Mumbai Court January 1998 Judgments

Batliboi and Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)63TTJ(Mumbai)448

ORDERM. A. Bakshi, J. M.The appeal of the assessee, for assessment year 1985-86, is directed against the order dated 20-8-1990, of Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Mumbai. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused.2. Ground Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8, which are reproduced hereunder, are dismissed as not pressed.'2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Bombay, erred in reckoning the expenses on repairs, payment of rent, rates and taxes in respect of residential flats occupied by the Directors and employees of the appellant as perquisite within the meaning of section 40A(5) and confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1,88,104 in case of Directors and Rs. 3,86,569, in case of employees in place of disallowance under section 40(c) at Rs. 82,085 and under section 40A(5) at Rs. 7,825 as Annexures 'B' and 'C'.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Bombay, erred in disallowing under section 43B of the Income Tax Act, the sales tax liability o...

Commissioner of C Ex. Vs. National Leather Cloth Mfg. Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT299Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Application seeks to refer to the High Court of the following question of law : "Rule 57G(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 confers powers only on CBEC to prescribe documents on the basis of which Modvat can be availed. Whether CEGAT which itself is a creature of the statute, can go beyond the provisions of the Act, and the Rules made thereunder and allow credit on duty paying documents not prescribed by the Act and Rules?" 2. We have heard the Departmental Representative who urges the grounds in the application. We have also heard the Advocate for the respondent.3. In its order, the Tribunal, going by the earlier one of many decisions has said that bill of entry does not cease to be a duty paying document specified in Rule 57G merely for the reasons that it has been endorsed. In other words, the bill of entry is specified in Rule 57G as a document evidencing payment of duty for the purpose of taking credit. By the mere fact of endorsement being put on the bill of entry, it does not...

Milton Plastics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT195Tri(Mum.)bai

1. When the matter was called the ld. Counsel Shri S.N. Sachpal for the applicant submitted that the duty amount involved in this case of Rs. 2,51,534/- has already been debited in their Personal Ledger Account.He, however, pleads for an early hearing of the appeal itself because it involves the question of valuation of their finished product namely various articles of plastics intended for house-hold kitchenware use which are classified under Chapter 3924.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. We have heard Shri D. Gurnani, the ld. DR who has no objection for early hearing of the appeal. We find that the stay application has become infructuous because the duty demand has been debited in their PL Account. We are also inclined to grant the plea for early hearing considering that the matter relates to valuation of their excisable goods manufactured by the applicant which has a recurring revenue effect. Therefore it is directed that the appeal be posted in the month of March, 1998....

Power Build Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex. and Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1032Tri(Mum.)bai

1. We have heard Shri D.P. Patel, authorised representative of the appellant and Shri S.V. Singh, the ld. DR. The lower authorities have denied Modvat credit under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules on grinding wheels used by the appellant in the manufacture of gear mechanism to the gear motors on the ground that grinding wheels are in the nature of machineries which are excluded from the definition of inputs under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules.2. However, we find that the matter now stands settled by the Larger Bench decision in the case of Union Carbide India v. Collector - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613. The Larger Bench has held after considering several judgments of Supreme Court, High Court and the Tribunal that the expression 'in relation to manufacture' used by the Rule 57A is of wide amplitude and such wide scope is given with the purpose to attract also goods which do not enter directly or indirectly into the finished product but are used in any activity concerned with or pertaining ...

Ceat Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(75)LC306Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These are 13 appeals filed by the assessee involving a common issue and, therefore, they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The dispute is in respect of addition of landing charges in the assessable value. When the matter was posted for regular hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. However, there was a request from them to decide the case on merits. Accordingly, we proceed to pass this order after hearing Shri M. Ali, Id. JDR for the Revenue.3. In all these cases, the refund claim filed by the assessee has been rejected on the ground that landing charges are to be included on notional basis and not on actual basis. According to the assessee landing charges, even if they were to be added, it should be restricted to actual landing charges incurred.4. Shri Ali, Id. DR submitted that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the series of decisions of this Tribunal and of different High Courts. He drew our attention to the decision ...

