Mumbai Court December 2003 Judgments

Abdul Razak Haji Ismail Vs. Director of Enforcement and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)BomCR184; [2005]123CompCas219(Bom); 2004(165)ELT495(Bom); 2004(2)MhLj152; [2004]51SCL337(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. The petitioner, in this petition, is seeking directions in the nature of writ of mandamus against the respondents 2 to 4 to direct them to return the seized currency amounting to Rs. 4,13,600/-, which according to him, came to be released under Order dated 29-1-1999 passed by the Appellate Bench of Central Excise and Gold Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (the CEGAT for short) with interest thereon @ 24% p.a. from 29-1-1999 till realisation thereof.The Facts:2. The facts, in nutshell, would reveal that search and seizure operation was conducted in the shop and residential premises of the petitioner on 18-9-1990. Foreign currency equivalent to Indian currency worth Rs. 44,447.50 along with Indian currency in the sum of Rs. 4,13,600/- was recovered and seized in the said search and seizure operation.3. A show cause notice dated 13-3-1991 was served upon the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why said currencies/amounts should not be confiscated. The said show cause ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anderson Marine and Sons Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Bom)118; [2004]266ITR694(Bom)

A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act 1961, is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench (SMC), dated March 13, 2003, in I. T. A. No. 214/Panj of 2001 (assessment year 1999-2000). By this appeal, the Revenue has posed the following substantial questions of law to be answered by this court arising out of the impugned decision :'(A) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no order under Section 143(1) of the Act, and that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to revise such an intimation ?(B) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in setting aside the impugned order under Section 263, on the ground that the intimation under Section 143(1) is not an order revisable under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act ?(C) Whether the findings of the Income-t...

Mr. Mohammed Furkhan Mohammed Bashir Joza Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)MhLj800

1. These two appeals are being herd and decided by this common judgment as they are filed by one and the same accused who happens to be the accused in Sessions Case No. 1995. for the appellant Shri Prakash Naik and Shri Arfan Sait have been heard. For the prosecution Shri K.V. Saste, Additional Public Prosecutor, has been heard. The appellant is assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 1499 of 1995 whereby he convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced him to under go RI for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default t suffer RI for one year.2. The prosecution case in brief is that prosecutrix Benzir, daughter of Abdulla Siddiki, was at the relevant time staying with her parents sister Rehmant at Gate No. 7, Plot No. 60, Malvani, Malad, Mumbai and was 18 years of age at the relevant time. She was not keeping well and...

Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. None is present for the appellants/applicants inspite of notice.Hence we beard the learned SDR and perused the records.2. After hearing the stay applications for some time we find that it was possible to decide the appeals themselves at this stage, and therefore after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty as detailed in the Annexure-I to this order, we proceed to dispose off the appeals themselves.3. The appellants herein are manufacturers of export goods falling under Chapter 28, 29, 31 and 32 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 and availing modvat facility under Rule 57A/57T of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for availing modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs as well as capital goods. Show cause notices were issued to the appellants proposing denial of modvat credit on the ground inter alia that credit was availed on defective invoices inasmuch as they did not contain pre-authentication, that the consignee was not the assessee, etc; and that some of the i...

Biddle Sawyer Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT119Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. Shri R.G. Sheth, learned Advocate, for the appellants states that credit has been denied on a small part of the raw material used for testing the quality which is required under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 before rest of the raw material is taken up for manufacture of medicine. He further states that without such testing for quality control it would not be possible to manufacture medicines for human consumption or to meet the legal requirement under the said Drugs Act. As such, it is his submission that use of a small part of the raw material for quality check is part of the overall manufacturing process. In this regard, he also cites decision of the Apex Court in the case of C.C.E. v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works -1991 (55) E.L.T.444 (S.C.).2. I have also heard Shri Bidhan Chandra, learned J.D.R. who supports the finding of the lower authorities that the raw material taken for testing is used up in the test process and the same is not used for production of f...

