Mumbai Court January 2003 Judgments

Shri Govind Pawar Son of Gopal Pawar, Mechanic Helper Vs. State (Throu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)834; (2003)105BOMLR328

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard the Advocate for the accused and the Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The accused in this case is convicted by the Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao by his judgment dated 31st July, 2002 under Section 376(2)(f) of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine ofRs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for one year.3. The case of the prosecution in short was that on 2.1.2001 at about 9.30 hours, at Nawawada, Sacorda in the morning, the accused called Ms. Depali Naik, aged 7 years who was his neighbour to his house on the pretext of giving her 'khajem' i.e. some sweets and thereafter he had forcible sexual intercourse with her. F. I. R. was lodged by Pratiksha Naik, mother of Depali on the same day at about 13.15 hours. Depali and the accused were both sent for medical examination. Both of them were examined by Dr. Rodrigues. Thereafter investigation was done which included panchanama, seizure of clothes, preparation of sketch map ...

Sekhsaria Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant submitted in July 1993 to the Assistant Collector a list classifying in the tariff the product that it manufactured. It claimed benefit of the exemption contained in notification 31/88 to bulk drugs in respect of dihydrallazine sulphate. The Assistant Collector did not grant the exemption to this commodity writing on the classification list that it was not defined as a bulk drug in the Drugs (Control) Order, 1987. Except to this modification, he returned the classification approved by him. The appellant however continued to clear this commodity by paying duty at 5% ad valorem, applicable to the exemption that was available and not 15% which the rate applicable without the exemption. Notice was issued under Section 11A proposing recovery of the duty short paid and imposing penalty. The Assistant Collector, whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), confirmed the demand and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.Hence this appeal.2. The representative of the...

Maharashtra Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. Maharashtra Insecticides Ltd., the appellant, was engaged in the process of dilution of insecticides, which it purchased in the market.In March 1994, on the impression that this process amounted to manufacture, it sought for registration of its factory, and commenced paying duty on the diluted insecticides that it cleared, utilising for this purpose the modvat credit of the duties paid on the concentrated insecticides and other goods that it used as inputs. In May of 1994, it addressed a representation to the Assistant Commissioner, contending that the process that it undertook did not result in emergence of any goods which were different from any name, character or use from the concentrated insecticides which was the starting point and the process did not amount to manufacture and hence no duty was payable on the goods that it cleared. The Additional Commissioner's orders passed in November of that year accepted this contention, with the result that the appellant was no longer req...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Richardson and Cruddas (1972) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Richardson & Cruddas (1972) Ltd., the respondent to this appeal, manufactured various goods and filed classifying them in various headings of the Central Excise tariff. The notices issued to it proposed recovery of duty on goods that it cleared in June 1994 on the ground that the goods were correctly classifiable in headings of the tariff different from the ones claimed by the manufacturer. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice. The assessee appealed. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the classification list having been approved by the department on 31.3.1992 and that classification having been changed only after the issue of the notice, the judgment of the Supreme Court in UOI v. Madhumilan Syntex 1988 (35) ELT 349 would apply and therefore the demands prior to 24.2.1994, when the order of changing the classification applied, were not sustainable. He therefore confirmed the demands for the period covered by the notices dated 19.7.1994 and 27.10.19...

Krone Trading Co., Ravindra Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)LC4Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Krone Trading Co. was engaged in the manufacture of pillows and cushions in its premises at room No. 493, R.C. Barrack No. 42, Chembur Colony, Mumbai. The entire production of these products was sold to Kurlon Ltd., Bangalore. The goods manufactured by this appellant were sent to Sunitha Enterprises at Chembur who affixed on these goods labels bearing brand name of Kurlon Ltd. In barrack No. 42, two other units, United Polypillows and Madan Pushp Enterprises were also functioning; engaged in the manufacture of pillows and cushions from September, 1996. Anil Agarwal, the proprietor of United Polypillows, was the partner of Krone Trading Co. as was Ravindra Agarwal, a partner of Madan Pushp Enterprises. The notice issued to Krone Trading Co.proposed to deny the exemption contained a notification 1/93 for the goods cleared by ti from July, 1993 to November, 1996 on the ground that Sunitha Enterprises which affixed the labels of Kurlon Ltd. on the goods was its job worker and that by a...

