Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

C.C. Mumbai Vs. M/S. Sahir Overseas Corpn.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The departmental representative points out that the goods have been already cleared out the customs. The stay application therefore is rendered infructuous and is accordingly dismissed....

Priyanka B. Shah Budhidam B. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC502

1. One of the appellants Budhiadam M. Shah, according to the common counsel for the appellant, died on 1.2.96. That being the case, proceedings against him abate. Appeal E/675/95 dismissed. I have heard counsel for the appellants and the departmental representative on the other two appeals.2. The appeals are against the order of the Collector (Appeals) confirming the order of the Asst. Collector, imposing a penalty of Rs. 1000/- on each of the two appellants. The reason advanced by the Asst.Collector for penalty on these persons is that they wilfully obstructed the search of the officers at a premises at Ahmedabad. The contention advanced by the counsel for the appellant is that the search warrant which the officers produced did not specify the names of the appellants but was for DG Auto Horn and Auto Laminate. These were firms located in Ankleshwar. Therefore, the appellant rightly refused the search to be conducted. Subsequently, when the officers returned with the correct warrant, ...

M/S. Chaudhary Steel and Alloys Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both the sides on the stay application it became clear that since the law point was settled, the appeal itself could be disposed of. This was done after granting waiver of pre-deposit of the duty of Rs.9,90,855/- 2. The appellants were manufacturing bars and rods out of ship breaking scraps. They claimed benefit of Notification No.202/88 dated 20.5.88 which was extended by the order of the Asstt.Commissioner. When this order was challenged before the Commissioner, the Commissioner held that the interpretation of Not.No.202/88 should be that the duty must have been paid on the inputs and that credit of such duty must not have been taken. He ruled that when the inputs had suffered nil rate of duty, the benefit was not available.3. We find that this issue stands settled in the Tribunal judgement in the case of CCE vs Haldyn Glass Ltd[1999(114)ELT 835]. Reference was also made to the Circular of the Board and also to the Supreme Court judgement in the case of CCE vs Usha Mar...

M/S. G.S.F.C. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT791Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Vide Misc.order No.C.II/3361/WZB/2000 dated 23.11.00, the Tribunal had directed the respondent Commissioner to pay the refund amount to the applicants and to report compliance. When the matter was called out for reporting compliance today, Shri Choubey, JDR on behalf of the Revenue submits that an appeal has been filed in the Supreme court against the order of the Tribunal dated 1/11/99. Shri Willingdon Christian, advocate for the appellant shows us an order of the Gujarat High Court now reported in 2001 93 RLT 207 in which the Writ Petition filed by department against the order dated 1.11.99 was dismissed. The High Court's order takes precedence over our order and therefore, we need not make any orders on the present application. The application is disposed of....

Obron Impex Private Limited, L.D. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT843Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These five applications for rectification of mistake relate to Tribunal's final order No. C-II/716 to 722/2000/WZB dated 9/3/2000. It is appear that in pursuance of this order the Customs have taken steps to attach the properties of the applicants. Five stay applications have been filed requesting stay of operation of the order of attachment, etc. pending disposal of the applications for rectification of mistake.On hearing Shri V. Sridharan, advocate appearing along with Shri Prakash Shah, advocate and Gajendra Jain, Chartered Accountant the rectification applications were taken up for disposal.2. The facts, in brief, leading to the cited order of the Tribunal are as follows.3. Certain irregularities were noticed by the office of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports in the imports and Exports in the import made by M/s. L.D. Textiles Industries Limited. A show cause notice was issued. In his order dated 14/11/1986 the Additional Chief Controller of Imports and Exports imposed...

Commissioner of Customs, Kandla Vs. Indian Tobacco Company Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT572Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Indian Tobacco Co. Ltd., the respondent to this appeal, tendered a shipping bill for export of rice. Export cess was payable on rice at the relevant time, the cess paid on 15.3.93. The shipment of the cargo was not effected and the shipping bill was cancelled. J.M. Baxi, the custom house agent of the exporter, filed on 17.11.93 a claim for refund of the cess. The Asst. Collector rejected the claim on the ground that it was barred by limitation, not having been filed within six months from the date of export, as required by Section 27 of the Act. This order was appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). That authority held that the claim was filed within the stipulated period and hence not barred by limitation and set aside the order of the Asst.Collector. The Commissioner challenges this order.2. I have heard the departmental representative. The respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice.3. The reason that can be discerned from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for ho...