Globe Traders Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT92Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The order filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order of the lower authority.2. The facts are that the appellant sought to export two consignments each of 2500 gross of brass nipples for stove No. 3. The value declared was Rs. 3,60,000/- at the rate of Rs. 12 per dozen C & F. The draw back rate on the export goods is 22% of the FOB value. The total draw back claim was for Rs. 78/760/- the export goods were made out of castings and not out of extruded brass rods. Market inquiries in regard to the value declared reveal that the value of the goods would not exceed Rs. 3/- per dozen as against Rs. 12/- per dozen claimed by the party. The market inquiries also revealed that brass nipples for stove No. 3 if made out of the castings would range between Rs. 26/- to Rs. 36/-per gross. During the course of investigation it was found that the appellant purchased these goods from M/s. Areef Brass Metal Works and M/s. Krishnaraj Metal Industries through M/s. S...

Universal Ferro and Allied Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duties and penalties and stay recovery thereof are taken up for disposal.2. The issue relates to clearances of goods produced by a 100% EOU to DTA. The applicant is a 100% EOU. The applicants produced silico manganese. They entered into a contract with a DTA unit, TISCO, to supply Silico Manganese. According to their understanding with TISCO, the latter would supply certain raw materials free of cost and the applicants would produce the goods and supply to TISCO. According to the applicants, this supply to TISCO is a sale to DTA allowed under para 9.9 (b) of EXIM policy. Under para 9.9(b) of the said policy, a 100% EOU can sell goods upto 50% of FOB value of exports subject to payment of appropriate duty and fulfilment of minimum NFED. Under para 9.17(b), an EOU may undertake job work for export on behalf of DTA units provided the goods are exported from the EOU directly. The Department's contention is that the applicants in the p...

Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT237Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. These two appeals relate to cases where the appellants initially cleared goods for export under bond without payment of duty. However, since they could not produce proof of export, they paid duty in respect of the impugned goods. Subsequently, they obtained proof of export and have filed refund claims for duty paid earlier. It is claimed by the appellants that such claims have been made within six months of payment of duty in each case. The Department has taken a view that the export did not take place within six months of clearance and therefore, the refund claims are not admissible.2. In view of the fact that the refund claim relates to payment of duty on goods subsequently exported, relevant date for computing the time limit for filing refund claim has to be taken from the date of payment of duty. As such, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Original authority to examine the refund claims afresh and allow the same in accordance wit...

Sri Ventakeswara Cans P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The appellants are claiming that credit has been taken by them within the period of 9 months from the date of receipt of duty paying invoice which is permissible under Rule 57G(3) of the Central Excise Rules read with rule 57J. The objection for not taking the credit within 6 months under Rule 57G(5) can be of material consequence only if the appellants were not working under Rule 57J in the latter rule the time limit is 9 months and not 6 months.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order has however recorded that sufficient evidence is not on record to accept the submission of the appellant to the effect that they were indeed working under Rule 57J The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants has produced copies of various declarations filed before the departmental authorities under Rule 57G and rule 57J. The Ld. Counsel also drew my attention to the fact that show cause notice admits that the raw material was actually received by the job workers from th...

Gagan Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. the Acit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)93ITD426(Mum.)

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-V, Mumbai pertaining to assessment year 1999-2000. The grievances of the assessee in this appeal are as under: "1. The learned Assessing Officer erred in law, while adding a notional interest, @18% on the security deposit taken, at the time of calculating "Income from House Property". 3. The learned Assessing Officer erred in holding that income of the appellant chargeable under the head "Income from House Property is Rs. 11,25,23,520/-. 4. The learned AO erred in attributing proportionate interest expense to the earning of dividend income and accordingly net dividend income is allowed to be exempt Under Section 10(33). 4. Interest expenses of Rs. 92,92,510/- be allowed as legitimate business expense Under Section 36(1)(iii)." 2. Grounds 1 to 3 deal with the issue whether Rs. 14,04,00,000/- being the notional interest worked out on the interest-free deposit of Rs. 78 crores would form part of rent received by t...