Mumbai Court December 2003 Judgments

Om Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. Acit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)88TTJ(Mum.)198

Bench : These are appeals relating to the A.Y. s 84-85 to 87-88. For the A.Y. 84-85, there is only one appeal, which is by the assessee. For all the other A.Y.s, the appeals are cross appeals. Since all the appeals involve certain common issues, and since they were also heard together, they are disposed of by a single order for the sake of convenience.The assessee is a private limited company, engaged in the construction and sale of flats. The relevant previous year is the year ending 30-6-1983.The first ground is directed against the decision of the CIT(A) in respect of the addition of Rs. 47,68,599, being alleged payment of 'on money' by the assessee for purchase of a property. The addition itself has been deleted by the CIT(A). The assessee's grievance is however directed against the observation of the CIT(A) that the addition may be considered in the assessment of O.P. Navani (individual). It is the assessee's contention that the profit or loss in respect of Om Niketan, Andheri ha...

Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and ors. Vs. Laxmikant Balkrishna Joshi and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)BomCR85; [2004(102)FLR805]; (2004)IIILLJ474Bom; 2004(1)MhLj619

ORDERD.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Bhangde, learned Counsel for the applicants, Shri Dastane, learned Counsel for the non-applicant No. 1, Shri Panpalia. learned Counsel for the non-applicant No. 3 Shri Mujumdar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for non-applicant No. 4 in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 329/2003 so also Shri Deshpande learned Counsel for non-applicant No. 1 in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 330/2003.2. The Division Bench of this Court consisting of R. K. Batta and J. P. Devadhar, JJ. vide common order dated 16-4-2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 137/1986, Anil Dattatraya Ade v. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal and three others and in Writ Petition No. 2387/1985, Laxmikant Balkrishna Joshi v. Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and five others referred the matter of the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting larger Bench. The Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 11-11-2002 was pleased to constitute a Full Bench of three Judges, which was presided over by the Hon'ble ...

i.V.P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(166)ELT313(Bom)

J.P, Devadhar, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the letter dated 6-9-1989 wherein the respondents had informed the petitioners that the money credit accumulated to the extent of Rs. 35,52,578.50 ps. as per the Notification No. 27/87, dated 1-3-1987 cannot be utilised by the petitioners in view of the fact that the said Notification No. 27/87 has been rescinded with effect from 25-8-1989. By the said letter, the petitioners were called upon to reverse the credit to the extent of Rs. 1,59/245/- taken during the period 25-8-1989 to 28-8-1989. The petitioners have also challenged the validity of Notification dated 25-8-1989.2. While admitting the petition and granting interim relief, this Court on 18-10-1989 stayed the operation of Notification dated 25-8-1989 and directed that pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, the petitioners will be entitled to utilise the credit already accrued to them up to 25-8-1989 as per Notification No. 27/87, dated 1-3-1987. In the said o...

Neela Exports P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(166)ELT440(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the licensing authorities levying penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs for illegally disposing of the goods imported by the petitioners under the advance licence granted to them. By the order-in-original dated 3-11-1987 the petitioners were debarred for seven years and penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs was levied upon the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had sold the imported goods in violation of the advance licence granted to them. Appeal filed by the petitioners against the said order was dismissed by the Appellate Committee on 26-6-1990. Challenging the said order, the present petition has been filed.2. While admitting the petition and granting interim relief on 31-1-1991, this Court directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 12.5 lakhs in this Court and to furnish a Bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 12.5 lakhs. The amount deposited by the petitioners was invested in a Nationalised Bank. As per the report furnished...

Rajesh Popatlal Thakkar Vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)MhLj366

J.G. Chitre, J. 1. The appellants are challenging the correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by Special Judge for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Greater Mumbai, in Special Case No. 296 of 1999, wherein the learned Judge had convicted the original accused Mohamed Shaffi @ Mamoo @ Shafi Mamoo, the appellant-original accused No. 2 Prakash Vasudev Raghuvanshi, appellant original accused No. 3 Smt. Dimple Prakash Raghuvanshi, appellant original accused No. 4 Rajesh Popatlal Thakkar @ Rajubhai @ Rajesh Kotak for offence under Section 8(c) punishable under sections22 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as N.D.P.S. Act for convenience) and sentenced each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, for each count and to pay fine of Rs. 1 lac for each count, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months for each count.2. The prosecution case, in brief...

