be held on 26th May 1991.2. The Maharashtra Retail LiquorDealers Association and Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association have filed Writ Petition No. 1826 of 1991 impugning the validity of the same very order. 3. Mr. Rajeev Adyanthaya, President of Greater Bombay Retail Country Liquor Licensees Association, and two others have also impugned the validity of same very order in Writ Petition No. 1827 of 1991. The petitioners have filed these three writ petitions under Art....
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Seth Ramesh Kumar Gopaldas
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-1991
Reported in: (1992)(37)ECC121
1. This is an appeal brought by the Revenue against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) bearing No. 3370/85 BCH dated 29-8-1985 allowing the appeal of the respondents.2. Shri Mondal, the 1d. SDR, indicated that the respondents imported Coral in the form of broken bits, declared in the invoice as broken coral reeds. He however concedes that they cannot be called as of jewellery quality. They claimed clearance under OGL Appendix 6 List 4 Sr. No. 7(A) of AM 84-85 Policy. In the footnote to the aforesaid list Appendix 6, it is clearly laid down that import of Jade, Pearls and Corals only in powder form and of non-jewellery quality alone will be allowed. The Deputy Collector held that the goods imported are not in powder form but are only in broken bits (though of non-jewellery quality). Hence OGL will not be available. He allowed the goods to be cleared on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 37,000/-, nearly 100% fine. However, this order has been set aside by the Collector (Appeals...
Tag this Judgment!Valchand K. Parmar and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-1991
Reported in: (1992)(40)LC46Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both the appeals are directed against the common order in original passed by the Addl. Collector of Customs (P), Bombay, bearing No.VIII(b)10(70)Cus/85 dated 23.9.1985.2. The facts of the case arc that the appellant, Shri Suresh C. Vagadia owns a shop by name M/s. Nitin Jewellers, which was searched on receiving intimation about the secretion of silver. They recovered silver bullion totally weighing 23.297 kgs valued at Rs. 65,785/- from the shop premises. The undisputed fact is that silver is not covered by any transport voucher as required under Section 11K of the Customs Act.There was also no other bill or invoice with regard to the purchase of silver from any licit sources. It was claimed that the silver was given by some customers for manufacturing ornaments. The appellants were dealing in silver ornaments and articles. In the adjudication proceedings held by the Addl. Collector, goods were ordered confiscation bun allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 6,500/- and a pen...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Deepa Ramesh Pai Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2387; 1991(1)MhLj1119
H.H. Kantharia, J. 1. The petitioner here is the wife of one Ramesh Anant Pai. She takes exception to the detention order passed against her husband u/sub-sec. (1) of S. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), issued on April 17, 1990 by the third respondent, the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Bombay-400032 with a view to preventing the said Ramesh Anant Pai (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu') from engaging in transportation of smuggled goods. The detention order was served on the detenu on April 20, 1990. The Union of India (first respondent), through Special Secretary, issued declaration under section 9(1) of the Act on May 10, 1990. 2. Admittedly, the grounds of detention were formulated along with the order of detention and there is no dispute about the service of detention order, grounds of detention and the material relied upon ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »