Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Mahesh N. Shah and Indian Roadways Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two application relate to two appeals filed against the common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. From the premises of M/s. Indian Roadways Corporation Ltd. the first applicant, certain goods came to the notice of the excise authorities.The documents relating to their transportation and custody were examined. On being satisfied as to the bonafides, certain parcels were released. In the case of remaining parcels, it was found that the documents in the possession of the transport company were either deficient or fictitious. Show cause notice was issued. Owner of the goods which were under detention and seizure did not come forward to claim the same. The Dy.Commissioner confiscated the goods valued at Rs. 5,38,950/- He also confiscated the truck in which the goods were carried but permitted its redemption on fine. He imposed penalty on M/s. Indian Roadways Corporation Ltd., on booking clerk Shri M.N.Shah and Shri N.M.Pandya, Branch Manager and also on Shri Paresh K.Bh...

B.K. Raghuram and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ241CAT

1. The lowest rung of Group 'A' of Indian Railway Senior Electrical Engineering Service is junior scale Rs. 2200-4000/-. Promotion to Group 'A' is made from amongst eligible Group 'B' officers belonging to Electrical Engineering Department, who have put in minimum of 3 years non-fortuitous service in the grade. The promotion is by way of selection.2. The two applicants were promoted to Group 'B' on 8.4.80 and 2.1.81 respectively. The respondents 3, 4 and 5 were promoted to Group 'B' on 17.10.84, 5.1.87 and 2.1.87 respectively. The applicant as well as the private respondents were considered for promotion and were recommended by the DPC which met in February, 1992 and were appointed to Group 'A' Junior scale by order dated 25.4.1992. The DPC prepared year-wise panels against 99 vacancies and recommended 94 officers for promotion.A notification dated 24.4.1992 was issued promoting them, which comprises of the applicant and the private respondents. Though the applicants are admittedly se...

Clifford Chance Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)82ITD106(Mum.)

1. Assessee is a firm of Solicitors. It is operating as a partnership firm in the United Kingdom and is tax resident in UK. Assessee was appointed as English Legal Advisors for the following three infrastructure projects in India : (1) Bhadiavati Power Station Project--It is a three-way joint venture for the construction of a power plant with three participants, viz. M/s Ispat Industries Ltd., a resident of India; M/s GEC Alathom Group, a non-resident and M/s Electricite de France, another non-resident. These three participants were the clients of the assessee-firm. (2) Vizag Power Project--It is a two-way joint venture for the construction of a power plant with two participants, viz. M/s National Power pcl and M/s Machen. Both the non-resident participants were its clients. (3) Rawa Oil and Gas Fields Project--The only client of the assessee was a company resident in Australia.2. Assessee did not file the return for the relevant year of assessment in the normal course. On 5th May, 19...

Motilal Hathibhai (Huf) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)82ITD167(Mum.)

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT, BC-IX, Mumbai, passed under Section 263 of the IT Act. "1. The learned CIT, Bombay City DC has erred in law and on the facts of the case in calculating deduction under Section 48(2) on the capital gams only after deducting exemption under Section 54E. 2. Your appellant most respectfully submits that on the facts of the case and as per the law deduction under Sections 48(2) and 54E are to be computed independently of each other with reference to the same amount of capital gams and therefore prays that the order under Section 263 of the learned CIT, Bombay City IX be set aside and that the order of the learned Asstt. CIT, Circle 27(2) be restored." 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee sold a plot of land for Rs. 1,80,00,000. After claiming deduction under Sections 54E and 48(2), the assessee computed the net taxable capital gains at "nil". The AO accepted the assessee's worKing and completed the assessment un...

Nimba Yadav Bhoi Vs. President, Standing Committee, Zilla Parishad, Ja ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)MhLj466

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the record.2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 20th July, 2000, passed by the respondent No. 1, in exercise of powers under Section 39(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), and the order dated 28th August 2000, passed by the respondent No. 6 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order of the respondent No. 1 was dismissed.3. Few facts relevant for the decision are that:(a) The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Village Thorgawhan (Taluka : Yawal, District : Jalgaon), on 24th August 1998. A dispute sought to be raised by the respondent No. 3, as regards, the election of the petitioner to the office of Sarpanch which was dismissed by the Additional Collector, Jalgaon, by order dated 29th December, 1998. A no confidence motion was then moved by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 against the petitioner. But the same was rejected in t...

