Mumbai Court October 2001 Judgments

Aqua Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is admitted in view of the fact that the items in dispute viz. Refractory Morters having been held to be eligible to modvat credit either under Rule 57A as inputs or as capital goods under Rule 57Q by the decisions of the Tribunal.2. Coming to the stay application, on hearing both sides, I find that in the case of the same assessee, the Tribunal vide order No.C.I/2713/WZB/1999 dated 4.11.99, has granted unconditional waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty demanded in that case. Following the ratio thereof, I waive the pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 31,500/- confirmed against the applicants and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal....

Nath Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 82,528/- availed as modvat credit during the period July, 1994 to Feb. 1995 arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee before him on the ground of non compliance with his stay order dated 30.3.2001 under which the entire duty amount was directed to be deposited as a condition precedent for hearing of the appeal by the lower Appellate Authority.2. On hearing both sides, I note that the assessees have challenged the findings of the Adjudicating Authority on the merits of the case but, however, have not offered any explanation as to why they did not comply with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) directing pre-deposit. I, however, note that they have pleaded financial hardship and that they have applied to the BIFR for being declared as a sick unit and the BIFR has registered their case. Having regard to the above, although I am of the view that prima-facie case for...

Apex Detonators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT804Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applicants were not present. On perusal of the facts the appeal was admitted for hearing and was taken up for disposal after granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 26,716/-.2. The appellants have taken modvat credit on the strength of the invoices which were not in their name. The Assistant Commissioner had confirmed the reversion of the Modvat credit on this ground. The assessee filed an appeal. It was claimed that the assessees were under "lease agreement" with another unit in whose name the invoices were drawn. Substantial case law was cited before the Commissioner. The Commissioner after recording the submissions of the assessee disposed off the appeal before him in the following words: "I find from the above that the finding of the adjudicating authority denying the modvat credit has been correctly passed and that the submissions of the appellants are unsustainable. The impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected." 4. The job of an appellate authority is to ...

Kishor B. Purohit, Prakash Metal Vs. Collector of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These are three appeals filed against the decision made in Order-in-Original No.10/Collr./1994 dated 2.8.1994 whereunder the confirmed the duty of Rs.40,236.76 on aluminium circles/calvert tops, Rs. 2,30,640.74 being amount of Modvat credit wrongly taken and Rs. 7,87,500/- being amount of duty demanded for wrongful availment of notification 175/86. He also imposed penalties of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellant M/s. Prakash Metal Works, s.2 lakhs on the appellant Janak Kantilal Kansara and Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant Kishor B. Purohit.2. The appellant is a registered partnership firm inter alia engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of articles of aluminium. The appellant was a small scale factory at Odhav in Ahmedabad. It was registered as a SSI unit with the Government of Gujarat. They manufactured in their factory the following goods:- The present appeals relate to period 1989, 1991-92. The show cause notice was issued on the following among other grounds:- As regards c...

Su-raj Diamonds (India) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)81ITD212(Mum.)

1. These appeals by the assessee are directed against the orders of the CIT (A)-XIX, Mumbai, both dt, 16th Feb., 1999, and pertain to the asst.yrs. 1995-96 and 1996-97. "1. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law the learned C1T(A) erred in upholding the action of the ITO in treating the appellant as an assessee in default for short-deduction of tax deducted at source of Rs. 67,700 and Rs. 2,03,391 (for asst. yrs. 1995-96 and 1996-97) from salary under Section 201(1) r/w Section 192(1) on the ground that the interest on interest-free loans, foreign tour allowance to employees and value of provision of car to managing director for business purchase (sic-purpose) were includible in salary for the purpose of tax deduction at source under Section 192(1). 2. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not deleting the interest charged of Rs. 28,344 under Section 201(1 A). The appellant denies its liability to pay any s...

