Mumbai Court December 2001 Judgments

Capt. A.L. Fernandes Vs. Ito

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)75TTJ(Mumbai)714

ORDERM.K. Chaturvedi, J.M.15th Dec., 1994This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XXII, Bombay (Mrs. Shobha Majumdar), and pertains to the assessment year 1983-84.2. The solitary dispute neatly identified by Shri V.H. Patil, is crystallized here as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of salary received by the assessee from Mogul Lines Ltd. for rendering services on the board of a ship, when the ship was floating outside the territorial water of India, can be considered as salary received for rendering services outside India?How it is to be treated for the tax purposes?'3. The assessee is an employee of the Mogul Lines Ltd., a Government of India undertaking. He was holding the rank of Master. He rendered services on the ship 'Lok Nayak' from 1-5-1982 to 9-9-1982 and on 'Lok Vinay' from 15-10-1982 to 31-3-1983. On these dates abovenamed ships were floating outside the territorial water of India. It...

J.M. Goudalia, Yes Fashions (P) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC429

1. These 4 appeals are against order of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat. The Appellants are engaged in sizing of yarn.The officers, on their visit, found certain quantities of imported yarn in the process of manufacture; 3 months after this visit, they seized the same, coming to the conclusion that the goods were of foreign origin and of smuggled nature. The Show Cause Notices issued, was adjudicated by the Commissioner. In the mean time, the seized goods were ordered to be released on Bond by the Honourable High Court of Gujarat. The Adjudicator vide the impugned orders enforced the Bond conditions and demand duty under Section 28(1) from the persons from whose possession the goods were seized and were found by him to be liable for confiscation. He also imposed, an equivalent, penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act on the manufacturer appellants herein.Penalties under Section 112(b) was determined against the other appellants.2. We have heard both sides...

innlink Systems Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC425

1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 24,32,734.90 and penalty of equal amount imposed upon the applicants herein. The duty demand arises as a result of Commissioner's holding that the applicants manufactured goods falling for classification under Heading 9032.11, i.e. Thermostat, rejecting the applicants claim that they manufacture different types of Guest Room Control System falling under CETA 8537.00 and pars thereof falling under CETA 8538.00. It is contention of the appellants herein that the impugned order has traveled beyond the Show Cause Notice inasmuch as, while the notice recognises that the appellants manufactured different types of Control Systems for Guest Rooms for Hotels, etc, the order proceeds on the basis that only one type namely, Thermostat Control System has been manufactured during the period in dispute. It is his further contention that the language of Heading 8537.00 squarely covers the product in dispute and it is further submitted that t...

Global Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty imposed on the applicant and for exercise of inherent powers relating to release of marble imported by the applicants herein who are the processors of marble blocks at Mumbai.2. On hearing both sides, we find that similar issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Asia Pacific Marbles (P) Ltd. v. CC and by order No. C-II/2591/WZB/2001 dated 12/10/2001, the Tribunal had directed the importer in that case to furnish a bond and deposit Rs. 14 lakhs in cash and permitted the applicants to clear the goods on fulfillment of the above mentioned condition. Similar direction was given in the case of Stonemann Marble Industries v. CC by order No.CI/3291/WZB/2001 dated 8/11/2001, the Bench directed the applicants to furnish a Bond and deposit Rs. 5 lakhs in cash and permitted the applicants to clear identical goods after waiving the pre-deposit of penalty. In the present case, keeping in view the value of the goods and furt...

Vijay Omprakash Bansal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR764; (2003)179CTR(Bom)348; [2002]257ITR649(Bom)

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Mr. N.S. Bhattad, the learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Anand Jaiswal, the learned advocate for the respondent, rule, made returnable forthwith. Reply has been filed by the respondent. Petition and reply perused and submissions of both counsel are heard.2. The petitioner herein is assessed to income-tax for a number of years and he wanted to avail of the benefit under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. Under that scheme, the assessee is required to make payment of the required amount (which is stated to be around 30 per cent, of the full assessment) within a period of thirty days after the required amount is communicated to the assessee. In the event the amount is so paid it is accepted as a one-time full settlement. In the instant case, the petitioner was communicated that under the said scheme, his liability will be Rs. 2,18,451. This intimation was given to him on December 10, 1998. The last date for making payment was January 9, 1999. On Januar...

