Mumbai Court November 2003 Judgments

Shri Behram B. Dubash Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by assessee for AY 1989-90 is directed against the order of CIT (A), Mumbai dated 22-7-1993.2. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the records.3. The facts, in brief are that the assessee had shown earning of long term capital gain of Rs.1,05,600/- after deducting Rs.12,800/- the cost of purchase of shares form the shares' sale consideration of 1,18,400/- . However, the assessee had wo4ked our effective long term gain at nit by claiming relief u/s. 54F in respect of investment of Rs.1,18,400/- in the Capital Gains Accounts Scheme 1988. But while framing assessment u/s. 143(3) on 30.11.1990, the AO dismissed the assessee's claim for relief u/s. 54F for the reason that proof of above investment of 1,18,400/- under the above mentioned scheme, . (being in the form of Form "D" and bank statement ) was not filed alongwith the return of income, but was filed during assessment proceedings. It may also be noted that the assessee had not allowed the benefit;...

Oman International Bank Saog Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)92ITD76(Mum.)

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order dated 10th Duly 1995, passed in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the assessment year 1993-94.2. The short issue requiring our adjudication in this case is whether or not, for the purpose of application of proviso to, Section 36(1)(vii), credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts made under Clause viia will include provision for the relevant previous year held to be admissible under Section 36(1)(viia)(A) 3. The material facts are like this. The assessee is a foreign bank and carries on banking business at its branch at Mumbai in respect of which it is assessable to tax in India. During the relevant previous year, the assessee had written off Rs. 2,7998,005 as bad debts in its books of account, and, in accordance with the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia)(b), the assessee had also made provisions for bad debts amounting to Rs. 75,37,058 in addition to...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Omprakash

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004CriLJ982

K.J. Rohee, J.1. The State has preferred an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent/original accused for the offence punishable under Section 325 of I. P. C. by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal Appeal No. 20/1988 decided on 15-9-1990 whereunder the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Arvi in Criminal Case No. 47/198l decided on 6-5-1988 was set aside.2. The facts about which there is no dispute in this appeal are that the complainant namely PW-1 Motilal Dhulchand Rathi (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') is the Editor of 'Arvi Times' and the accused is the Editor of 'Yuwa Samuha'. There has been professional rivalry between the complainant and the respondent.3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 20-1-1981 the complainant had gone to Food Office situated in Tahsil Kacheri for obtaining sugar permit. The complainant was leaving the office on his bicycle around 6.15 p.m. At that time ...

Cce and C Vs. Maharashtra Oil Inds. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(114)LC1002Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Maharashtra Oil Inds. Ltd., the respondent to this appeal filed a claim for refund of cess paid under the Vegetable Oil Cess Act, 1982 on oil obtained by a specially to cake solvent expression. The basis of the claim was the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Bhasir Oil Mills v. UOI held that oil obtained by solvent extraction was not vegetable oil as defined in Section 3H of the National Oil Seeds and Vegetable Oil Cess Act, 1982. the Additional Commissioner allowed part of the claim dismissing the reminder as barred by limitation. The Commissioner filed an appeal against the order which has been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal.2. The grounds in the appeal are that the decision of the Tribunal in an unreported order dismissing an appeal urging the same contention by Coromandel Agro Products has been confirmed on appeal by the Supreme Court as reported in 1997 (93) ELT 874. It is not clear from the report in the publication whether this was a reasoned j...

Thawardas Wadhumal and Mr. Deepak Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Gen)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC551

1. This appeal has been filed against order No. 15/2002 dated 19/06/2002 issued by the Commissioner of Customs (General) whereby in exercise of powers conferred under Regulation 22 of the CHALR-1984, CHA No. 11/106 the appellant's proprietary firm herein has been prohibited from clearance of baggage at Mumbai Custom House, Jawahar Custom House, Air Cargo Complex, pending enquiry under Rule 23 of the CHALR-1984.2. The appeal No. 725 has been filed by M/s. Thawardas wadhumal (CHA No.11/106) proprietary' firm against order in Original No.CCP/ADJ/ACB/2001 dated 18/04/2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) by which the Commissioner found that the proprietor of M/s. Thawardas Wadhumal (CHA No. 11/106) viz.. Shri Jairam T. Asrani and his employee Shri Deepak Parekh, knowingly willfully and deliberately aided and abetted a passenger Shri Lingala Raja Reddy in as much as Shri Parekh prepared the baggage declaration form, Transfer of Residence form and check list of the goods a...

