Mumbai Court March 2003 Judgments

Bhor Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Bom)292

S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Department in the matter of refund, the company has filed this writ petition against the Department for giving effect to the Tribunal's orders for the asst. yr. 1994-95 and asst. yr. 1996-97. Facts in respect of asst. yr. 1994-952. Petitioner is a company under the Companies Act, 1956. During the assessment year in question, petitioner surrendered its tenancy rights to the landlord for which the petitioner received consideration. In view of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Cadell Weaving Mill Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT : [2001]249ITR265(Bom) the petitioner submitted that the consideration received from the landlord did not constitute, income under the head 'capital gains'.3. When the matter reached hearing, learned advocates appearing on both sides submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee in the aforestated judgment.4. In the circumstances, we do not see any reason why the order of the ...

Anilkumar Jinabhai Patil and anr. Vs. Kalpita Builders Pvt. Ltd. and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR683; 2003(5)BomCR775

A.P. Deshpande, J.1. One Kalpita Builders Pvt. Ltd., Jalgaon, is a company registered and incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The said company filed a suit against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, for specific performance of contract and in the alternative, a claim for recovery of an amount of Rs. 39,90,000/- came to be made. The said suit was filed by the company through its Managing Director-Pravinchandra Jinabhai Patel. It is not in dispute that when the suit came to be filed, the said Managing Director-Pravinchandra Jinabhai Patel had authority to file the suit. After filing of the suit, it appears that the relations of the Directors of the company with one another became strained and various disputes cropped up amongst themselves. As a result of dispute between Directors, the present petitioners moved an application in the pending suit before the trial Court, seeking to implead them as plaintiffs in addition to the original plaintiff. The said application was moved under Orde...

Dinkarrao S/O Rajarampant Pole Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)82; 2003BomCR(Cri)1655; (2003)105BOMLR302

B.B. Vagyani, J.1. Heard petitioner in person. Mr. K.G. Patil, learned A.P.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. S.G. Shinde, learned Advocate for respondent No. 4.2. Being aggrieved by the wrongful arrest and detention in the police custody by the respondent No. 3, the petitioner, a practising Lawyer, has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 read with Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India for grant of compensation and direction for submission of 'B' Final Report with prosecution against respondent No. 4 for having committed an offence punishable under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. In brief the facts giving rise to this Criminal Writ Petition are as under:3. One Rajarampant had three sons from his first wife Yamunabai namely, Vitthalrao, Shankarrao and Shrikrishnarao; and two daughters namely Babutai alias Saraswati and Shantabai. Madhukarrao is the son of Vitthalrao. Respondent No. 4 Sulabha Shendarkar is the married daughter of Shrikris...

In Re: Zee Telefilms Limited; in Re: Programme Asia Trading Company Li ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2005]125CompCas297(Bom); [2006]68SCL72(Bom)

1. Heard Mr. Bhatt for the appellants in both the appeals. Mr. Master is present for the Regional Director, Department of Company Affairs.2.Both the appeals are filed against the order passed by the learned single judge on January 23, 2003, rejecting the Company Applications Nos. 428 and 429 of 2002. Application No. 428 of 2002 sought merger of Programme Asia Trading Co. Ltd. into Zee Telefilms Ltd. Application No. 429 of 2002 was the application of the transferee company.3. The learned single judge heard both the applications, perused the affidavit filed by the Regional Director. The affidavit referred to certain prosecutions under Sections 217(5), 212(9), 209(5), 307(7) and 211(7) of the Companies Act. The learned judge therefore formed an opinion that this was not a matter wherein leave under Section 391 could be granted. It is this order which is challenged in these appeals.4. Mr. Bhatt, counsel for the appellants points out that firstly, the proviso to Section 391(2) speaks of inv...

Nowrosjee Wadia and Sons Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT386Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These 12 applications have common facts. They are therefore dealt with vide this single order.2. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited (BDMC) and Nowrosjee Wadia & Sons Limited (NWSL) were exporters of textile made ups. Asmila Fabrics, Neha Garments and Krislon Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. were units which covert textile fabrics supplied by BDMC and NWSL. The transfer of textile fabrics was made without payment of duty for being converted into made up articles specifically for the purpose of export was done in terms of Notification No. 47/94-C.E. (N.T.) issued in terms of Rule 13(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In terms of this provision substantial amount of textile fabrics was sent to the converter units, converted into made-up articles, which articles were sent back to the supplier units awaiting export. For movement without payment of duty, both the suppliers and job workers had filed bonds. The made ups were stored for shipment in godowns at Kurla. There was tor...

