Mumbai Court April 2003 Judgments

Dadar Manish Market Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]265ITR97(Bom)

S. H. Kapadia, J.1. By this petition, Dadar Manish Market Co-operative Society Limited has challenged the order of the Tax Recovery Officer dated March 24, 2003, on the ground that confirmation of auction sale by the Tax Recovery Officer would result in the society being asked to vacate the premises which would cause irreparable loss as the office of the society is situated in the said premises/shop.2. Respondent No. 5 to the petition was the owner of the shop in question. He is a tax defaulter under the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the tune of Rs. 11,00,00,000 (approximately). The shop in question was attached on February 3, 1995. The attachment was also challenged by respondent No. 5 vide Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 734 of 2002. The High Court directed the shop to be sold. Pursuant to the direction, the auction sale was held. It is important to note that the attachment was levied on February 3, 1995. On March 25, 1999, the shop came to be occupied by the society, i.e., after the attachme...

Shobha Anil Londase Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)122

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction to the respondents for payment of compensation on account of alleged custodial death of her husband in the Central Jail at Bhandara. Initially the petition was also filed for direction to held enquiry in the matter of the death of her husband. However, the claim is now restricted to the compensation as it has come on record that the respondents have already filed criminal proceeding against one of the jail staff on account of the death of the husband of the petitioner.3. It is the case of the petitioner that one Anil Londase, the husband of the petitioner, was arrested by Tumsar Police Station for the offence of theft on 17-10-1999 and was sent to Central Jail, Bhandara and since then he continued to be in the said jail. During the trial, he was regularly produced before the Sessions Judge at Tumsar. He was physically fit and keeping good...

Dhawal S. Chotai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2003Bom316; 2003(3)ALLMR403; 2003(5)BomCR41; 2003(4)MhLj698

Gokhale H.L., J.1. Heard Ms. Sidhwa for the petitioner, Ms. Paranjape appears for respondent No. 2 and Ms. Saigal appears for respondent No. 1.2. This petition is filed by a person who suffers from a disorder of movement and posture which is known as 'Cerebral Palsy'. In view of this difficulty, it affects the normal functioning of bones, muscles and joints and also the communication skills. Inspite of these handicaps, the petitioner has completed his education upto graduation in commerce and has also passed the examination for Foundation Course for the Chartered Accountants Examination. He wants now to appear for the Intermediate Examination known as 'Professional Education-II'.2-A. While giving the examinations on earlier occasions, he had requested the authorities to give him extra time and when he wrote his B.Com. Examination, the University of Mumbai had granted him three hours extra vide its communication dated 26th March, 2002. He made a similar representation to respondent No. ...

Cit Vs. Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN730(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J.Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20-8-2001 passed by the Tribunal in Income Tax Appeal No. 9987/Bom./92 for assessment year 1989-90, the department has come by way of appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act. This appeal is a cross appeal to Income Tax Appeal No. 77 of 2002, which appeal was preferred by the assessee whereas, the present appeal is preferred by the department.Facts2. The assessee is a leasing and financing company having its income from lease rent, bill discounting and service charges. During the course of hearing before the assessing officer, certain issues were raised. One of the issues was concerning depreciation. The assessee was allowed normal depreciation on trucks, buses and motor vans leased out to its customers. However, the assessee had claimed higher depreciation at 50 per cent of the written down value on the said vehicles. As stated in our judgment in Income Tax Appeal No. 77 of 2002, the Tribunal took the view that the...

Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN422(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J.Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal dated 20-8-2001 in ITA No. 9987/Bom/92 in respect of assessment year 1989-90, the assessee has come by way of appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This appeal involves interpretation of an Entry in Appendix I 'Depreciation Table', which prescribes Table of Rates at which depreciation is admissible. The entry reads as under :'III. Machinery and Plant(1) Machinery and plant other than those covered by sub-items (2) and (3) below(2) (i) Aeroplanes-Aeroengines(ii) Motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxis used in a business of running them on hire.'Facts2. Return of income was filed on 6-10-1989 by the assessee declaring its total income of Rs. 73,47,279 as profits under section 115J. The assessee is a leasing and financing company having its income from lease rent, bill discounting and service charges. During the course of hearing, certain issues were raised. One of the issues was concerning depreciation. T...