Atul Jagdish Khanna Vs. Seco Tools India (P.) Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR349; (2002)104BOMLR691

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. By this petition, the Petitioner is seeking to challenge an order dated 18th August, 2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, whereby the learned Judge has referred both the parties to arbitration to settle their disputes involved in the case in accordance with the clauses in 21 of the share holder's agreement and clauses in 11 in share purchase agreement from the Arbitral Tribunal viz. the Arbitration Institute of Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, London. By the said order, the learned Judge has also stayed further proceedings in the suit till the passing of foreign award by the Arbitral Tribunal.3. The brief facts are that the Petitioner herein and his family members had initially formed Drillco Hertel Ltd. in the year 1989. It may be noted here that now the said Company is known as Drillco Seco (India) Ltd. The said Company was formed for manufac...

Shri Shadeb Gulam Mohd. Dhamankar Vs. Shri M.N. Singh, Commissioner of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR783

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who describes himself as the friend of the detenu Sohel Yunus Khopatkar @ Popat has impugned the order dated 20th March, 2001 passed by the first respondent, Mr. M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining the detenu under Sub-section 1 of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996) (hereinafter referred to as the M.P.D.A. Act).The detention order alongwith the grounds of detention, which were also dated 20th March, 2001 was served on the detenu on 27th March, 2001 and their true copies are annexed as Annexure 'A' and 'B' respectively, to this petition.2. It is pertinent to mention that the detention order was approved by the State Government on 28th March, 2001, as is manifest from paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed by Mr. Khopka...

Kuwait Airways Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC195

1. The appellant are an international Airlines operating in India at Bombay Airport. The Officers of Customs Department entered the cargo hold unloading inside Flight No. : KU-301 on 07.07.95 and found two pallets meant for loading at Mumbai and on searching the said pallets., they recovered two packets of rectangular shape packed with brown colour t ape around it without any description the on or included in the manifest of he said flight which on opening were found to contain 50 pieces market Union Bank of Switzerland 10 tolas 999. On testing the representative samples of the said bars, from the seizure of bars, it was ascertained and reported vide essay report dt. 18.09.95 of the General Manager India Government Mint, Bombay to be gold of 999.20 purity. the show-cause notice was thereafter issued interalia to the present appellant asking them:- "M/s. Kuwait Airways and other known/ unknown persons concerned in smuggling of gold and others, who were concerned in carrying/removing, d...

Raizada Exports and Anil Raizada Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. We waive the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed upon M/s. Raizada Exports and penalty of equal amount imposed upon the sole proprietor of the unit and proceed to take up the appeals themselves for hearing with the consent of both sides.2. We find that in these cases the appellants filed a reply on 09/12/2000 to the Commissioner denying the allegations in the show cause notice that gaskets had been over valued. The reply to the notice was received on 14/12/2000. The case was postal for personal hearing on 15/12/2000 when a request for adjournment was made on the ground that counsel appearing for the appellant was not available due to election of the Delhi Bar Association falling on that day. The request for adjournment was not allowed and the impugned order was passed on 29/12/2000 by which export consignments covered 15 shipping bills have been confiscated with option to redeem on payment of fine and imposed penalties as mentioned above.3. We see substanc...

NelvIn Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded below we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of duty, stay recovery thereof and proceed to dispose off the appeal itself with consent of both sides as the issue lies within a very narrow compass.2. Aggrieved by the confirmation of duty demand by the adjudicating authority the appellants preferred an appeal along with an application for waiver under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act before the Commissioner (Appeals) who directed pre-deposit. The appellant applied for modification of the stay order after the period fixed for pre-deposit had expired. The modification application was disposed off and since the appellant did not comply with the pre-deposit requirement fixed, even after receipt of the order of rejection of modification application, the appeal came to be dismissed without notice to the appellant.3. On hearing both sides and considering the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. CCE 2000 (115) ELT 700, we find tha...