Mumbai Court November 2003 Judgments

Vijaynagar Co-op Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Mumbai)809

ORDERMukul Shrawat, J.M.:The above referred appeals have been filed by the assessee arising out of a consolidated order of Commissioner (Appeals)-XX, Mumbai, dated 25-2-2003, relevant for the assessment years 1997-98 to 1999-2000, the years under appeal. Ground of appeal being argumentative and illustrative hence concussed for all the years separately. The grounds being identical and the issue raised is common, therefore, decided by this common order.2. For all the three years ground No. I reads as follows :'The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act in view of the retrospective application of the provisions of section 14A of the Income Tax Act.'3. As per the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 for the years under consideration it was noticed by the assessing officer that some taxable income has escaped assessment. Accordingly, assessments w...

Videocon International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. At the hearing on 13.10.2003, counsel for the applicant stated that the notice to show cause and the order of the Commissioner adjudicating upon it which was impugned in this appeal, were not received by it prior to 27.9.2003. It was only after issue of a notice from the department in July 2003 proposing to recover the duty and penalty confirmed in the Commissioner's order that the applicant became aware that the order had been passed. It thereupon wrote to the department on 11.8.2003 asking for a copy of the letter which was communicated on 25.9.2003. The appeal has been filed on 8.10.2003. There is therefore no delay. The application for condonation of delay has been filed only as a measure of abundant caution. He was asked to file an affidavit of the applicant confirming the non-receipt of the order initially. The departmental representative was also asked to verify service from his records. The affidavit has been filed. The Joint Chief representative of the department tells us ...

Alang Ship Breakers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT271Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal arose out of the order of the Commissioner(Appeals) No.107/2000(4-CCP) Cus./Commr.(A)/Ahd. dated 8.2.2000. The issue is in regard to assessment of stores on board the vessel, fuel oil contained in the vessels machinery and engines and levy of SAD(spccial additional duty). It is the contention of the appellant that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not interfered with the assessment of ship stores and fuel oil (bunkers) as no evidence is produced before him as to where the fuel oil was stored when the ship was brought for breaking up. The CBEC in its circular No. 37/96 Cus. dated 3.7.96 directed that fuel oil contained in the vessel's machinery and engines can be regarded as forming integral part of the vessel and hence be classified under heading 89.08 and the remaining fuel and oil and other ship stores including drinks and food stuff be classified under their appropriate headings. Before the Commissioner (A), the appellants pleaded that the fuel oil in the engine and ves...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Essar Projects Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT537Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Essar Projects Ltd. imported an engine to be fitted on to its dumb barge. Examination of the engine showed it to have been subjected to use before importation; the examining officers certified that the goods had a residual life of longer than five years. The notice issued to the importer proposed confiscation of the engine under Clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act on the ground that these goods were not capital goods as claimed by the appellant but parts of a barge and hence required a licence. It also invoked Clause (m) of Section 111 of the Act on the ground that the description of the goods were misdeclared.Adjudicating on the notice, the Commissioner accepting the contention of the assessee that the engine was capital goods held that no licence was required for the import. This appeal is against that order.2. The sole ground in the appeal questions the Commissioner's conclusion that the goods were not misdeclared. The order of the Commissioner holding that the charge of misdec...

Manikgarh Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT331Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The common question for consideration in these appeals is the eligibility to credit under Rule 57Q of the duty paid on various goods by the appellant.2. Having heard the counsel for the appellant and the departmental representative, we proceed to give our findings on each items as below.3. Ropeway and parts thereof. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of cement and transported lime Stones from its quarries to various places. Credit has been denied on the ground that part of the ropeway was situated outside the factory. The reliance by the counsel for the appellant upon the Tribunal in J.K. Udaipur Udyog v. CC 2002 (147) 996 is well placed. In that decision, the Tribunal has held that a ropeway relating to cement -manufacture was capital goods because the extension of the ropeway outside the factory proceeded from the factory.4. Blow bars and other equipments used in the quarry. Applying the ratio of the decision of the larger bench in Madras Cement v. CCE 2003 (56) RLT 978...

