Mumbai Court May 2001 Judgments

Credit Rating Information Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)84ITD247(Mum.)

1. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 17th July, 1998, for asst. yr. 1992-93. The assessee is aggrieved against considering fees amounting to Rs. 1,66,67,685 as having accrued during the relevant previous year ending on 31st March, 1992.2. The assessee-company is engaged in the activity of assigning ratings to various debt instruments issued by various companies. For the year under consideration, a total income of Rs. 80,54,673 was returned. Vide assessment order dt. 21st Nov., 1994, it was assessed at Rs. 1,14,11,995 under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act). By the order of the CIT(A) dt. 10th Oct., 1995, the income was finally determined at Rs. 1,13,94,700. Subsequent to the passing of the order under Section 143(3), following note appearing in the notes forming part of the accounts in the Annual Report for accounting year 1991-92 was noticed : "There has been a change in the method of accounting for initial rating fees receive...

iCiCi Ltd. Vs. M.F.V. 'Shilpa' and Ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2002Bom371; 2002(2)ALLMR191; 2002(1)BomCR724; 2002(2)MhLj563

D.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff financial institution which claims to be a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act. According to the averments in the plaint, the business of the plaintiffs is to grant financial assistance by lending or granting loans or advances to industrial, commercial, professional or trading enterprises. According to the plaintiffs, it has advanced loan to the defendant No. 3 for the purchase of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 vessels and defendant Nos. 4 to 7 have entered into agreements guaranteeing the repayment of the loan. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are mortgaged with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have in paragraph 33 of their plaint stated that the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 vessels is on the basis of the mortgage of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 vessels and that the plaintiffs are entitled to proceed for recovery of their claim in admiralty jurisdiction of this Court....

Mallinath Ambanna Shedjale Vs. Purushottam Vasudeo Somshetty and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1324; (2001)3BOMLR712; 2002CriLJ506

A.S. Bagga, J.1. This revision has been filed by the original complainant - Mallinath Ambanna Shedjale, challenging the judgment and order dated 5.8.1993 of acquittal of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (original accused persons) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Solapur in Criminal Case No. 27/1990.2. Facts leading to filing of this revision by the original complainant against the order passed in a case filed by police, briefly stated, are as follows :The petitioner and original accused No.1 present respondent No. 1, entered into an agreement of partnership on 10.12.1987. The business of the firm was to undertake transport operations by truck. The truck was purchased for Rs.90,000/- and it was alleged that the original accused No. 1, the respondent No.1 herein, was to contribute about Rs.45,000/-. The partnership, however, could not continue and It was allegedly dissolved. The truck subsequently came to be sold. There arose civil dispute between the present petitioner and responde...

Vithal Yadav Mhase Vs. Amdar Balasaheb Thorat Nagari Sahakari Path San ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR323; 2002(4)BomCR408; (2001)4BOMLR180; 2001(3)MhLj650

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.3. The petitioner challenges the orders passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangamner on 31-1-2001 in the proceedings initiated by the respondents for recovery of loan amount. Undisputedly, the recovery was in pursuance of the certificate issued under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The said certificates were not issued in terms of the provisions of section 98A of the said Act though it was sought to be contended before the Civil Court that the said certificates were issued in terms of the said provisions of the law. Undisputedly, there was no ordereither by the Official Assignee under section 21A or by the Registrar under section 88 or by the Co-operative Court under section 95 or 98 or in appeal under section 105 or under section 154 of the said Act so as to classify the said certificates to be the certi...

M/S. Trident Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case appellant did not appear. It would appear that the Assistant Commissioner by the Order-in-Original has disallowed modvat credit of Rs. 54,031.60 and Rs. 1,36,040.40 under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. on the ground of interpretation of deemed credit order against which this order was passed on 23.9.97. The appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) after delay of 1 month and 17 days. It is a known fact that factory and the office of the appellants were closed by means of attachment from 13.11.97 and 16.12.97. More over the man who was looking after the excise work was sick during the months of October 1997 and November 1997. The reasons put forth by the appellant, I therefore set aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and remand the matter back to the same Commissioner (Appeals) for dealing with the appeal before him in accordance with law. COD as well as stay petition stand disposed of....

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Shree Arun Packaging Corporation

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The single point involved in all these three appeals from the Revenue is whether simultaneous availment can be made of the facility of full exemption as well as availment of modvat credit permissible in respect of different goods. This issue has been fully covered in the larger bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Franco Italian Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE, Mumbai-II 2000 (40) RLT 295 CEGAT wherein the Tribunal held that such availment was permissible....

Smt. Brij Madanlal Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT587Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the Order No.S/14-7-9/80-PINT SD/INT/143/80 AP dt. 16.7.81 whereunder Additional Collector of Customs (P) R & I Bombay confiscated jewellery valued at Rs.1,07,255/- foreign currency of various currencies and Indian currency of Rs.5,400/-. The Additional Collector found the appellant before me guilty to sections 111 (d), (i) and (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the absolutely confiscated. The Penal action against the appellant was kept in abeyance. It appears that penal action was made against her by Commissioner of Customs (P) Bombay in Order-in-Original No. S/14-7-9/80 PINT dt.2.2.84 and by an Order No. 535/96/WRB dt.24.1.96 allowed of the appellant holding as follows: "The admitted position is that there are no dutiable articles in the baggage and they were examined and released. Since they were personal jewellery meant for taking back in respect of which TRA facilities available, no malafide could be attributed." Shri Madhu Pa...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Fixwill Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is the case involved endorsed invoices and the availment of modvat credit thereon. The appellate authority on the basis of the judgment of M/s. Usha Associates reported in [1995 (78) ELT 281 (T)] and the interpretation of Notification No. 16/94 allowed the appeal of the assessee. The amount involved is less than Rs.50,000/- it may not recur. In view of the discretion under second proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. I dismiss this appeal after hearing the Ld. DR....

M/S Ballarpur Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT94Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal has been filed against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nagpur made in Order-in-Original No 25-27/2000 dated 30.3.2000 whereunder he has disallowed the Modvat credit amount of Rs. 1,28,61,279/-, and ordered the assessee appellant to pay an amount equivalent to the credit so disallowed, if the credit has been utilised, or not utilised credit thus disallowed in terms of Rule 57 (I)(iii) of the Central Excise Rules. By the impugned order, the learned Commissioner had ordered payment of interest at the appropriate rate on Rs 1,04,40,028/- in terms of Rules 57 (I)(5) of the Central Excise Rules and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,04,40,028/- under Rule 57 I(4) of the Central Excise Rules. He has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25.00 lakhs on the assessee in respect of cases covered by Show Cause Notices dated 1.10.1999 and 19.11.1999.2. The appellant is a company engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper boards and articles thereof falling under...

Commissioner of Customs Mumbai Vs. Sejpal and Others

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When this application for stay of operation of the order-in-appeal was heard it appeared that the issue being clear the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal.This was so done.2. The respondents were not present and asks for adjournment.Since the issuers are clear we proceed to decide the appeal.3. The respondents imported certain machinery and paid duty on clearance of the goods.Subsequently they realised that benefit of notification No. 11/97, entry at serial No.117 was available to them which they had not availed of.They filed a refund claim which was within time. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs rejected the claim.4. The first ground for rejection was that the benefit of the notification was not claimed dat the time of assessment and clearance.The second ground was that the utilisation certificate given by the Central Excise officers and produced by the importer was not satisfactory.Against this decision the importers filed an appeal.The Commissioner (Appeals) observ...