Mumbai Court April 2001 Judgments

Rajesh Hem Narayan Patra Vs. Commissioner of Customs(P),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When the case was called out, the appellant was not present. The record shows that on the last several occasions, the appellant remained absent in spite of notices. The appeal is, therefore, being decided on perusal of the facts on record and the submissions made in the appeal memorandum and after hearing Shri Sarkar,DR.2. Certain goods of foreign origin were seized from the shop premises of the appellant. The value of the goods was Rs.8,88,000/-. The Addl.Collector in his order held that in the case of certain goods, the department had not discharged the burden of proof of unlawful importation. These goods were directed to be released. 2 V.C.Rs. and one Video Camera were confiscated but were allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs.79,000/- Penalty of Rs.35,000/- was impose d on the present appellant. Against this order, the appellant filed an appeal. The Commissioner passed ex-parte orders on the failure of the appellant appearing before him. The Commissioner made the followin...

Commr. of Cen. Excise, Surat Vs. M/S. Goyal Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT222Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Accepting the prayer for early hearing, the appeal was taken up for disposal.2. The case for the Revenue was argued by Shri A.Chopra. Shri Mayur Shroff, advocate appeared for the respondents.3. The facts of this case are unusual. The vehicle carrying excisable goods was intercepted. The driver possessed challans from two units viz. M/s.Cadillac Textiles and M/s. Apsara Twisters. The driver, however claimed that the goods had been loaded at the premises of M/s.Goyal Industries Ltd. the respondents in this case. These goods were seized. At the request of M/s. Goyal Industries Ltd. the Addl.Commissioner allowed provisional release of the goods on execution of B.11 bond. The terms on which the release was permitted were not acceptable to M/s. Goyal Industries Ltd. A request was made for release of the goods into the parties' custody.On 16.6.99, this request was rejected. Against this order, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner(Appeals). The Commissioner held that since the goods...

National Leather Cloth Mfg. Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 36,871-, demanded on the ground that the applicant could not take modvat credit of the duty paid on the plastic used by it to package the leather cloth on the ground that it was not required for manufacture of the leather cloth. The applicant's contention is that packaging is an input if its cost is included in the value of the finished product and this has been done.2. On earlier occasions, the Tribunal had asked for deposit of 50% of the duty paid. Accordingly we consider it appropriate to ask for deposit of Rs. 19000/- within a month from today. On compliance being reported on 22.5.2001, we waive deposit of the remaining amount and stay its recovery....

The Trustees, the B.N. Gamadia Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal filed by the assessee-trust is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XV(III), Bombay.2. The facts of the case in short are that the assessee is a trust established with the main intention of carrying on charitable activities. In the asst. yr. 1983-84, the assessee was allowed to accumulate an amount of Rs, 1,98,756 under Section 11(2) of the IT Act.In order to avail the benefit under Section 11 of the IT Act, assessee has to utilise accumulated amount for the specified purposes within 10 years from the date of accumulation.3. We are concerned with the asst. yr. 1993-94. The amount which was allowed to be accumulated in the asst. yr. 1983-84 was not utilised till the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1993-94. While completing assessment for the asst. yr/ 1993-94 the AO observed that the aforementioned unutilised amount is taxable under Section 11(3) of the Act as deemed income of the assessee. There is no grievance about the applicability of deeming provision Se...

Everest Agencies Vs. Ishrat Rafique Sharif

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2001Bom377; 2001(4)ALLMR387

A. B. Palkar, J.1. These 2 separate petitions have been filed on behalf of the petitioners Everest Agencies, and Anand Sarup Mehta claiming principally the relief of revocation of Probate granted to the Respondent in Petition No. 105/93. However, in Misc. Petition No. 65/2000 an alternative relief is claimed for directing the Respondent to remove Item Nos. 4 and 5 of the Schedule of estate of deceased to the Probate. Since the petitions are in respect of the same Probate, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this order. In Petition No. 105/93 Probate of the Will of deceased was granted to the Respondent. One Sayyed Mohd. Akhtar had filed a Caveat. This Court (Coram : I. G. Shah, J.) passed an order. The Court after examining the attesting witness to the Will and after considering his evidence accepted that the thumb impression on the Will was of the deceased and granted Probate and also disposed of the suit. Thereafter in Misc. Petition No. 92/93 the grant of Probate wa...

