Mumbai Court June 1997 Judgments

Life Insurance Corporation Class-i Officers (Bombay) Association Vs. L ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1997(4)BomCR165; [1998]229ITR510(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J. 1. The question to be considered and decided in this petition is whether conveyance allowance paid to the members of the petitioners association is exempted from payment of tax under section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reads as under : '(14)(i) any such special allowance or benefit, not being in the nature of a perquisite within the meaning of clause (2) of section 17, specifically granted to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the performance of the duties of and office or employment of profit, as may be prescribed, to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred for that purpose : (ii) any such allowance granted to the assessee either to meet his personal expenses at the place where the duties of his office or employment of profit are ordinarily performed by him or at the place where he ordinarily resides, or to compensate him for the increased cost of living, as may be presc...

Metec Asia Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT440Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These three appeals are filed by M/s. Metec Asia Private Ltd. and Shri Rajendra Agarwal and M/s. Pawan Enterprises against the orders No.VIII(b) 10 (53)/Cus795/637, dated 8-12-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Mumbai, praying for setting aside the same, and for proper reliefs.2. The facts of the case are there was a search of the Godown Premises at 101-A Sakharam Patil, Dalmill Compound, Bhiwandi on 18-3-1995 by the Officers of Marin & Preventive Wing, Customs (Preventive) on the information. It belonged to M/s. Pawan Enterprises. Nothing incriminating was found. Godown keeper Shri Anil Mishra informed, one more small Godown across the road, belongs to them. On search of it, the copper wire bars, Antimony Ingots, and Metal Sheets were found.Both Anil Mishra and Dau Dayal Agarwal informed, that it was used always to store imported goods. They did not possess any licit documents covering the goods stored in the said Godown. The goods were detained and Godown...

Rajendra Agarwal and ors. Vs. Cc(P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)(71)LC812Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These three appeals are filed M/s. Metec Asia Private Ltd. and Shri Rajendra Agarwal and M/s. Pawan Enterprises against the orders No.VIII(b) 10 (53)/Cus/95/637 dated 8.12.1995 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Mumbai, praying for setting aside the same, and for proper reliefs.2. The facts of the case are there was a search of the Godown Premises are 101-A Sakharam Patil, Dalmill Compound, Bhiwandi on 18.3.1995 by the Officers of Marine & Preventive Wing, Customs (Preventive) on the information. It belonged to M/s. Pawan Enterprises. Nothing incriminating was found. Godown keeper Shri Anil Mishra, informed one more small godown across the road belongs to them. On search of it the copper wire bars, Antimony Ingots, and Metal Sheets were found. Both Anil Mishra and Dau Dayal Agarwal informed, that it was used always to store imported goods. They did not possess any licit documents covering the goods stored in the said Godown. The goods were detained and Godown wa...

Phoenix Metals and Alloys Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT135Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) arises from this Tribunal's order in which it had asked him to consider the acceptability for availing Modvat credit of the invoices issued in April, 1994 by a sole selling agent. In his order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has stated that the invoices cannot be accepted for the reasons that they had not been issued by a dealer but by a sole selling agent and that they had been issued subsequent to the date of the subsidiary gate passes.2. The objection of the departmental representative that the Commissioner (Appeals) was only asked to consider accepting the invoices is correct. However, subsequent to the decision of the Tribunal remanding the case, it has, itself held in a number of cases CCE v. Moosa Haji Patrawala - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 620, a number of orders following this decision and the decision in Chaphekar Engg. P. Ltd. v.CCE - 1996 (64) ECR 58 that subsidiary gate passes issued on or after 1-4-1994 against the original gate pass...

SachIn Bhaumick Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These appeals - two by the assessee and one by the Department - are directed against the consolidated order of the CIT(A) in respect of penalties under ss. 271(1)(c), 273(1)(a) and 271(1)(a) of the IT Act.They are relevant for the asst. yr. 1983-84.2. The brief facts are as follows : The assessee is an individual maintaining account on cash system. The previous year is the financial year ending on 31st March, 1983. The assessee, according to the AO is a well-known story and screenplay writer for Hindi films. A search was conducted at his residential premises on 29th January, 1983. During the course of the search, cash of Rs. 3 lakhs was found out of which an amount of Rs. 2,85,000 was seized. In the course of the proceedings under s. 132(5), the assessee came up with the explanation that Rs. 2,50,000 was received from Film Unit, a proprietary concern of Shri Amit Khanna. The money was kept by his wife who forgot to inform the assessee about the same. In the meanwhile, the assessee ...

