Mumbai Court July 2003 Judgments

Transasia Bio Medicals Ltd. Vs. Regional Officer, Transport Commission ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom21; 2003(4)ALLMR624

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard, Perused the records. There is absolutely no case for proceeding against the respondent No. 3. Hence the petition against the respondent No. 3 is rejected. The petition to be heard only against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. Rule, by consent the rule is made returnable forthwith.3. The petitioners are challenging the seizure of their vehicle along with the original documents regarding the registration thereof by the respondent-authorities and the refusal to release the same till the payment of the motor vehicle tax to the tune of Rs. 1,62,000/-. By the order dated 2-5-2003 the vehicle was allowed to be released on depositing the amount demanded as tax.4. Undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioners have their registered office at Mumbai with two manufacturing units situated at Daman, they being the exporters of bio-medical equipments to various countries. The petitioners own a Mercedes Benz Van bearing registration No. DD-03-B-1219, which is reg...

Midas Care Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the conclusion in the order of the Assistant Commissioner, in the order impugned before him, that the benefit of the exemption contained in notification 1/93 will not be available to the isopropanol spray manufactured and clearly by the appellant for the reason that it bore on it that it bore on it the name "Merind" along with the word "Decdan", which was the brand name of M/s Midas Care Pharma (Pvt) Ltd. 2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented. Its counsel has submitted written submissions which we have considered.3. The contention in the appeal and in the submission is that the name "Decdan" appearing on the bottle of the Isopropanol spray was the name of a product manufactured by Merind and therefore use of that brand name will not affect the eligibility to exemption under the notification of Isopropanol. The decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal in CCE v. Fine Industries 2002 (146) ELT 53, hol...

Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT790Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant was engaged, at the relevant time, in the manufacture of steel in the form of coils, angles, sheets and other products. It is stated that in 1997 the departmental authorities verified the stock of the goods in the appellant's factory and found some ground to believe that there was discrepancy in the stock of goods in the RG1 register leading them to conclude that unexplained shortage of the goods manufactured by it. Although no notice was issued, the appellant on 9-11-1997 debited, under protest, a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs in its personal ledger account. On 18 December, it debited a further amount of Rs. 10 lakhs in this account. On 12th January of the next year, it wrote to the Superintendent (Preventive) a letter in which it explained the reason for the suspected difference between the stock shown in the RG1 register and physical stock. It is stated that there was no reply to that letter. On 15-7-1998, the appellant, after intimating the department its intention to take ...

Shree T.K. Warna Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicant was engaged inter alia in the manufacture of paper. It availed of the benefit of the exemption contained in notification 8/96 and its successor notification 4/97. Both these provides for a concessional rate of duty on paper manufactured out of pulp containing not less than 75% by weight of pulp made from material specified other than bamboo, hardwood, softwood, reeds (other than sarkanda) or rags.The chemical testing of a sample of paper manufactured by the applicant drawn on 28.11.1996 showed it to be not complying with this requirement, led the department to conclude that the condition contained in the notification has not been complied with. Notices were issued demanding duty of Rs. 1.67 crores on paper manufactured and cleared between October 1996 and March 1997. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand for duty and imposed a penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand for duty and set aside the penalty. Hence this appeal and the app...

Favourite Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Favourite Industries, a 100% export oriented unit located at Pandesara near Surat, was engaged in the manufacture of processed polyester fabrics. It had availed of the exemption contained in notification 8/97. The notification provides for exemption from excise duty on finished products, rejects and waste or scrap manufactured in a 100% export oriented unit or a free trade zone wholly from raw materials produced from or manufactured in India and allowed to be sold in India in accordance with the provisions of sub paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) of paragraph 9.9, or of paragraph 9.20 of the Export Import policy April 1997 - March 2002 is in excess of the aggregate amount of excise duty leviable under Section 3 of the Act or any other law for the time being in force. Notice issued to it proposed to deny the exemption on the ground that the goods were not manufactured wholly from the raw materials produced by the manufacturer. It alleged that the unprocessed fabrics which the ap...