Vasant Raghunathji Tembhare Vs. Jugalkishor Ramlal Pania and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2004)ACC845; 2004(2)ALLMR411

S.T. Kharche, J.1. Heard Mr. Malvi, learned Counsel, for the appellant, Mr. Bhoyar, Advocate for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Khanzode, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.2. The appellant/original claimant being aggrieved by the award dated 9.1.1992 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati, in Claim Petition No. 19 of 1989, has filed this appeal on the ground that the compensation granted is grossly inadequate and neither just nor reasonable.3. Brief facts are as under:The accident occurred on 22.4.1989 at about 2.30 p.m. at Gadgenagar Road, near Lahoti College, 2 kms, east from Police Station Shegaon, Naka Chowki. On that day the claimant was riding on his bike and wanted to reach his daughter to the examination hall, but at that time the auto rickshaw bearing No. MTV 7967 had come from the opposite direction and gave violent dash to the motor cycle as a result of which the claimant and his daughter were thrown on the road. They had sustained grievous injuries. They we...

Ashok Punjabrao Chincholkar and ors. Vs. Madhukar Nagorao Sambare and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2004)ACC312; 2004(3)ALLMR483; 2004(4)MhLj519

S.T. Kharche, J.1. Heard Mr. J.D. Malvi, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. V.P. Sathe, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. None for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, though served.2. In this appeal the award dated 8-11-1996 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (For short, the Act) in Claim Petition No. 443/1993 granting compensation of Rs. 1,40,000/- with interest @12% per annum from the date of petition till realisation is under challenge on the ground that the Tribunal has awarded inadequate and unreasonable compensation to the appellants-claimants.3. Brief facts are as under:The accident occurred on 20-10-1992 at Siraspeth west, Nagpur at about 5.00 p.m. On that day Laxmibai (deceased) went near the corporation public water tap to fetch drinking water. At that time the Fiat car owned by the respondent No. 1 was being driven by respondent No. 2 in rash and negligent manner and it had come and gave...

Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT328Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The learned Advocate pleads that there was an error in ascertaining the stock of nickel catalyst which accounts for a major portion of Rs. 1,57,000/-out of the total amount of Rs. 1,68,000/- demanded from the applicants. The panchnama does not disclose that an effort was made to ascertain the quantities of nickel catalyst present in each and every packing (drum). Nickel catalyst is an imported raw material and the entire quantity as per the books of records was physically present in the factory. Immediately after the initiation of case proceedings and drawal of panchnama on 34-2001, the applicants had sent detailed communication to the departmental authorities, indicating the stock position and claiming that there was no variation. The departmental authorities did not make any re-verification and this aspect is also not being countered in the orders of the lower authorities. Therefore, he strongly pleads that there is a case for total waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty as de...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bajaj Dhatu Udyog

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue is in appeal against the grant of credit on control panels and parts thereof and similar items like electrical motor wires and cables and parts of machinery used in fettling shop for making foundry sand moulds etc. and micro processor used in furnaces, ladle, sander cum grinder on the grounds that the decision relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of M/s. Nova Udyog Ltd. fails to appreciate that was not the final decision on the scope of coverage under Rule 57Q and reference applications have been filed and the coverage introduced by Notification dated 16.3.1995 would not be retrospective.2. In view of the decision in the case Ms. Jawahar Mills ( 2002-Taxindiaonline-33-Cestat-Del-LB ) especially para 41 thereof and the fact that this decision of Larger Bench in the case of M/s. Jawahar Mills has been upheld by the Supreme Court ( 2002-Taxindiaonline-101-SC-CX ) no merits are found in the Revenue's appeal. The same is therefore dismissed....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pepsico India Holdings Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT74Tri(Mum.)bai

2. This is the department's appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The brief facts are that the respondents M/s. Pepsico India Holdings Ltd. had, while preparing the mix of Pepsi for manufacture of the final product, "aerated water", noted that the mix so prepared was not up to the standard, and disposed of the same after intimation to the department. Thinking that the duty has to be paid on the quantity of inputs so wasted during the preparation of mix, they reversed the Modvat credit. However, subsequently they filed a refund claim for Rs. 83,443/- before the Divisional Deputy Commissioner. The refund was rejected on the ground that the disposal of the mix was not carried out in the presence of Central Excise officer. Since no duty was demanded by the department and the assessee had debited the amount on their own volition, this amount becomes a deposit and not duty.3. The Commissioner (Appeals), while reversing the order of the Deputy Commissioner,...