Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Amin's Pathology Laboratory Vs. P.N. Prasad, Joint Commissioner of Inc ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR369; (2002)172CTR(Bom)696; [2001]252ITR673(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The above writ petition came for hearing on September 17, 2001. After hearing the arguments, the following order was passed :'For the reasons to be recorded separately in the oral judgment, the writ petition is rejected.'2. We now proceed to give reasons :Whether the Department is right in issuing notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1994-95 on the ground of underassessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income-tax Act for having reason to believe that the expenditure of Rs. 6,70,758 ought to have been disallowed as the said amount represented unpaid purchase 3. In order to answer the above question, the following facts may be noted:Facts :4. The petitioner is a partnership firm, It is assessed under the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the last 18 years. It is engaged in running a pathology laboratory. Since its inception, the petitioner has been following the accrual system of accounting for all items of expenditure and i...

Narayan R. Bhosekar Vs. Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR1034; 2002(3)BomCR340; [2002(94)FLR55]; 2002(1)MhLj576

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, Narayan Bhosekar, being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, dated 9-11-1993, passed by the first respondent, praying that it be declared that the impugned order, dismissing him from service of the first respondent, is illegal, arbitrary, null and void and that he be re-instated forthwith in service of the first respondent on the post of Deputy Engineer with full back wages and other consequential benefits. 2. Pew facts, which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this writ petition, can be briefly stated as follows : The petitioner was in service of the second respondent as a Deputy Engineer in the Erection South Division. He was charge-sheeted on 5-11-1992 under the Service Regulations, framed by the Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking. The charges can be reproduced as below : (i) Fraud, dishonesty in connection with the business or property of the Undertaking. (ii) Taking or giving bribes or other illegal gratificat...

Dr. Amins Pathology Laboratory Vs. P.N. Prasad, Joint Cit and ors. (No ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001]252ITR683(Bom)

S. H. Kapadia, J.By notice dated 14-3-2001, the petitioner-assessee was informed about reopening of its assessment for the assessment year 1994-95. That notice was challenged vide Writ Petition No. 955 of 2001. In that matter, the notice under section 148 was issued after an order of assessment came to be passed against the petitioner herein under section 143(3) of the Act. That writ petition came to be rejected by this court on 17-9-2001 (Dr. Amin's Pathology Laboratory v. P. N. Prasad, Joint CIT (No. 1) : [2001]252ITR673(Bom) ). Simultaneously, the department also issued notices dated 2-3-2001 and 14-3-2001, under section 148 of the Income Tax Act alleging escapement of income from assessment for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. The said notices are under challenge in the present two writ petitions. The only factual difference is that the impugned notices herein seek to set aside the intimation under section 143(1)(a) whereas, in the earlier Writ Petition No. 955 of 2001 the...

Fattuji Dajiba Gedam Vs. Superintendent of Police and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2003)ACC434

J.N. Patel, J.1. Heard Mr. Daga, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Dangre, learned A.P.P. for the respondents.2.The petitioner's son Suresh Fattuji Gedam, died in police lock-up of Police Station, Ramdaspeth, Akola on 30.9.1999. The petitioner was informed of this fact by one Vasantrao Naik who sent telegram on 30.9.1999 that Suresh died on 29.9.1999, and the petitioner should come immediately. The petitioner therefore along with his other son Dinesh went to Akola and came to know that postmortem of his son Suresh has already been performed and that an inquiry regarding the death of his son was in progress. Thereafter, the petitioner did not receive any information. So after about 8 to 10 months he went to Akola and contacted the Police Officer of Ramdaspeth Police Station, who informed that inquiry is still going on, therefore, in the circumstances the petitioner suspected that there is some foul play because of which his son Suresh died in the police custody, and took f...

Purvi Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT281Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides, it appeared that the issue being short, the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. This was done by granting waiver of predeposit as prayed for.2. The appellants were dealers registered under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules. They received certain goods under an invoice and took credit on the original copy of the invoice on 21.3.1995. On 22.5.95 they applied for permission to take such credit. They placed on record challans issued by the seller, copies of the transported documents etc.The Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner disallowed credit vide his order dt. 29.11.1995. This order was reversed by the appellate Commissioner remanding the matter back for re-adjudication specifically directing the Assistant Commissioner to follow the Tribunal judgment in the case of Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1996 (87) ELT 387 (Tribunal)]. The Assistant Commissioner distinguished the facts before him, did not follow the ratio of...

Kamlesh Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide Order No. C-I/471/WZB/2001 dt. 27.2.2001, the Tribunal in disposing of the stay application had directed the applicants to freeze modvat credit amounting to Rs.2.5 lakhs in the alternative to deposit that amount. Period given for compliance as long since been over. The applicants were repeatedly called for reporting compliance. On one occasion adjournment was sought. On subsequent occasions including today none was present. It is therefore held that the appellants have not complied with the directions made in the order dt. 27.2.2001. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944....

Prakash Textile (Gujarat) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Penalty of Rs. 7,500/- has been imposed upon the applicant herein for wrong availment of deemed credit which has been held to be inadmissible for the reason that the notification permitting availment of deemed credit clearly states that the notification will not be applicable when processed fabrics themselves are inputs for further processing while the assessee admittedly used processed fabrics from job worker for further processing.2. On hearing the learned DR and noting that the entire amount of duty involved (Rs. 76,381/-) stands paid in compliance with the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) I waive pre-deposit of penalty and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal....

Gujarat Plastic Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When this application seeking waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs.13, 714/- confirmed as duty and Rs.5000/- imposed as penalty was called out the applicants were not present, but requested for disposal on merits.The issue being small, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal after granting the prayer.2. Modvat credit was denied to the appellants on a number of grounds by the Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner granted benefit in certain cases but upheld the denial to the extent mentioned above. He observed that the M/s. IPCL Vadodara had issue involves No. 2087 dt. 21.3.95 to M/s. Jhalla Enterprise, Dashrath, Vadodara. The credit was taken by the present appellants on the basis of a invoice issued by M/s. Gujarat Pickers Industries. Thus there was no link between the buyers who purchased from the manufacturer and the seller from whom the present appellants purchased the goods.3. No link is provided by the appellants in their appeal memorandum also. Grievance is made that cert...

Tata Engineering and Locomotive Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant herein filed a claim for refund of Rs. 11,742/- for goods cleared by them and in order to examine merit of the claim they were asked to file documents showing that they had not passed on burden of duty to their customers. While their claim was held to be admissible on merits the amount was ordered to be transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund in the absence of documentary evidence to establish that the duty burden had not been passed on by the importers/appellant to their customers. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. Hence this appeal.2. Learned counsel submits that although bar of unjust enrichment is applicable in case of captive consumption like the present one the matter may be sent back for verification on the basis of the Chartered Accountant's certificate filed by them to the effect that the duty burden has not been passed on to their customers. Learned DR reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority particularl...

Nirma Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides on the stay application the appeal itself was taken up on observing that the issue stand settled.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed modvat credit on Electrical Cables & Copper Cables in the face of the Tribunal's order in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore [1999 (108) ELT 47 (Tribunal)] on the observation that an SLP had been filed against the said judgment. This judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court as reported in 2001 (132) ELT 3 (S.C.) [Commissioner of Central Excise v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. The appeal is accordingly allowed with resultant benefits....