Prerna Cables Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT120Tri(Mum.)bai

1. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri S. Singhal, JDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue.2. The learned JDR contended that the issue involved in the present case is whether the appellants reversed the Modvat credit of Rs. 99,526/- and 89,478/- vide Debit Entry Nos. 1 & 2 both, dated 21-4-1997 in RG 23A Part II under protest, can on their own score-off the debit entries from the RG 23A Part II register : from the records, it is seen that appellants have informed the Range Supdt. vide their letter dated 21-4-1997 that the Modvat credit earlier availed by them was not in conformity with the Modvat Rules hence they have reversed the said credit under protest: thus, once having reversed the irregular Modvat credit under protest and having communicated to the Range Superintendent about such reversal, this being not a clerical mistake, it was not open to the appellants to score off the said reverse entries: the proper course would have been to file a refund claim; the reversal...

Gujarat Electromelt Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(112)LC662Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants are manufacturers of ingots and billets of non-alloy steel. They were liable to central excise duty at compounded rate. The rate depended upon the installed capacity of production. They had opted for such payment under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules. Under the impugned order the Central Excise authorities have demanded duty on the basis of capacity of machinery installed in the appellant's factory.2. The appellant has challenged the above demand on the ground that Diesel Generating (DG) set installed in the appellant's factory had broken down and was not functional leading to non-operation of one mill. Appellant claims that no duty should be demanded in respect of that mill during the period of non-production. It is the appellant's contention that production capacity means the effective production capacity and installed capacity means purposeful installation of machinery. During the hearing of the case, learned Advocate of the appellant emphasized that since th...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Tube Products Incorporate

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT108Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri S.V. Parelkar, JDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue. None was present on behalf of the respondents.2. After hearing the learned JDR and perusal of the records, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that the appellants have filed claim for restoration of credit which was reversed by them and which has become due on account of the order-in-original, dated 13-2-1998 passed by the Asstt. Commissioner holding that Modvat credit on grinding wheels was admissible to the appellants. He, however, stated that in the appellants' argument that it was incorrect on the part of the adjudicating authority to reject the claim as time barred.He further stated that the appellants had reversed the Modvat credit which has been allowed by the A.C. in adjudication proceedings. He, however, noted that the appellants are entitled to restore the said Modvat credit and the limitation for refund of duty prescribed under Section 11B is not applicable in their case.3. After hearing the learned ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sairaj Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT79Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri S.V. Parelkar, J.D.R. appeared on behalf of the revenue and none appeared on behalf of the respondents.2. The learned J.D.R. contended that from the TR-6 challan it is evident that the amount was paid as advance payment towards Central Excise duty liability: the time limit, therefore, has to be taken from the date of payment of duty in the TR6 challan and not the date of order as per the provisions of Section 11B; in the present case under Section 118(3), the duty amount was not paid under protest. He finally contended that the refund claim filed by the appellant, therefore, does not sustain as the same is filed beyond the time limit of 6 months and the same is barred by limitation.3. After hearing the learned D.R. and perusal of records, I find that the appellant's claim is hit by time bar....

Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Suraj Textiles

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT281Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) reducing the penalty imposed on the assessee of Rs. 1,29,768/- to Rs. 97,326/-and reducing the fine for redemption on goods ordered to be confiscated from the assessee from Rs. 1,30,000/- to Rs. 65,000/-.2. The ground in the appeal, that the Commissioner has not furnished any reason for reducing the fine for redemption and penalty. In the light of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s finding that he has reduced them having regard to the gravity of the offence. It is a well settled principle of law that fine for redemption of confiscated goods and penalty should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The Commissioner therefore has discretion for reducing the fine and penalty. The question is whether he has exercised his discretion properly. The value of the goods was ordered to be confiscated around Rs. 6.50 lakhs, the duty involved on them is around Rs. 1.30 lakh. The redemption fine and penalty ad judged by the Asstt....