Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Piramal Spinning and Weaving Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT322Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Piramal Spinning & Weaving Mills, the respondent to this appeal, manufactured filament or staple fibre. It sent these fabrics for processing to processing house. After receipt of the processed fabrics, it cut them into lengths as desired by the buyers, folded them and stamp the price and other particulars relating to the fabrics. While doing so, it took credit of the duty paid by the processor on these goods and utilised this credit towards the duty that it paid on the stamped folded and packed fabrics that it cleared. The respondent's declaration under Rule 57G expressing its intention to take credit of the duty paid on the processed fabrics was sent by it to the Assistant Commissioner.The Assistant Commissioner replied advising the respondent that it was not entitled to take credit as the processes to which it subjected the fabrics were not manufacture as defined by law. The respondent however did not accept this clarification and wrote to the Chief Commissioner of Excise, se...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Garware Shipping Corpn. Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)81ITD207(Mum.)

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A) in the case of assessee for asst. yr. 1994-95. The following ground of appeal has been raised. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that deduction under Section 33AC of the IT Act, 1961, has to be allowed to the assessee before considering the unabsorbed investment allowance without appreciating that the provisions of Section 33AC clearly provides for that deduction under Section 33AC is to be allowed from total income computed before any deduction under Section 33AC and Chapter VI-A which means that brought forward investment allowance has to be adjusted prior to deduction under Section 33AC." 2. The issue regarding the claim of the assessee under Section 33AC was restored to the file of AO by GIT(A) vide his order dt. 22nd Dec., 1997. In the order passed under Section 250, the AO while considering the claim under Section 33AC first granted the set o...

Ram Agarwal Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)81ITD163(Mum.)

1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A), dt. 15th Feb., 2001, for asst. yr. 1995-96. The following grounds of appeal have been raised: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction under Section 54F of the IT Act claimed by the appellant. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in holding that commission earned by the appellant was not "business income" and instead assessing the same as "income from other sources". 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in consequently holding that since commission income was not business income, the due date for filing the return was 30th June, 1995. The appellant submitted that change of head of income would not tantamount to change in due date of filing of return. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in taw in not disposing the ground No. 3 raised before CIT(A) that the appellant had deposited Rs. 60,00,000 with Punjab Nationa...

Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2002Bom251; (2002)3BOMLR109; 2002(2)MhLj486

R.M. Lodha, J.1. This batch of three writ petitions was heard together and is being disposed of by this common judgment as the issue involved is identical arising out of similar facts.2. In Writ Petition No. 669/1995 it is the petitioners case that they agreed to purchase from respondent No. 4 viz. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd. the premises situated in the building known as 'Bakhtavar' on plot No. 229, Block No. III, Backbay Reclamation, Nariman Point, Bombay on or about 17-1-1994. The facts relating to the title of respondent No. 4 in respect of the said property have been set out in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. As per the said facts, the respondent No. 1 viz. State of Maharashtra by their letter dated 17-5-1971 invited offers to lease land bearing plot No. 225 (later renumbered as plot No. 229) of Block Til of Backbay Reclamation Scheme inter alia from Bakhtawar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. - the builders. The builders made an offer on 22-5-1971 to take the said plot, on lease upo...

Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Mumbai Vs. Macqreqor-navire Port Equip ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)BomCR278; 2002(3)MhLj313

F.I. Rebello, J. 1. The petitioners in this petition have challenged the Award dated 26th February, 1999. By the said Award the learned Arbitrator held that the amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- deducted as liquidated damages by the petitioners herein shall be paid to the respondents in the hands of their Constituted Attorney; interest was to be paid at the rate of 12.5% p.a. by the petitioners on the aforesaid amount from 17th February, 1988 till 28th February, 1999 which is the date of the Award again in the hands of the Power of Attorney.The petitioners in the year 1985 had floated a tender for design, fabrication and erection of a floating link span. The respondents were the successful bidders. The petitioners by letter dated 16th October, 1985 accepted the respondents offer. There is further a letter dated 19th February, 1985 whereby the respondents offer in the sum of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- was accepted. The respondents failed to deliver the link span within the contractual period of delivery,...