Smt. Malik Khairunissa Vs. Anjuman Riaz-ul-islam High School and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR489; (2001)3BOMLR175

ORDERR. J. Kochar, J. 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.1997 passed by the School Tribunal at Mumbai in Appeal No. Bom. 48/1993 filed by the Petitioner complaining against the Respondent Management that she was superseded illegally by the appointment of Respondent No. 2 as the Head of the School. According to the Petitioner, she was lawfully entitled to be appointed as the Head of the School, as she was not only senior in service but also eligible possessing the prescribed qualifications i.e. B.A., B.Ed, and requisite experience in teaching in the School. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 2, who was appointed by the Respondent No. 1 Management by showing favouritism as she was not senior to her in service and she did not possess the requisite eligibility in qualifications and also in teaching experience in accordance with the rules framed under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977.2. A...

Jiwankumar Sitaram Sondhi Vs. the Commissioner of Sales Tax Maharashtr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR589; (2001)3BOMLR190; [2002]127STC234(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J.1. By this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to challenge the amending Act No. LII of 2000, to Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of brevity, as the amending Act).FACTS;2. Petitioner is a citizen of India. Petitioner carries on business in the name and style of M/s. Sondhi and Company as a sole proprietor thereof and he trades as a first dealer of various State organised lotteries.3. The State of Maharashtra has been imposing sales tax on the sale of lottery tickets within the State of Maharashtra on the basis that lottery tickets are goods on which the State is empowered to levy sales tax. That, the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 deals with levy of tax on sales and purchases within the State of Maharashtra. That, under section 3 of the Act, it is, inter alia, laid down that every dealer whose sale or purchase turnover during the year ending 31st March exceeds a specified limit prescribed by the Act, sh...

The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. Malad JaIn Yuvak Mandal Me ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR404; (2001)168CTR(Bom)484; [2001]250ITR488(Bom)

S. H. Kapadia, J.1. Both the above Appeals raise a common question of law. Hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The question of taw, as refrained, is as follows : 'Whether the assessees - Charitable Trusts, whose income is exempted under Section 10(22) was required to file their returns under Section 139(4A) and, therefore, penalty under section 272A(2)(e) was warranted.' Facts in Income Tax Appeal No. 574 of 2000 :-3. In this Appeal we are concerned with the Assessment Years 1991-92 and 1992-93. Respondent is a Trust. The Respondent is an Educational Institution. It is running a School. The assessee was required to file its return of income on 31.10.1991. It was filed only on 11.3.1993. Therefore, penalty proceedings under section 272A were initiated. There was a default in filing the return of 495 days. Therefore, the A.O. Imposed penalty. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in Appeal to the First Appellate Authority, who came to the conclusion that the...

Bapu Khanu Dhangar and ors. Vs. Gundu Santu Dhangar, Since Deceased on ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)MhLj521

S. A. Bobde, J.1. This Second Appeal has been preferred by the Original Defendants against the judgment and order of the learned VIth Additional District Judge, Kolhapur, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 440 of 1985 by which the learned District Judge has decreed the Respondents' suit for injunction restraining the Appellants from interfering with the Plaintiffs' peaceful possession of the suit premises.2. The Respondents filed the suit against the Appellants seeking to restrain the Appellants from entering into an open plot admeasuring 52 x 109 ft. bearing Gram Panchayat House No. 91.3. The Respondents' case was that the suit property is exclusively owned and possessed by them. Admittedly, though the Respondents claimed that the property was purchased by their father Santu, no document of title, such as, Sale Deed, has been produced in the Court. The Appellants' case was that this property was purchased by their father Rama, who was joint owner of the suit property along with his brother S...