Mumbai Court October 1997 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D.R. Desai

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The Revenue has required the Tribunal to refer the following question claimed to be a question of law to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court for its valuable opinion under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 10,99,024 being the excise duty refund obtained by the assessee and not returned to the customers, cannot be assessed as the income of the assessee under s. 41(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ?" 2. The brief facts giving rise to this question are that the assessee was sanctioned, during the assessment year under consideration, refund of Rs. 10,99,024 by the Central Excise Department, Mumbai. The assessee had shown this refund amount as a liability in his balance sheet. On being questioned by the AO the assessee had explained that the refund received by him from the Excise Department had to be refunded back to various customers from whom the assessee had recovered the excise duty...

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Subsea Offshore Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)66ITD296(Mum.)

1. This is an appeal by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 1986-87. The only ground raised in this appeal reads as under : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the D.C. was not justified in holding that assessee's income is taxable in India. Further also erred in cancelling the assessment made under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961." 2. The assessee, a non-resident company incorporated in the United Kingdom, received Rs. 1,58,48,719 from Mazagaon Dock Ltd. in pursuance of an agreement dated 2-4-1985 and Rs. 98,39,380 from Oil & Natural Gas Commission vide agreement dated 29-8-1985. Under both the agreements, the assessee undertook the work of inspection and repairing of submarine pipeline networks, used in connection with oil and gas exploration, extraction and production with the help of a vessel, Special Remotely Operated Vehicles (hereinafter referred to as 'ROV'), which performe...

Colour-chem. Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(98)ELT303(Bom)

1. By this petitioners seek to challenge the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (the CEGAT) insofar as it relates to the rate of duty of excise applicable to the product known as Vernatan R-7. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that under Section 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, (the Act) appeal has been provided against such order to the Supreme Court. According to the learned Counsel for the respondents, in view of the specific provision for appeal to the Supreme Court against the order of the CEGAT regarding determination of the question relating to excise duty, the proper remedy is to go to Supreme Court and not to challenge the order in this Court by way of writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded before us that the impugned order of the Tribunal is appealable before the Supreme Court in view...

Kisan Chimaji Boarate Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR668; 1998CriLJ1331

ORDERVishnu Sahai, J. 1. Through this appeal, the appellant challenges the Judgment and order dated 1 -2-1995 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, in Sessions Case No. 180/91, convicting and sentencing him to undergo 7 years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo six months' R.I. for an offence punishable under section 376, I.P.C.2. In short, the prosecution case runs as follows :The appellant and the prosecutrix Swati Mohite P.W. 5, who was aged about 9 years' at the time of the incident were residing at Sarjapur, Taluka Jawali, District Satara. Appellant was known to the prosecutrix from before the incident.On 9-12-1990 at about 10.00 a.m., the grand-mother of the prosecutrix Tarabai Mohite P.W. 8 asked her to carry lunch box for her grand-father, in village Kudal. Accordingly the prosecutrix carried the lunch box from Sarjapur to Kudal. She handed over the same to her grand-father at Kudal. At about 3.00 p.m. while returning from Kudal to Sarjapu...

Eknath Malu Ratate Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR642

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. This appeal was on Admission Board. Since, in our view, only an offence under Section 304(2) I.P.C., is made out against the appellant; he has already been in jail for 3 years and 3 months; the record and proceedings have been received and the learned Counsel for the parties have no objection for finally disposing off the appeal, we are deciding it finally.Admit2. Through this appeal, the appellant challenges the Judgment and order dated 10.3.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 368 of 1995, convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life, for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C.3. In short, the prosecution case is that on 7.7.1994, at 3 p.m. the appellant entered Aradhana Theatre, in Thane, where the film 'DO FUNTUSH' was being screened. The gatekeeper Gopal Tejgi asked the appellant whether he was having a ticket. On that the appellant, abused him. Hearing the abuses, one Pramod Tambe, who was in the cinema hall, c...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D. R. Desai.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)60TTJ(Mumbai)18