H and R Johnson (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The Commissioner (Appeals), in his order impugned in this appeal, has confirmed the denial by the Assistant Commissioner, of the claim made by the appellant for credit under Rule 57Q of the duty paid on refractories which were used by it in the manufacture of ceramic tiles.The reason that the Assistant Commissioner advances is that during the relevant time, 1955-96, the refractories in question were used either as in one of the two manners. It is used as a base on the kiln car, a trolley made of steel, in which the wet tiles were stocked. They were also used to wet down these stacks. The kiln car containing the wet tiles as well as these refractories is wheeled into the kiln in which the tiles are fired. In his order, the Commissioner (Appeals) finds that the refractories are material handling equipments and therefore not in the nature of machines, machinery, etc required for producing any goods or for bringing about any change in any substances for the manufacture of final product...

Bharat Gears Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the decision made by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Mumbai in Order AB(344)53/M-VI/2000 dt. 22.09.01 wherein he confirmed Order in Original passed by the adjudicating authority denying the Modvat Credit of L.P.G. and L.D.O used in the manufacture of final product Automative gears, which is ultimately cleared under Rule 57F(4) procedure or under notification No. 241/86-CE dt. 1.03.86 at 'NIL' rate of duty.2. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture, interalia of automotive gears falling under Chapters 84 and 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In addition to manufacturing automotive gears on their own account, the appellants also undertake manufacture of such automotive gears on job work basis. Job work is carried out in two ways: a. The customers supply the forgings under the provisions of Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules as existed then. The Appellants manufactured the gears and returned the same to the r...

Meyer Organics Ltd. and S.N. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The duty of Rs. 10,11,182/- (out of which Rs. 4,35,439/- has already been paid) is demanded in the order impugned in the appeal on the ground that discount extended by the applicant to its consignment agent were not admissible. Penalty equal to duty has been imposed on the assessee, and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on S.N. Narker, its employee.2. While the counsel for the applicants contends that there is in reality no difference between the consignment agent and dealer, in that both carried out the same function, he is not able to explain the significant of the different terms imposed on different consignment agent and its distributor in the two agreements that we have seen. In our view, therefore, the applicability of the decisions in IDL Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE 1997 (92) ELT 289 and in CMC (India) Ltd. v. CCE 1997 (95) ELT 255 cited by the counsel require considerable examination.3. Taking into account the amount of duty already paid and the fact that it was paid prior to iss...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Arofine Chemical Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT149Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is admitted and taken up for disposal with consent of the departmental representative, the respondent being absent and unrepresented despite notice.2. Notice issued to Arofine Chemical Industries, the respondent to this appeal, proposed, inter alia, confiscation of 363.5 kgs. of aromatic chemicals that it manufactured. The notice alleged that the goods, which were seized enroute towards from the factory of the assessee to its consignee, have been cleared without payment of duty of the debit that had been made of the duty required to be paid in the personal RG 23 account or the modvat account of the assessee. The notice also alleged some other contraventions including shortage of finished goods and excess of some other variety of such goods. The Assistant Commissioner found to be correct of the allegations in the notice and demanded duty and imposed penalty. He also ordered confiscation of the seized goods with an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine. The assesse...

Saturn Non-woven Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT941Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Stay application has been filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the rejection by the Assistant Commissioner of a claim for remission of duty on goods that the appellant manufactured which were destroyed, before clearance from the factory in a fire.2. The departmental representative based a preliminary objection that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide the matter, contending that its jurisdiction was excluded in terms of Clause (a) of the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 35B of the Act. After hearing the arguments on this aspect, we are unable to conclude that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. The proviso specifies the circumstances in which the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35A of the Act. Clause (a) of this proviso reads as follows :- "(a) a case of loss of goods, where the loss occurs in transit from a factory to a warehous...