Harakchand N. JaIn Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The above captioned two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the Asstt. CIT (Investigation), Circle-1(1) Kalyan passed under s. 158BC of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') relating to the block period commencing from 1st April, 1985, to 8th February, 1996. (IT (S&S) A. No. 50/Bom/97 has been filed against the computation sheet dt. 28th February, 1997, while IT (S&S)/Bom/97 is against the speaking order of the even date. Since both the appeals relate to the same block period, for the sake of convenience, these are disposed by this common order.2. The brief facts as culled out from the record are that the assessee is engaged in the business of construction and sale of residential/shopping projects in the name and style of Vikas Builders.The assessee filed his regular returns of income and assessment was made upto asst. yr. 1995-96. On 8th February, 1996, a search and seizure action under s. 132 of the Act was conducted at the residential ...

Gautam Bhalchandra Kamble Vs. Govindkumar Narayanlalji Lahoti

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR610; 1998(3)BomCR337; 1998(2)MhLj570

ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J. 1. Heard advocates for the petitioner and the respondent. 2. This revision is filed by the tenant challenging the order of the Appellate Court i.e. the District Judge, Latur dated 15-3-90. 3. The landlord had filed eviction proceedings against the tenant on the ground that tenant has been using the premises in contravention of the rent deed and using the same for the purpose other than for which the premises were leased and has committed breach of the terms of the rent deed and was liable to be evicted. According to the landlord, when the premises were leased to the tenant, he has specifically agreed in the rent deed by Clause - 5 not to store explosives, kerosene,petrol and fodder, which is not permissible under the Insurance Companies Rates. However, the tenant in contravention of this Clause, started selling fire crackers in the premises on Diwali of 1980 and therefore he committed breach of rent note. 4. On the other hand, it is the case of the tenant that e...

Kalema Tumba Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau and Another

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)465; 1998CriLJ2205; 1998(2)MhLj91

ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the convicted accused in N.D.P.S. Spl. Case No. 84/91 on the file of Court of N.D.P.S. for Greater Bombay dated 24th June, 1994 whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced in the following manner :i) He was convicted for 10 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh). In default, to suffer R.I. for two years under section 21 r/w 8(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act. ii) He was convicted and sentenced R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) In default, R.I. for two years under section 23 r/w 28 and 8(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act. iii) He was convicted and sentenced R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) and in default R.I. for six months.Substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.2. According to the prosecution, on 21-11-1990, Mr. Anil Menon attached to N.C.B. as Intelligence Officer alongwith Assistant Director Mr. Rohatgi and I.O. Mr. Dange, re...

Harakchand N. JaIn Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)61TTJ(Mumbai)223

ORDERSMT. NIRMAL YADAV, J.M. :The above captioned two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the Asstt. CIT (Investigation), Circle-1(1) Kalyan passed under s. 158BC of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) relating to the block period commencing from 1st April, 1985, to 8th February, 1996. (IT (S&S;) A. No. 50/Bom/97 has been filed against the computation sheet dt. 28th February, 1997, while IT (S&S;)/Bom/97 is against the speaking order of the even date. Since both the appeals relate to the same block period, for the sake of convenience, these are disposed by this common order.2. The brief facts as culled out from the record are that the assessee is engaged in the business of construction and sale of residential/shopping projects in the name and style of Vikas Builders. The assessee filed his regular returns of income and assessment was made upto asst. yr. 1995-96. On 8th February, 1996, a search and seizure action under s. 132 of the Act was conducted ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shree Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT560Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The present appeal has been filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II against the Order dated 12-5-1993 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. The impugned order is a common order disposing of four appeals filed by the department before that authority; it is the case of the Department that the Respondents manufacture Fancy Yarn falling under Chapter 5606 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were asked to take Central Excise Licence for the manufacture of the said excisable goods and to follow Central Excise Procedures. They were also requested to supply information regarding production clearance of the goods manufactured by them. But according to the Department Respondents did not take any steps to comply with the directions. The Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise passed an Order-in-Original dated 26-8-1991 in all these cases in which he dropped the proceedings initiated by the show cause notice, on the ground that ...