Mumbai Court April 2003 Judgments

itc Classic Finance Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and anr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Bom)595; [2003]264ITR154(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Assessee is a finance company. It is a public limited company carrying on business of leasing, financing hire-purchase, dealing in shares and other financial activities. We are concerned with financial year ending 31st March, 1991, relevant to the asst. yr. 1991-92 in this appeal preferred by the assessee. Assessee has acquired 1,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each at par from promoters quota-out of total capital consisting of 10,00,000 shares of ITC Agro-Tech Ltd. on 13th May, 1988. The said shares were sold at Rs. 18.90 per share, resulting in a profit of Rs. 8,90,000 during the asst. yr. 1991-92. The assessee offered the whole of the profit to tax. The decision to sell was taken by the assessee as the edible oil industry was not doing well and that ITC Agro-Tech Ltd. had not declared dividend since 1988. Hence, the entire bulk of shares was sold on 18th March, 1991. On 10th June, 1991, the shares of ITC Agro-Tech, which were earlier unquoted, were listed on the Ca...

Shyamrao S/O Kewalram Kapgate and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)MhLj181

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.2. The petitioners challenge the order passed by the Authorised Officer and confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge in relations to the tractor and trolley which was seized by the Forest Officer in exercise of powers under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). The challenge is on two grounds, namely, that the transportation of firewood and the timber through the vehicle of the petitioners was under the bona fide belief that the same is being transported pursuant to the issuance of necessary transit pass and secondly, that the respondents themselves had admitted before the Magistrate that the wood transported through the vehicle of the petitioners was not from the Government land but it was from the private land.3. Few facts relevant for the decision are that on 22-4-1988 the vehicle of the petitio...

Ramesh S/O Fattuji Dongardive Vs. Sahebrao S/O Govindrao Sonekar @ Son ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)106BOMLR503

S.T. Kharche, J.1. This criminal revision takes an exception to the judgment and order of acquittal dated 17.7.2002 passed by the learned 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge in S.T. No. 169 of 2002, whereby he acquitted the respondent No. 1/accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Heard Mr. Sonwane, learned Counsel, for the applicant, Mr. Bhalchandra, learned Counsel, for respondent No. 1 /accused and Mr. Mandpe, learned A.P.P., for respondent No. 2/State. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.3. Facts, in brief, are as under :The incident occurred on 3.12.2001 at about 8.00 p.m. Complainant Ramesh and deceased Sanjay are real brothers and their houses are situated opposite each other. Accused Sahebrao is their neighbour. It is contended that on 3.12.2002 at about 8.00 p.m. the complainant Ramesh was sleeping inside his house and at about 9.00 p.m. he heard bustle from the house of Sanjay. Therefore, he rushed towards the house of S...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Hind Industrial and Mercantile

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein had imported 1446 pieces of short form catalogues and 54 pieces of 3^rd edition data books vide bill of entry dated 30/09/1996. The department was of the view that the short form catalogues fall for classification under Customs Tariff heading 4911.10 and data books under Customs Tariff heading 99.09 respectively, and restricted for import without specific licence as per the ITC(HS) Exim Code. The importers disputed the classification and requested for classification under CTA sub-heading 4911.99. The adjudicating authority held that the goods were classifiable under Customs Tariff heading 4911.10 and 99.09 respectively and since the goods falling under these headings were indicated as consumer goods as per the ITC Exim code they were restricted and in the absence of valid licence were liable to confiscation. He therefore ordered confiscation with option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 15,000/- and imposed a p...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hindustan Composite

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT513Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The short question required to be decided in the present appeal of Revenue is that whether Cashew Nut Shell Liquid (CNSL) based binder manufactured and used captively for the manufacturer of friction materials, is an excisable product or not.2. Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order has held that since the CNSL has a short shelf life of only 24 hrs and the same cannot be marketed in that condition in which it comes into the existence in the appellants factory, the same is not a marketable product and hence not excisable. For the above finding Commissioner (Appeals) had relied upon the Supreme court's decision in the case of Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. v.Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad - 1995 (76) ELT 241 (SC) and also on the Board's Circular No. 464/30/99-CX dated 30.06.99. For better appreciation we are reproducing the relevant paragraphs from the Commissioner (Appeals) Order. "Cashew Nut Shell Liquid is naturally occurring liquid obtained from spongy layer between nut...

Commissioner of Customs and Central Vs. Datar Switchgear Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for early hearing filed by the Revenue is allowed as the appeals involve duty amount of nearly Rs. 2 crores. The appeals are fixed for hearing on 22/07/2003....

Sabanam Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duly of Rs. 2.31 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 6.50 lakhs.2. The applicant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have read the submissions in the stay application and heard the departmental representative.3. The Commissioner finds that the applicant did not pay duty of Rs. 6.50 lakhs for the period from 19.10.2000 to 31.10.2000 within the period prescribed under Rule 96ZQ(3). Subsequently, a sum of Rs. 4.19 lakhs out of this amount has been paid.4. The application contends that the order-in-original and the order-in-appeal are patently incorrect and in contravention of the provisions of natural justice. There is no specific averment as to the merits. The Commissioner noted that the assessee did not appear before him on four occasions and there was no response from him. On merits, therefore, we do not find prima facie case for the applicant. The unit may no doubt be closed, but financial hardship is not specifically claimed and there i...

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeal was dismissed by the order No. CI/2427-34/1997/WZB dated 14/05/1997, for want of clearance from the Committee on Disputes, as the appellants are a public sector undertaking. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that permission to pursue the appeal in the Tribunal has been granted by the Committee on Disputes.2. We have perused the minutes of the meeting granting such permission.We therefore set aside the dismissal order and restore the appeal to its original number....

Dawar Radios Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT844Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing parties on the stay application, we have decided to take up the appeal.2. The question for consideration in this appeal is the liability to confiscation under Clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act of 400 cordless telephones imported in August 2001 by Dawar Radios, the appellant.3. The notice issued to the importer proposed enhancement of the value declared of these telephones and confiscation under Clause (d) of Section 111 on the ground that the goods were not imported from their authorised dealer or distributor or manufacturers and on the further ground that these telephones required permissions from the Department of Telecommunications. After considering the submissions made by the importer, the Commissioner, in the order impugned before us, has ordered enhancement of the value and ordered confiscation of the goods under Clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act, but extended an option to the importer to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 3,45,000/-. He has also impos...

Hardik Industrial Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants around the end on 1993 and early 1994, obtained an endorsement from the licencing authorities as transferee, the following licences:- and subsequently imported goods, permissible under the said licenses which was allowed by the customs authorities. The imports were completed during January/March 1994. Some where in January/March 1995.Show Cause Notices were issued alleging:- i) "Licencees have violated condition V(a) of Notification No. 203/92 as Licencee/exporters have availed the benefit of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as well there is violation of the provisions contained in para 126 of the Hand Book of Procedures of Exim Policy 1992-97. & that by these acts of omission and commission, the licence holders appears to have contravened the provisions of Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 and consequent to Notification No. 203/92 Cus. Therefore, they are liable for penal action under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the licencees as wel...