Nasibullah Khan Vs. M.N. Singh and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)1BOMLR119; 2002(1)MhLj572

S.S. Parkar, J. 1. 1. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the detention of his son by name Mohammed Husein Nasibullah Khan under the provisions of MPDA Act. 2. The respondent No. 1, the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, by order dated 16th March 2001 issued order of detention under Section 3(1) of the MPDA Act. Along with the order of detention the detenu was served with the grounds of detention of the same date. A copy of the order of detention is annexed at Exh. 'A' to this petition while the copy of thegrounds of detention has been annexed at Exh. 'C' to this petition. The detenu along with two co-accused was arrested on 25th June, 2000 under C. R. No. 125 of 2000 for offences under Sections 170, 365, 376(g), 392 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. His bail application made to the Sessions Court was rejected on 17-10-2000 in the said C. R. Thereafter there was no application made by him for his release on bail and the detenu continued to be in custody. Wh...

Regent Chambers Premises Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)82ITD13(Mum.)

1. The appeals of the assessee for the asst. yrs. 1989-90, 1992-93 and 1993-94 have been directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XXXVI, Mumbai dt. 18th March, 1996, whereas the appeals for the asst. yrs.1990-91 and 1991-92 have been directed against the order of the Dy. CIT (A), D-Range, Mumbai, dt. 22nd July, 1996. The only common ground of appeal involved in these cases is regarding the additions made by the AO in respect of the transfer fee of office premises. One consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience as the issue involved in all the cases is identical.2. The assessee is a co-operative society owning a building called Regent Chambers at 208, Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. The assessee co-operative housing society received the following amounts as contributions for common amenity funds/transfer fees The AO treated the above receipts as the. revenue income in the hands of the society and taxed it accordingly. The decision of the AO was based on the decision of th...

Ravi Nair Physiotherapy College Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR205; 2002(3)BomCR696

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Manohar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Gavai, the learned Government Pleader for respondent No. 1 and Smt. Khade, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2.2. The present Civil Application No. 5536 of 2001 is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to respondent No. 1-State Government to restore the intake capacity of the petitioner College from 50 to 100 students.3. Shri Manohar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Trust, which runs petitioner College, viz. Smt. Radhikabai Meghe Memorial Medical Trust, Sawangi (Meghe), Wardha, applied to the State Government for starting a Physiotherapy College and the permission for opening the said College was granted by the Nagpur University vide its letter dated 30-12-1995. The learned Counsel contended that the State Government also issued resolution dated 4-7-1998 granting such permission to the said trust from Academic Session 1998-99 and the permission was granted for a period ...

Regent Chambers Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)76TTJ(Mumbai)531

Order Behari Lal, A.M.The appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 1989-90, 1992-93 and 1993-94 have been directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XXXVI, Mumbai dated 18-3-1996, whereas the appeals for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92 have been directed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), D-Range, Mumbai, dated 22-7-1996. The only common ground of appeal involved in these cases is regarding the additions made by the assessing officer in respect of the transfer fee of office premises. One consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience as the issue involved in all the cases is identical.2. The assessee is a co-operative society owning a building called Regent Chambers at 208, Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. The assessee co-operative housing society received the following amounts as contributions for common amenity funds/transfer fees :Assessment yearAmount (Rs.)1.1989-901,73,0002.1990-9147,7003.1991-9247,7004.1992-933,55,3295....

Nirlon Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above application for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise who has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 92,10,343.89 against the applicants herein who are engaged in the manufacture of Polyester Filament Yarn, Nylon Filament Yarn and Tyre Cord Fabrics on the ground that during the period 1.3.94 to 31.3.1998, the applicants failed to file price lists/price declaration on advalorem basis and further that the values based on which they paid duty on the said goods were not the proper values as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act 1944. He has also imposed a penalty of amount equal to duty upon the applicants. The charge that the value on the basis of which duty was paid was not the correct value is based upon the non inclusion of the elements of brokerage and transit insurance in the value of clearances.2. On hearing Shri M.H. Patil Ld. Counsel and Shri M.H. Shaikh Ld. DR and noting that the applicant company has been ...