Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Shri Narmada Khand Udyog Sahakari Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. in the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the goods under consideration are not capital goods.2. Rule 57Q as it stood at the relevant time form March 1997 onwards, specified items, with regard to the headings in the Central Excise Tariff which could be considered to be capital goods. It is the appellant's contention that the goods in question are components and spare parts of the machine and machinery specified in rule 57Q and therefore fall within the scope of entry 2 of the Table below Sub-rule (1) of Section 57Q for components, spares and accessories of goods specified in serial number 1 of the table.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) has declined to accept this submission on the ground that the goods are in the nature of iron and steel structures and therefore cannot be called capital goods or parts of machinery.4. Among the goods which are stated to the capital goods are tank, pipes and tube fittings. The contention that the tank would be machin...

Video Master Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)83ITD102(Mum.)

1. This appeal of the assessee has been directed against the order of the Jt. CIT, Spl. Range-21, Mumbai, dt. 29th March, 2000, for the block period 1st Jan., 1985, to 24th Aug., 1995. The various grounds of appeal taken up by the assessee are regarding the additions made by the AO of Rs. 1 crore and Rs. 83.5 lakhs, treating the same as undisclosed income of the assessee from share of profit from 'Humse Hai Muqabala' and 'Sabse Bada Khiladi' respectively.2. The assessee is a registered firm started in 1983. Its activities are obtaining the video rights from producers and manufacturing of video cassettes and sales thereof. This firm is also engaged in the purchase and sale of royalty including Overseas royalty. The assessee-firm is also engaged in the production and distribution of films.3. Search action under Section 132 of the IT Act was carried out in the cases of Time Video Group and as such, the assessee was also covered under search action on 24th Aug., 1995, and the last warrant...

Narayan Vittappa Kudva Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)MhLj290

S.A. Bobde, J. 1. The petitioner, who claims to be a tenant of premises forfeited under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, in short 'SAFEMA', has filed the present Petition challenging the order dated 15th January, 1998 passed by the respondent No. 2, the Competent Authority constituted under the SAFEMA directing the petitioner to handover the property in his possession to Competent Authority under the SAFEMA i.e. respondent No. 2 within ten days of the receipt of the Order. The order has been passed on the basis that it is illegally acquired property of one Gawde.2. The property in question is a building consisting of ground plus one floor admeasuring about 580 sq. ft. known as Ganesh Bhuvan situate on a Plot or piece of land admeasuring 64.1 sq. mtrs. City Survey No. 1103, Plot No. 38-B, Sub-Plot No. 19, T-95, Hira Buwa Gawde Marg, (Juhu Tara Road) Juhu Koliwada. Bombay -- 400049, hereinafter referred to as 'the property in question'.3...

Bombay Institution for Deaf and Mutes and anr. Vs. Department of Socia ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR1038; 2002(2)BomCR156; 2002(1)MhLj354

R.M. Lodha, J.1. The petitioners in this writ petition have principally prayed that the Government Resolutions dated 27-3-1991 (Exhibit A) and 23-3-1994 (Exhibit B) be declared ultra-vires, unconstitutional, null and void and in the alternative for a writ or mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to respondents forbearing them from applying the directions in the Government Resolutions dated 27-3-1991 and 23-3-1994 to the School run by the petitioners.2. Bombay Institutions for Deaf and Mutes is petitioner No. 1 before us which is a public trust registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Petitioner No. 2 is the trustee of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 institution is established by a religious minority, namely, Roman Catholic Community. The members of Petitioner No. 1 trust are all Roman Catholics. It is petitioners' case that petitioner No. 1 trust was created by an Indenture dated 19-12-1902. The Memorandum of Association of petitioner No. 1 provide...

N.Y. Gupte and anr. Vs. High Court of Judicature at Bombay and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR707

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerning the appointment to the post of Principal Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai. The petition seeks to challenge the High Court's order appointing a District Judge to that post by transfer. It is stated to be in breach of a provision of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948. It is contended amongst others that under the said statute the power to make this appointment is reserved only in the State Government and not available to the High Court. It is also contended that a District Judge cannot be appointed directly as the Principal Judge through the mode of transfer. The order is defended under the Bombay Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1956 framed under Article 234 read with Articles 309 of the Constitution. It is not in dispute that this is a selection post. Thus the question is whether the District Judges can come within the zone of consideration for this post through the mode of tra...

Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeals taken up for disposal, after waiving deposit, with the consent of both sides.2. Each of these appeals is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal before him for failure to deposit the entire duty.3. The common stay order of the Commissioner (Appeals) does not contain a word about the issues involves and the relative merits and demerits.If the Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the submissions in the stay application, as he claims, his order does not reveal them. The stay order therefore shows a complete absence of application of mind.It is very difficult to resist the conclusion that it is a stereo type order used in every appeal. I would like to draw the attention of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the observations I have made, with regard to such stay orders in Larsen & Tourbo v. CCE 2000 (119) ELT 631. It is surprising that such orders continue to be passed, and that the departmental authorities who are required to exercise superintenden...

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Best Brand Products Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT1281Tri(Mum.)bai

1. No time limit is specified in law to file an application for stay of operation of the order impugned in the appeal, the application seeking condonation of the delay in filing the stay application is dismissed as unnecessary.2. The application is for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in which he has allowed the appeal of the importer and set aside the order of the Joint Commissioner confiscating the goods that were imported with an option to redeem them on payment of fine, and imposing a penalty on the importer.3. No grounds are given in the stay application, except to say that the revenue would suffer.4. I do not prima facie find that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is perverse or that its operation is otherwise required to be stayed....

Jagat Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and Sanjiv Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeal taken up for disposal, after waiving deposit, with the consent of both sides.2. A visit by the officers to the premises of the appellant, and verification of the stock, there showed a shortage from the stock as indicated in the RG1 register 8 tons of ferro aluminium. The officers also found two gate passes, issued in September, 1995, for removal of a total quantity of 1500 kilograms of ferro molybdenum. Notice was issued to the appellant demanding duty on these goods and proposing penalty as well as penalty on Sanjiv Khandelwal, its director. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the duty and imposed penalty on both the assessee and Khandelwal.3. Both of them appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order disposing of these appeals, which is impugned before me. The Commissioner (Appeals) order disposed of appeals solely on the ground that "the appellant", presumably the manufacturer, debited the entire duty involved during the investigation and the director...

Suresh Synthetics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT423Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appeal taken up for disposal, after waiving deposit with the consent of the departmental representative.2. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the duty paid on an air conditioner, oven and ultrasonic cleaner that the appellant used in its factory. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal before him on the ground that these goods were not used for producing or processing any goods or for bring about any change in any of the substance for the manufacture of final product, and that therefore they were not capital goods within the meaning of Rule 57Q.Jawahar Mills Ltd v. CCE 1999 (108) ELT 47 the larger bench of the Tribunal has affirmed the view by other benches that goods which are not by themselves used to produce or process any goods or brings about any change in any of the substance for the manufacture of the final product, but are still required in the factory, in order to produce the final product, are ca...

H.S. Sanghvi P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The ground for adjournment, that the applicant is out of station, is not acceptable. I have read the stay application and heard the departmental representative.2. I do not find sufficient ground in the stay application to waive deposit of the penalty imposed on the applicant of Rs. 200/- and direct it to deposit the penalty within a month from the receipt of this order....