Biochem Synergy Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT379Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The departmental representative seeks adjournment to produce the case records of the department that the Bench had asked for on the last occasion. However we find that these records are not necessary for disposal of the appeal and therefore, after having passed over the matter and thereafter hearing both sides, proceed to dispose of the appeal.2. The issue for consideration in this appeal is the value for assessment of the consignment of 2,500 kilograms of rifamycin imported by the appellant from Italy. The Customs House was of the view that the price declared of US $ 70.36 per kilogram was too low, as contemporaneous import from the same country by Lupin Chemicals was at the price of US $ 82.65 per kilogram. O.P. Goyal, Managing Director of the importer, in his statement, justified the price on the ground that it was a special price negotiated between the buyer and seller on the understanding that all future purchases of the commodity would be from the same supplier. The Assistant...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Govind Rubber (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)89ITD457(Mum.)

1. This appeal of the Department is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XIII, Mumbai dt. 2nd Jan., 1997, for the asst. yr. 1990-91. The grounds of appeal taken up by Department reads as follows : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,25,376 made to the value of closing stock on account of unutilized Modvat credit. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the amount of Rs. 1,65,325 withdrawn from revaluation reserve and credited to P&L a/c will not form part of the book profit." 3.0n the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that in view of provision of Section H5J(lA)(iii) book profits attributable to exports should be deducted from the book profits computed under Section 115J without going into the reasons given by the AO." 2. The assessee-company is manufacture...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shatrunjay Diamonds

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Bom)86; [2003]261ITR258(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. The Revenue has filed this tax appeal underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (I.T. Actfor short) against the order passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal (ITAT for short) dated 28thSeptember, 2000 stating therein that the followingsubstantial question of law arises out of the orderof the Tribunal:' Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Honorable ITATwas justified in law in deleting the additionof Rs.12,50,000/ made by the A.O. u/s.40A(2)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessment relevant for the purpose hereinis A.Y.1988-89.3. The assessee is engaged in the diamondbusiness and for that purpose it imports roughdiamonds and after cutting and polishing exports thesame.4. In the assessment year in question, theassessee had imported rough diamonds from M/s. ParasGems, New York, which is a substantially interestedconcern within the meaning of Section 40A(2)(b) ofthe I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer compared theprice of the rough diamo...

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Bom)34; [2003]261ITR501(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J.1. In this reference three applications are consolidated into one income-tax reference and, accordingly, we have answered the questions as per Reference Application No. 1561 of 1982 filed by the assessee and Reference Applications Nos. 1708 of 1982 and 1709 of 1982 filed by the Department.2. The main dispute falls under Reference Application No. 1709 of 1982 filed by the Department under which the following questions of law arise for determination.'I, Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 57,74,064 due by the assessee to Kaiser Jeep Corporation of America and written off by the lender constituted taxable income of the assessee ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee having obtained deduction of Rs. 27,29,585 by way of depreciation on the cost of machinery and toolings, was taxable under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act as the cost of the machinery/ toolings being forgone by Kaiser Jeep Corpora...

Manherlal C. Shah and anr. Vs. Hatimbhai Abbasbhai Saifee

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR602; III(2004)BC575

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. The plaintiff have filed this suit on the basis of document at Exhs. 'A' and 'B' both dated 9th December, 1999. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant is the drawer of these documents which the plaintiffs claim to be the bills of exchange. The drawee of these bills of exchange is one Mr. Mitesh S. Shah, when the bills of exchange were presented to the drawer he refused to accept. Therefore, the bills of exchange were dishonoured. The drawer was called upon to make the payment. Hence this suit is instituted.2. According to the defendant, the document at Exhs. 'A' and 'B' are the fabricated documents. However, it is pertinent to note that the defendant admits his signature on the documents at Exhs. 'A' and 'B'. There is no explanation to be found in the reply as to how the plaintiffs came into possession of the said bills of exchange signed by the defendant. The defendant has stated in paragraph 11 of his reply.'I say that the Plaintiffs have come across the paper...