SachIn Bhaumick Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. (investigati ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)60TTJ(Mumbai)78

ORDERV. DONGZATHANG, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT :These appeals - two by the assessee and one by the Department - are directed against the consolidated order of the CIT(A) in respect of penalties under ss. 271(1)(c), 273(1)(a) and 271(1)(a) of the IT Act. They are relevant for the asst. yr. 1983-84.2. The brief facts are as follows : The assessee is an individual maintaining account on cash system. The previous year is the financial year ending on 31st March, 1983. The assessee, according to the AO is a well-known story and screenplay writer for Hindi films. A search was conducted at his residential premises on 29th January, 1983. During the course of the search, cash of Rs. 3 lakhs was found out of which an amount of Rs. 2,85,000 was seized. In the course of the proceedings under s. 132(5), the assessee came up with the explanation that Rs. 2,50,000 was received from Film Unit, a proprietary concern of Shri Amit Khanna. The money was kept by his wife who forgot to inform the assessee about ...

Atul Products Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)LC124Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants imported a consignment of aniline oil (quantity 5826.3 kgs.) valued at Rs. 58,263/- and claimed clearance of the consignment against their advance licence with a duty exemption entitlement certificate. The Customs House found that the value balance available in the licence did not cover the value of the goods imported and it was insufficient. Therefore, show cause notice was issued on 3-11-1987 and the appellants' defence was that the short fall in value balance in the import licence has occured only because of the fact that in one of their import consignment of bon acid vide Bill of Entry No.1606/91 against the same licence, the assessable value had been loaded, by the Appraising Group of the Customs House and the licence had also been debited for the enhanced assessable value. They submitted that had this not been done and if only the cif value as per the invoice had been debited/ the present short fall value would not have taken place.The Dy. Collector of Customs,...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Shiv Kumar Ashok Kumar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT485Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This Tribunal had upheld the finding of the Collector (Appeals) that the claim for refund of the assessee could not be dismissed solely on the ground that the original documents evidencing payment of duty were not produced by it, and that the attested copies of documents should be made use of to process its claim. "whether the refund can be sanctioned to the assessee on the basis of photostat copies of duty paying documents and whether the Tribunal can lay down its law like deciding the documents to be accepted for proceedings [under] Central Excise law which are different than documents prescribed under Central Excise Act and Rules as settled by the law." 3. This Tribunal had specifically gone on the footing that Section 11B of the Act, at the relevant time, did not provide for the duty paying documents before duty could be sanctioned. The reference to the unamended section is of some significance. It was referred to because Sub-section (1) of Section 11B after its amendment in 19...

Ruby Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT295Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants herein manufacture among others blended yarn. They filed a classification list in respect of cellulosic spun containing the following blends Polyester 42%, Viscose 38% Silk 20% and claimed classification under Tariff Item 18-III(ii) which covers cellulosic spun yarn containing man-made fibres of non-cellulosic origin, predominate in weight. The present appeal is against this decision on classification which has been upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in the impugned order.2. Shri Prakash Shah the ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the matter of classification of such yarn is no more res Integra. It has been settled by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Bowreah Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. -1997 (92) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.).3. We have heard Shri S.V. Singh the ld. DR. On perusal of the Supreme Court decision in that case also classification of similar blended yarn was considered, and the Supreme Court has upheld the ...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Doongursee Diamond Tools (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT487Tri(Mum.)bai

(1) Whether the non-compliance of substantive requirement of Law warrants condonation of the same as technical or procedural contravention. (2) Whether the contravention of Rule 57G(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 which is substantive, and requirement of law can be invoked for the disallowance of Modvat credit/recovery of Modvat credit of duty paid on raw material.2. In its order the Bench had held that in its letter of 29-4-1986 to the Assistant Collector the assessee had communicated that it used as inputs steel, diamond powder, metal matrix powder and brazing materials as inputs in the manufacture of gang saw blades and segments for such blades. It was held that therefore, a declaration under Rule 57G had been filed. It is now contended that since the declaration has not been acknowledged by the Assistant Collector, assessee has not complied with the provisions of Rule 57G.3. This is not a point arising out of the order because this was not the ground on which the Collector (Appea...