M.A. Shaikh Aboobakar Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT535Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of specific information received from the officers of Narcotic Cell, Customs (Preventive) Commissionerate, Mumbai, detained two containers, which arrived from Dubai and Singapore and were detained to M/s. Royal Sales Corporation, Nagdevi, Mumbai. The containers were broken and found to contain Tetracycline, Ball Bearings and Alluminium Scrap. The officers obtained the telephone number from the employees of the Shipping Agents of the vessels on which the containers arrived and the number was found to be installed at premises in Andheri (East) Mumbai occupied by one Shri Mahesh Desai. Investigation further revealed that M/s. Royal Sales Corporation had account with Union Bank of India and that corporation was owned by Shri Satish Ratilal Rawal Statement of Mahesh Desai was recorded on 6.3.1997 and 7.3.1997 in which he implicated one Paresh and stated that Paresh was working for one Mr. Mohammed Ali @ M.D.. The premises of M/s. Citizen...

Lloyds Metal Engineering Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 55,35,976/- representing modvat credit wrongly availed on H.R.Steel coils on the strength of Central Excise invoices issued by M/s. Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. Wardha during the period 12.3.97 to 26.3.97 without physical/actual receipts of the consignments covered under such invoices and has imposed a penalty of equal amount on the assessee company, alongwith penalty of Rs. 5,50,000/- on Shri Pankaj Desai, the Joint General Manager of the company. The finding is based upon the following:- (i) The non accountal for the receipt of the 98 consignments of H.R. coils in question in their regular security/stocks registers but only in separate registers viz. Register No.7. (ii) Out of the number of vehicles stated to have transported the consignments from their Murbad unit to Dombivli, 13 vehicles were tankers, 3 vehicles were four wheeled L.MVs having Rear Laden weight capacity of less t...

Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division and ors. Vs. Maroti S/O Janba ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004(101)FLR1133]; 2004(2)MhLj519

S.A. Bobde, J.1. Heard Smt. Dangre, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioners and Shri Gosavi, the learned counsel for the respondent.2. The petitioners who are officers of the Irrigation Department have by this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India challenge the order dated 29-12-1990 by which the learned Labour Court Bhandara has set aside the termination of the respondent dated 1-7-1986 and granted him reinstatement on payment of 15% of back wages. Before the Labour Court, the respondent was engaged by the petitioners in the Irrigation Department from 2-2-1980 to 31-12-1985. He was terminated with effect from 1-7-1986. For sometime the respondent was engaged on regular muster roll of the department and for some time under the E.G.S. Having been terminated without compliance by Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 i.e. without having been given a notice and retrenchment compensation as contemplated by that section, and in contrav...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramnarayan Lataprasad Namdeo

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)106BOMLR199

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard Mrs. Pai, learned A.P.P., for the Applicant-State of Maharashtra: Mr. Shirish Gupte, learned Additional Solicitor General, for the Central Industrial Security Force (C.I.S.F.) and Mr. Memon, for the Respondent.Rule. Taken up for final hearing forthwith.2. This is an application preferred by the State of Maharashtra for invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Sections 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so as to quash and set aside the order dated 6.10.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge releasing the accused - Respondent on regular bail; and also under Section 439(2) of the Cr. P.C. for cancellation of the said bail order passed in Bail Application No. 1052 of 2003.3. The accused was on duty on 24.5.2003 at Security Hold No. 19 of the Sahar International Airport (Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport) as a C.I.S.F. Constable without arm, on the mezzanine floor, while another Constable by name, Ganpat Govind Kagilkar wa...

Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT326Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The officers of the department visited on 4.3.1995 the texturing division of Garden Silk Mills at Bareli, Surat. The unit is engaged in the manufacture of textured yarn, out of untextured polyester yarn. The verification of the textured yarn in its finished and unfinished state by the officer led them to conclude that there was a quantity of 9909.072 kgs. of textured yam which was in excess of the quantity entered in the RG1 register. The officers compared the total stock of finished textured yarn and that being processed on the machines with the stock of polyester yarn issued from 1.4.1994 till date and concluded that a quantity of 27757.750 kgs. was in excess of what should have been available as the finished product, taking into account the total quantity of material issued and the finished yarn already cleared. Both these items were seized. After investigation, notice was issued to the appellant proposing confiscation under Rule 173Q(1) of both the quantities of yarn and imposi...