Miltex Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty, we take up the appeal itself with consent of the both sides. Accordingly, we have heard Shri M.H. Patil, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri S.S. Bhagat, learned S.D.R. appearing for the Revenue. The issue involved in the present appeal is as regards availing of exemption notification No. 46/94-CE dtd. 01/03/1994 in respect of paper based insulators. The benefit of the Notification is not available if the electrical insulators of any material other than paper and paper board are quoted impregnated or covered with plastic are manufactured.Admittedly the appellants are quoting/impregnating the insulator with the resin solution with which according to them, cannot be called plastic inasmuch as the same is a binding material. On the other hand, Revenue denied the benefit to the appellants on the ground that such quoting of the solution is nothing but quoting with plastic and not satisfying the condition of the notific...

Chiripal Twisiting and Sizing Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The impugned order has been passed by the Adjudicating Commissioner imposing various amounts of penalties on the appellants in view of his findings that polyester fabric made out of 100% P.F.Y. could not have been exported as no such fabrics were purchased or transported and no payments were made for the same to the alleged sellers at Bhiwandi.2. The learned Advocate for the appellants challenges the order stating that the raw material for the exported goods might have been bought by payment of cash from others. He also states that officers of the Department have given certificates regarding supervision of stuffing and subsequent checking of the seals of the containers etc. which cannot be discounted. It is his contention that no action has been taken against any of the Departmental officials. He cites the decision in the case of Anuradha Chemicals (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1993 (68) E.L.T.601 (Tribunal) in his support.3. Shri A. Shukla, learned S.D.R. points out that this is a case of ...

Euphara Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The delay of 72 days in preferring the above appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is explained by the applicant as due to the hospitalisation for knee replacement of the Managing Director of the applicant company. The explanation is supported by a medical certificate dated 09/01/2002. Although the prayer is opposed by the Ld. DR on the ground that last date for filing of the appeal is 23/12/2001 and the Managing Director was hospitalised only on 03/01/2002, we are satisfied, in view of the situation set out and supported by the certificate, that the delay is to be condoned. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing this appeal....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Autofil Machine Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Revenue has come in appeal against the following finding of the Commissioner:- "On close scrutiny of the case record, descriptions of the impugned products and memorandum of cross objection filed by the party it is observed that the Commissioner C. Ex. Mumbai-II as well as the A.C.C.Ex.Div.II, Mumbai II have not put forth any specific reasons or ruling/authority for classifying the products viz.packing salt conveyor under Chapter Sub-heading 8428.00 @ 10% Adv. and classifying the products viz. Packing Plugging Tablets, packing Inspection Table and packing turn table under Chapter Sub-heading 8422.90 as parts chargeable to C.Ex., duty @ 25% Adv. In terms of Notfn. No. 54/93 dt. 28.02.93. Whereas the party has produced chartered Engineer Certificate in defence of their contention tat the above products are machinery. Further on study of Section note 4 of Section XVI of C.Ex. Tariff 1985 and considering he individual function of above products and clarification given at the foot n...

Psl Holdings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After dispensing with the condition of predeposit of duty and penalty, we take up the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. Accordingly, we have heard Shri V. Sridharan, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri S.S. Bhagat, learned J.D.R. for the Revenue.3. The short point involved in the present appeal is that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Spiral Welded Steel Pipes which they were clearing in an uncoated condition to their sister concern situated a few kilometres away for the purpose of coating the same. The appellants were availing CENVAT Credit in respect of various coating materials received in their factory, which was also cleared by them to their sister concern alongwith uncoated pipes. Coating was being done at the other units and the final coated pipes were being cleared by the other units, but the duty was being paid by the appellants on the assessable value which included the value of the coating also. For the said purposes, the appellants...