Deek Printers and Gurangbhai Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT939Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application by Deek Printers is for waiver of deposit of Rs. 66.88 lakhs demanded as sum payable in terms of Rule 57CC and a penalty of equal amount. The application by Gurangbhai Thakore, its partner is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs.2. The demand follows consequent upon the finding of the adjudicating authority that the applicant did not reverse, as was required by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 57CC, the credit that it took of the duty paid of printing ink that it used in the manufacture of both exempted and dutiable cartons and labels. The counsel for the applicant does not deny that the basis for the claim but relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in Pushpam Forgings v. CCE 2002 (149) ELT 490 (an appeal by the Commissioner against which has been dismissed by the Supreme Court as reported in 2003 (153) ELT A18) in order to say that, since the amount in question is neither duty to which the provisions of Section 11A of the Act will apply, or modvat credit to which...

Bhor Industries Limited a Company Duly Incorporated Under the Provisio ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004CriLJ1330

J.G. Chitre, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioner hereby assails the correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Revision Application No. 372 of 2001 whereby he set aside the order passed by the JMFC, Bhor who issued the process against respondent No. 1 for offences punishable under Section 415, 418 and 420 of Indian Penal Code.3. Shri Khandeparkar, counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that though there are clear allegations made in the complaint bringing in, the ingredients of offence defined by Section 415 of IPC made punishable by Section 418, 420 of IPC, the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the learned Magistrate who issued the process against respondent No. 1 for the offences punishable under the provisions of Section 415, 418 and 420 of IPC. He invited the attention of this Court to the allegations made in paragraph 16 B of the complaint whereby a specific allegation has been made that th...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ahmednagar District Central Co-operativ ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Bom)336; [2003]264ITR38(Bom); 2004(1)MhLj853

S. H. Kapadia, J. 1. The above four references under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, raise a common question of law which has been referred to us for our opinion. I. T. R. No. 153 of 1998 concerns the assessment year 1982-83, I. T. R. No. 280 of 1997 concerns the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90, 1. T. R. No. 428 of 1997 concerns the assessment years 1986-87 to 1989-90 and I. T. R. No. 149 of 1998 concerns the assessment year 1991-92. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts in Income-tax Reference No. 153 of 1998 are set out hereinbelow. 3. The assessee Ahmednagar District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., is a cooperative society carrying on business of banking. The whole amount of profits and gains attributable to the business of banking was not included by the assessee in its income under Section 80P(1) read with Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. During the assessment year 1982-83, the assessee-bank earned income by way of commission from the Maharashtra State Electri...

Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Kumar St ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR887; [2004(102)FLR754]; (2004)IIILLJ415Bom; 2004(3)MhLj102

S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Judge. Employees State Insurance Court, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the 'Insurance Court' for the sake of brevity), dated 17-12-1988 in Application (E.S.I.) No. 43/1986, filed before the said Insurance Court by the respondent No. 1. The learned Insurance Court, Bombay, by an impugned order, has reduced an amount of damages levied by the Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bombay to the tune of Rs. 54,000/- as against Rs. 1,07,925.20 Ps.2. More facts :--The respondent No. 1 had filed an application (E.S.I.) No. 43/86, under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act, 1948' for short), in the Court of learned Insurance Court at Bombay, against the present appellant and the Tahsildar for recovery of E.S.I.C. Dues, Bombay. The said respondent No. 1, has contended that the respondent No. 1 is registered as a small scale I...

Cit Vs. Ahmednagar Distt. Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN226(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J. The above four references under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 raise common question of law which has been referred to us for our opinion. ITR No. 153 of 1998 concerns assessment year 1982-83, ITR No. 280 of 1997 concerns assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90, ITR. No. 428 of 1997 concerns assessment years 1986-87 to 1989-90 and ITR No. 149 of 1998 concerns assessment year 1991-92.2. For the sake of convenience, the facts in Income Tax Reference No. 153 of 1998 are set out hereinbelow.3. The assessee - Ahmednagar District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. is a Co-operative society carrying on business of banking. The whole amount of profits and gains attributable to the business of banking was not included by the assessee in its income under section 80P(1) read with section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. During the assessment year 1982-83, the assessee-bank earned income by way of commission from the Maharashtra State Electricity Board and from Mula Pravara Co-operat...