Gangwani and Co. Vs. Saraswati Wd/O Maniram Banewar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ACJ1295; 2001(3)ALLMR370; 2002(1)BomCR223; [2001(90)FLR1100]; (2001)IILLJ1022Bom

D.D. Sinha, J.1. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated September 28, 2000 passed in Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 66/1993, 3/1996 and 11/2000 made a reference to the larger Bench in view of conflicting judgments of the earlier Division Benches of this Court in the case of Smt. Rajiyabi Cosman Sayi and Anr. v. Mackinon Machinazie & Co. Pvt. Ltd., : AIR1970Bom278 and Dhondubai Murlidhar Reddi v. Proprietor Jankidas Khandsari Sugar Factory and others, 1991 M.LJ. 624. The question involved is -'Whether Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act is a Court and his order a judgment and order passed by the single Judge of the High Court under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent (Bombay)?'Since common question of law is involved, the reference is disposed of by common judgment.2. The contentions raised by Shri Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the appellant, in nutshell are that an order made by the learne...

In Re: Sections 263 and 284 of the Indian Succession Act, Xxxix of 192 ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR648

A.B. Palkar, J.1. These 2 separate petitions have been filed on behalf of the petitioners Everest Agencies and Anand Sarup Mehta claiming principally the relief of revocation of Probate granted to the respondent in Petition No. 105/93. However, in Misc. Petition No. 65/2000 an alternative relief is claimed for directing the respondent to remove Items Nos. 4 & 5 of the schedule of estate of deceased to the Probate. Since the petitions are in respect of the same Probate, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this order. In Petition No. 105/93 Probate of the Will of deceased was granted to the respondent. One Sayyed Mohd. Akhtar had filed a caveat. This Court (Coram : I.G. Shah, J.) passed an order. The Court after examining the attesting witness to the Will and after considering his evidence accepted that the thumb impression on the Will was of the deceased and granted Probate and also disposed of the suit. Thereafter in Misc. Petition No. 92/93 the grant of Probate was se...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Ganpatrao Mahadeo Karne

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1682; 2001CriLJ3192

ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. This is an application for cancellation of bail granted by the Special Judge, NDPS, Nagpur on 5-1-2000.2. Learned APP took me through the record of the Special Criminal Case No. 252 of 1999 and urged before me that the trial Court in spite of bar under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, the 'NDPS Act') has granted bail which is illegal and arbitrary and as such, the bail granted to the respondent is required to be cancelled. It was also pointed out that besides the case under consideration, the applicant is involved in three other serious crimes. It was also pointed out by him that neither before the lower Court nor in reply before this Court, the respondent had taken stand that the house in question does not belong to him and in such circumstances, the findings of the Special Judge on this aspect are totally unfounded and illegal. He, therefore, contends that the bail granted be cancelled.3. Learned Advocate for applicant...

The Trustees, the B.N. Gamadia Parsi Hunnarshala Vs. Assistant Directo ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)77TTJ(Mumbai)274

ORDERD. Manmohan, J.M.This appeal filed by the assessee-trust is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XVIII, Bombay.2. The facts of the case in short are that the assessee is a trust established with the main intention of carrying on charitable activities. In the assessment year 1983-84, the assessee was allowed to accumulate an amount of Rs. 1,98,756 under section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act. In order to avail the benefit under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, assessee has to utilise accumulated amount for the specified purposes within 10 years from the date of accumulation.3. We are concerned with the assessment year 1993-94. The amount which was allowed to be accumulated in the assessment year 1983-84 was not utilised till the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1993-94. While completing assessment for the assessment year 1993-94 the assessing officer observed that the aforementioned unutilised amount is taxable under section 11(3) of the Act as deemed...

Dr. M.P.S. Ramani Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT304Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides the appeal was admitted and was taken up for hearing.2. The appellant is a consulting Engineer. He delayed filing the returns relating to the Service Tax for four quarters from October 1997 to July 1998.The Deputy Commissioner taking a lenient view imposed penalties of Rs.500/- each for each quarter.The appellant filed an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted that the procedure was new and that there was some confusion.He also accepted that since the tax had been paid, there was no loss of revenue.he vacated the orders of penalty for first two quarters but retained penalties for the next two quarters.3. The appellant appeared in person.The arguments were the same.The appellant is a retired engineer and is motivated more by social service than by the Chimerical Consideration.he is also advanced in age.His expertise and his age require due consideration.I therefore allow the appeal, and set aside the remaining penalties also....