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and ors. Vs. Ishwar Naidu and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR303

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. This group of eight contempt appeals, is directed against the common judgment and order dated January 8, 1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in eight contempt petitions, holding the appellants guilty of civil contempt under section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, for disobeying the order passed by this Court dated 7th September, 1997. The appellant Nos. 2 to 5 in all these appeals are directed to undergo simple imprisonment of one month and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and their sentence in all the appeals is to run concurrently. The appellant No. 1 Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay being a Corporate body is ordered to pay only fine of Rs. 2,000/- in each of the contempt petition.2. The facts giving rise to the instant appeals are identical. For the sake of convenience and for better appreciation the facts in the Contempt Appeal No. 8 of 1997, in brief are adverted to: The respondent was in use and occupation of the structure bearing Gala No. 5 admeasuring 4.70 ...

Galaxy Entertainment (India) Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The stay applications have been listed out of turn, on being mentioned by the applicant that the demand for the penalties and redemption was being enforced by the department.2. In addition to the duty demand of Rs. 82.83 lakhs demanded from Galaxy Entertainment (India) Pvt. Ltd. nearly Rs. 9.27 lakhs has been deposited. We therefore waive deposit of the penalty imposed on it of Rs. 10.00 lakhs, fine of Rs. 50.00 lakhs for redemption of the goods which have been provisionally released, and penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakhs each imposed on its director Atul Ruia and Tuhin Parikh. In coming to this conclusion, we have also taken note of the submissions that prima facie the valuation of the bowling ally which has been imported by Galaxy Entertainment (India) Pvt. Ltd. is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CCE 2000 (122 ELT 321, although we note the objection that the departmental representative raises that Rule 10(A) of the Valuation Rules was not considered i...

United Phosphorous Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Total duty demand of Rs.68,40,152.45 has been confirmed on M/s.United Phosphorus Ltd. for the period 1994-1995 to 1996-1997 upto 24.9.97. Out of this duty amount a sum of Rs.46.41 lakhs approximately has been confirmed on the ground that the goods sold from the Depots at a price higher than the price declared by the appellants in their price declaration. A demand of Rs. 16.97 lakhs approximately has been confirmed on the difference in transportation charges claimed as deduction and actual cost of transportation incurred by the appellants and a sum of Rs.5.60 lakhs has been confirmed on the amount of disallowing deduction on account of transportation charges claimed by the assessees. In addition to the duty demand penalty amount equal to duty has been imposed upon the assessees under the provisions of Rules 173Q(1) read with Section 11AC of the Act, and the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed on the applicant No.2 who is General Manager of applicant No.1.2. On hearing both side...

Trent Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT362Tri(Mum.)bai

2. In this matter, the appellants used to manufacture cosmetics, which were packed in plastic bottles. In order to manufacture plastic bottles, the appellants purchased plastic granules and cleared the same after following the procedure prescribed under Rule 57F (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the manufacture of bottles. In the year May 1988 to August 1991, eight Show Cause Notices were issued demanding reversal of Modvat credit totalling an amount of Rs. 75,99,600.53 on the ground that Modvat credit in respect of the duty paid on plastic granules was not available. In respect of the Show Cause Notices dated 26.8.1988, 7.12.1988 and 27.3.1989, three Orders-in-Original were passed by the Assistant Commissioner confirming the demands aggregating to the tune of Rs. 20,07,622.75. The same were upset by the Tribunal by its judgment dated 24.4.1993, following the judgment of the Madras High Court in Ponds (India) Ltd. v. CCE 1993 (63) ELT 3. The appellants, on 3.9.1993, in pursuan...

Shailesh B. Jogani, Lalit B. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded below we waive predeposit of duty of Rs. 18,46,892/- confirmed against M/s. Jogain Tyres (India) and penalties of Rs. 3.5 lakhs on this appellant, and penalty of Rs. 1.5 lakhs each imposed upon the other three appellants, and proceed to dispose of the appeals themselves with the consent of both sides as issue lies in a very narrow compass.2. The adjudicating authority was confirmed the duty demand on the ground that the appellants deliberately and willfully misdeclared the value of tyres imported by them and resorted to under valuation with the sole intention of evading duty. Penalty has been imposed on the ground of their involvement in the offence of under valuation. It is the contention of the Ld. Counsel of the appellants that after receipt of the show cause notice in May, 2000, they filed their Vakalat on 19.5.2000, they were directed under cover of letter dt. 9.11.2000 to file the detail reply within 10 days, they filed reply to the show cause notice on 1...