ORDERJ. K. VERMA, A.M. :The Revenue has required the Tribunal to refer the following question claimed to be a question of law to the Honble Bombay High Court for its valuable opinion under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 10,99,024 being the excise duty refund obtained by the assessee and not returned to the customers, cannot be assessed as the income of the assessee under s. 41(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. The brief facts giving rise to this question are that the assessee was sanctioned, during the assessment year under consideration, refund of Rs. 10,99,024 by the Central Excise Department, Mumbai. The assessee had shown this refund amount as a liability in his balance sheet. On being questioned by the AO the assessee had explained that the refund received by him from the Excise Department had to be refunded back to various customers from whom the assessee had recovere...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Subsea Offshore Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)61TTJ(Mumbai)339

ORDERR.P. Garg, A.M.This is an appeal by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment year 1986-87.The only ground raised in this appeal reads as under :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the Deputy Commissioner was not justified in holding that assessees income is taxable in India. Further also erred in cancelling the assessment made under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.'2. The assessee, a non-resident company incorporated in the United Kingdom, received Rs. 1,58,48,719 from Mazagaon Dock Ltd. In pursuance of an agreement dated 2-4-1985, and Rs. 98,39,380 from Oil and Natural Gas Commission vide agreement dated 29-8-1985. Under both the agreements the assessee undertook the work of inspection and repairing of submarine pipeline networks, used in connection with oil and gas exploration, extraction and production with the help of a vessel, special remotely opera...

Vikas Shipping Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT275Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Miscellaneous Application as well as the appeal are against the order of the Commissioner of Customs ordering suspension of the Custom House Agent Licence in terms of Regulation 21(2) of the Custom House Agent Licensing Regulations, 1984.2. Shri J.C. Patel the ld. Counsel for the applicant appellant refers to the impugned order. This order states that, whereas a report has been received from the Central Intelligence Unit of this Custom House, that investigations into irregular clearance of one-piece unmutilated garments in the guise of 'pre-mutilated old woollen rags', in relation to which the applicant appellant as Custom House Agent has come to the adverse notice, the Commissioner has in exercise of powers conferred under Regulation 21(2) CHA Licence Regulations has suspended the CHA 11/935 held by the applicant appellant. The ld. Counsel referred to the several decisions of the Tribunal relied upon in the case of Eagle Shipping (India) Services v. Collector of Customs - 1993...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Moti Laminates P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT191Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the order impugned in the appeal by the department the Additional Collector has held on merits, that the assessee was not liable to pay the duty demanded in the notice. He has also held that the notice is barred by limitation.3. The respondents claimed for the graduated levels of quantity discount available to customers for the quantities of decorative laminated sheets which it had manufactured was approved by the department. Part of its goods were sold through depots. When clearing the laminated sheets to the depots the respondent paid duty on a price calculated by applying the maximum rate of quantity discount Rs. 35 /- per thousand, available to purchases of more than 1,500 sheets. It also appears that the assessees passed on to the buyers maximum extent of discount. However this point is of significance in deciding the appeal.4. The Additional Collector has noted that the respondent submitted to the department details of clearances of the goods to the depots and the discount...

Komal Mfg. Chemist Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(74)LC874Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Komal Mfg. Chemist Ltd., the order-in-original dated 4.3.1991 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II, is under challenge. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of cosmetics and toilet preparations classifiable under item No. 14-F of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. They were also engaged in the manufacture of the goods classifiable under Item No. 68 of the said Tariff. The appellants had one unit in Bombay and had another unit in Faridabad, where the goods classifiable under Item No. 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff were manufactured. The factory at Faridabad was said to be not a factory within the meaning of the factory as defined under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948. The assessee had contended that the value of the clearances in respect of their factory at Faridabad, should not be taken into account for arriving at the aggregate value of clearances for the purposes of exemption notification No. 8...