Ashok Sureshchand Bal and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)1BOMLR483; 2002(1)MhLj211

1. The petitioners are being prosecuted for offence under section 18(a)(l) read with section 16(l)(a) punishable under section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter called the said Act) and the Rules thereunder on a complaint filed by Drugs Inspector, Wardha. An application for dismissal of complaint for want of jurisdiction and on other grounds was filed on 5-4-1994. The Magistrate vide order dated 28-6-1995, discharged the petitioners under section 245(2) of Criminal Procedure Code.2. This order was challenged by the State in revision before the Sessions Court, Wardha and the Sessions Judge, Wardha, vide order dated 18-5-1998 set aside the order dated 28-6-1995 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class and the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court with further direction to expedite the trial. This order is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. Learned Advocate for the petitioners took me through the facts of the case and has basically argu...

Tejbai Tejshi and ors. Vs. Gangubai Dinanath Ulvekar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR594; 2002(1)BomCR109; 2002(1)MhLj350

ORDER1. This appeal was heard on September 25, 2001 when Mr. Walawalkar, Advocate for the appellants requested for time to examine the plea raised by the respondent about the maintainability of the proceedings. Accordingly, this appeal was directed to be listed today-first on board, but it has not been notified. However, both the Counsel appeared and requested the Court to take up the matter since the papers were produced in Court. The matter was thus taken up for hearing by consent when the following order is passed.2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by Bombay City Civil Court, dated November 27, 1995 in Notice of Motion No. 2685 of 1991 in S.C. Suit No. 7318 of 1988.3. The said Notice of Motion was filed by the appellants 2 to 5 as third party essentially for recalling the ex-parte decree passed by the trial Court dated October 31, 1990. It is not disputed that the said ex-parte decree makes specific reference to the provisions of Order 8, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil...

Premchand Sales Through Its Partners Bhavesh Ratilal Bhayani and anr. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR597; 2002(1)BomCR112

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This appeal takes exception to the Order passed by the Civil Judge, S.D., Pune dated July 2, 1998 in Special Civil Suit No. 573 of 1998. By this order the trial Court has returned the plaint to the appellants-plaintiffs for presentation to the proper Court.2. Briefly stated, the parties hereto viz. the appellants and the respondents have entered into an agreement of distributorship some time in March 21, 1993 in respect of products of respondents i.e. Precoated Steels/Steel Strips manufactured by the Company in the State of Maharashtra except Greater Bombay and Thane. Under the said agreement, the appellants were undoubtedly appointed as Distributors. It is also relevant to point out that at the relevant time the registered office of the respondent company was at Bombay. It is in that context, Clause 11 of the said agreement provided for that only the competent courts at Bombay will have jurisdiction in respect of any dispute or differences arising out of or touch...

idi Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicants have filed the above appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who has held inter alia that, if the time and place of removal in the case of removal from the depot happens to be the time at which the goods are removed, then the value of the goods when it was removed from the depot should be the basis for assessment, and also filed stay application. The application seeks early hearing of the stay application on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner has indicated to them that in the absence of production of any stay order by 28^th September, 2001 no more opportunities of hearing whole be granted by him pursuant to the remand order of the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Since the application for stay already stands listed for hearing on 10^th October, 2001 we direct the department not to precipitate matters by taking any action for recovery against the applicants until the disposal of the stay application....

New Kishan Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT480Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides on the stay application, we find that the issue being short the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal.This was so done by granting waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 1,24,388/- and penalty of Rs.30,000/-.2. The appellant had availed of benefit of Notification 5/98-CE. The benefit was subject to the production of certificate to the effect that the installed capacity of the manufacturer of cement was not more than 300 tones per day or 99,000 tones per annum. The certifying authorities were listed in the notification. The assessee failed to produce the certificate. They had applied for such certificate to the concerned authorities. But the concerned authorities had taken no action. The assessee, however, had produced a Chartered Engineer's certificate to the effect that their installed capacity was 100 tones per day. The adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority held that the assessee had failed to comply with the conditions of the notification a...