Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Evergreen Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT907Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is filed against an appeal of the Commissioner demanding duty and imposing penalty under provisions of both Central Excise Act, 1944 and Customs Act, 1962. In the light of such an order, we deem the appeal sufficient.2. Out of the customs duty demanded of Rs. 34.19 lakhs, Rs. 31.60 lakhs has been paid. Prima facie in the absence of any written notice, which appears at this stage to be necessary under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the legality of demand for Central Excise duty is doubtful.3. Having regard to the issue involved, we waive deposit of the remaining customs duty and excise duty and list the appeal for hearing on 25.10.2001....

Nandan Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the legality of the addition of the department to the value declared by the job worker on the goods that it manufacturers 10% as profit.2. In an earlier appeal filed by the same appellant, (appeal E/1031/95), the Tribunal had accepted its contention, supported by the certificate of a chartered accountant that the price that it declared included its profit and set aside the order appealed to it seeking to add 10%.3. Following the ratio of that decision, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order....

Ghadge Patil Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides on the modification application, we are satisfied that the applicant had made net loss of Rs. 3.87 crores for 1999-2000 and that there has been further loss of Rs. 5.84 crores in the period from 1^st April 2000 to 30^th June 2001. Accordingly, we waive deposit of the duty demanded and penalty imposed and stay their recovery.2. On the ground that the issue is recurring, we list the appeal for hearing on 12^th October, 2001....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Vasu Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner(Appeals) has held that the Trichup oil manufactured by the applicant is classifiable as a perfumed hair oil under 3305.10 of the Tariff overruling the classification under sub-heading 99 (others) of that heading.2. The application filed by the department for stay of this order is on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order is bad in law and the matter is sub judice, being a subject matter of a writ petition before the Gujarat High Court. This is obviously an untenable claim. If this order is sub judice, so is the order of the Asst. Commissioner confirming the classification. That order has been issued. The order has been field in pursuance of an interim order of the High Court filed in a writ petition.3. Nor is it possible to hold at this stage that the Commissioner (Appeals)' order is in contravention of the earlier order of the Tribunal which has been challenged before the High Court, classifying the product. The Tri...

Wasudeo Ganesh Altekar Vs. Punjab National Bank and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)MhLj695

S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. The petitioner was an employee of Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is a trustee of Punjab National Bank Employees Provident Fund.2. The previous orders of various Benches of this Court, make it clear that though this petition was filed on 12th May, 1989, Rule was not issued as it had been decided to hear the petition finally. In any event, by consent of parties, we issue Rule and proceed forthwith to decide the matter.3. The petition challenges an order dated 21st March, 1988 imposing a penalty on the petitioner for recovery of an alleged pecuniary loss caused to Respondent No. 1 from his pay or such other amounts as may be due to him, an order dated 30th July, 1988 dismissing the Petitioner's Appeal from the said order dated 2lst March, 1988 and an order dated 19th April, 1989 dismissing the Review Petition filed by the petitioner and confirming the above punishment.4. Thirteen years ago the petitioner's request that an enquiry be held into the charges against h...

Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(139)ELT273(Bom)

ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The issue involved in this petition is covered by a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Pride Foramer v. Union of India : 2002(148)ELT19(Bom) The Division Bench has held that oil rigs proceeding to designated areas or operating therein are not foreign going vessels as such areas would be deemed to be part of Indian territory and, therefore, benefit of Sections 53 and 54 read with Sections 86 and 87 of the Customs Act would not be available. In the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench, it is not possible to entertain this petition. ...

Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur Vs. Ratnagiri Dist. Central Co-op ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2002]254ITR697(Bom); 2002(1)MhLj892

V.C. Daga, J.1. The common issue raised in the present cases by the Revenue centers around the question as to whether the interest accrued on the investment made in Indira Vikas Patra ('IVP' for short) is an income arising out of banking business eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short).2. The parties are different but the issue involved is identical and so a single judgment will dispose of all the appeals including one reference.THE FACTS3. We need not trace the history of the litigation from deck to deck but may conclude the chronology for the present purpose by stating that the respondents (hereinafter referred to 'assessees') are co-operative societies, engaged in the banking business. The said assesseess, in the relevant assessment years, mentioned in the respective impugned orders, claimed deductions under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, on the income earned by way of interest on Government securities. The assessing offi...

Subhash Vs. Kiran and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002ACJ2101

B.B. Vagyani, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. R.R. Mantri for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Y.P. Pawar, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, learned advocate Mr. V.N. Upadhye, for respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 7 and learned advocate Mr. D.V. Soman, for respondent No. 6.2. Petitioner is owner of the jeep No. MH 20-A 1293 which is duly registered as taxicab to carry passengers. The said vehicle was admittedly insured with respondent No. 6, i.e., United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Aurangabad, including the risk of life or bodily injury to its passengers and the driver. The insurance policy was valid up to 11.1.1994. The petitioner had employed duly licensed driver to ply the taxi as per the permit.3. On 18.6.1993, the taxi was proceeding towards Sillod on Aurangabad-Jalgaon Road. A truck bearing No. MWP 1885 dashed against the taxi near Ganori Phata. At the relevant time, Budhan Khan was driving the truck which was owned by respondent No. 5. The truck was insured with respondent No. 7. On account ...

Cit Vs. Ratnagiri Distt. Central Co-op. Bank Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001]120TAXMAN77(Bom)

Daga, J.The common issue raised in the present cases by the revenue centres around the question as to whether the interest accrued on the investment made in Indira Vikas Patra (IVP) is an income arising out of banking business eligible for exemption under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The parties are different but the issue involved is identical and so a single judgment will dispose of all the appeals including one reference.The facts3. We need not trace the history of the litigation from deck to deck but may conclude the chronology for the present purpose by stating that the respondents (assessees) are co-operative societies engaged in the banking business. The said assessees, in the relevant assessment years, mentioned in the respective impugned orders, claimed deductions under section 80P(2)(a)(i), on the income earned by way of interest on the government securities. The assessing officer, in all the respective cases, held t...

Rajendra Raghunath Girme Vs. Pramila Dattu Surse and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002ACJ919; 2002(2)ALLMR299; 2002(3)BomCR305; (2002)1BOMLR510; 2002(1)MhLj179

1. Heard.2. This First appeal filed by owner of the vehicle (original opponent No. 1 in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 53 of 1987) is directed against the order dated 9-2-1990 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar.3. In brief, the facts giving rise to this first appeal are as under : The accident occurred on 20-8-1986 at about 8.30 p.m. on Kopargaon-Lasalgaon road within the Local limits of village Sawali Vihir near Jamdade Vasti. The injured minor girl Miss Pramila was, at the relevant time, in the bullock cart which was driven by Shankar Karbhari. The tractor owned by the appellant came from behind. At the material time, the respondent No. 2 (original opponent No. 2) was driving the tractor. The driver of the tractor drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. He drove the vehicle in high speed. Because of rash and negligent driving, the tractor gave dash to the bullock cart from behind. Because of sudden impact, minor girl Pramila, aged 12 years,...