Mumbai Court July 2003 Judgments

Nagarkar Ajit Chandrakant and Ors. Vs. Mulund Gymkhana's College of Ph ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR167; 2004(1)MhLj470

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.3. The petitioners challenge the common judgment and order dated 31st October, 2002 passed by the Mumbai University and College Tribunal in Appeals No. 38 to 41 of 2002. The Tribunal has dismissed the said Appeals holding that the institution, viz. respondent No. 1 herein, is not an affiliated college within the meaning of the said expression under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, hereinafter called as 'the Universities Act', and that therefore the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the said appeals.4. The impugned order is sought to be challenged firstly on the ground that the materials on record disclose that the college was affiliated to the University of Mumbai and the objection which was raised by the respondents was in relation to irregularities in the procedural technicalities in the grant of affiliation by ...

Vishwasrao Madhavrao Chiplunkar Since Deceased by His Legal Heirs Dili ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)MhLj25

V.C. Daga, J.1. This second appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 10th December 1991 passed by the Tenth Additional District Judge, Pune in Regular Civil Appeal No. 809 of 1987, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30th June 1987 passed by the Third Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in Special Civil Suit No. 251 of 1985; whereby the suit filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was decreed. The parties to the appeal are hereinafter referred to in their original capacity as they were arrayed in the suit.THE FACTS2. The facts necessary to appreciate real controversy may be stated briefly.The plaintiff No. 1 is a legally wedded wife and plaintiff No. 2 is a legitimate son of plaintiff No. 1 and Shri Vishwasrao Chiplunkar. Both of them filed a suit, being Special Civil Suit No. 251 of 1985 to seek declaration that the gift deed dated 6th July 1984 executed by Shri Vishwasrao, defendant No. 1 in favour of his second wife Smt. Hirabai, defendant No. 2 is illegal, null and void w...

Caprihans India Ltd. Vs. Tarun Seem, Dy. Cit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN123(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J.Rule. Respondents waive service.2. By consent, writ petition is taken up for final hearing.3. Heard learned counsel on both sides. In this case, arguments were heard by us on 24-7-2003. After hearing the arguments, the following order was passed :'For the reasons to be given subsequently rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) with no order as to costs.'4. Accordingly, we propose to give reasons for allowing the petition.Reasons5. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner seeks to challenge impugned notice dated 22-1-2003 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for accounting year ending 31-3-1997 corresponding to the relevant assessment year 1997-98.Facts6. Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of PVC Sheets and Industrial Laminates. The Petitioner filed its return of income for the assessment year 1997-98. This was on 28-11-1997. The return was initially processed under section 143(1)(a). This was on 17-...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Deutsche Bank A.G. (Formerly European A ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Bom)28; [2006]284ITR463(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the following question has been referred to us for our opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 concerning assessment year 1984-85 involving interpretation of Section 44C as it stood at the relevant time:1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the entire head office expenditure of Rs. 21.07 lakhs was allowable under Section 37(1), as Section 44C of the Income-tax Act was not applicable in the case of the assesseeFacts:2. The assessee is a foreign bank. On July 23, 1984, the assessee filed its return of income for Rs. 1.61 crores. This return was revised on October 27, 1986 and the income was reduced to Rs. 1.47 crores. The reason for revising the return was the claim of the assessee for deduction of the full amount of head office expenses debited to the profit and loss account to the extent of Rs. 21.07 lakhs on the ground that Section 44C was not applicable as one of the three parameters mentioned in Claus...

American Bureau of Shipping Vs. Cit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN93(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J.At the instance of the assessee, two Questions of Law have been referred to us for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act concerning assessment year 1977-78 :'1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that even if there is no positive 'Average Adjusted Total Income under Explanation (ii) to section 44C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the provisions of clause (a) of section 44C are applicable and, consequently, no deduction was allowable 2. Whether in the absence of positive income under clause (a) of section 44C of the Income Tax Act, Head Office expenses would be allowed in accordance with the lower limits under clauses (b) and (c) of section 44C of the Income Tax Act ignoring clause (a) ?'Facts2. The assessee is a shipping consultant and it also supervises ship repairs. The accounting year, relevant to the assessment year in question, was the calendar Year 1976. In the assessment proceedings, the assessee challenged the treatment of Head Office expense...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sirgiroh R. Khan and Sons

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondent to this appeal by the Commissioner was functioning as a Custom House Agent. Following recovery of methaqualone in a consignment of water heaters that was consigned for export, notice was issued to it proposing cancellation of the Custom House Agent licence issued to it on four grounds as follows. The respondent handled a consignment exported by Sugana Metal Works (in which the methaqualone was found) without proper authorisation. The respondent was guilty of misconduct in that it had undertaken the work which was brought by Abdul Majeed Ismail, a sub-agent. After the shipping bill was signed, the rest of the formalities relating to the consignment were entrusted to Abdul Majeed Ismail. The respondent had by misrepresentation obtained a Customs pass to Abdul Majeed Ismail who was not its employee. The last article of charge alleged that because of the various acts of the respondents, the clearance of prohibited drugs for export was attempted.2. The enquiry officer app...

Sudarshan Tex Port Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT596Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After allowing the application for early hearing, we proceed to hear and decide the appeal itself, with the consent of both sides as the issue lies within a very narrow compass.2. The appellants herein are found to have contravened the provisions of Rules 96ZQ(1), (2), and (3) read with Rule 173G(1) and Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules with intention to evade payment of duty inasmuch as they had failed to pay the duty payable for the month of April, 2000 under the provisions of the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 on the due date in the month of April, 2000 as required under the Rule 96ZQ of the Rules. The lower appellate authority has confirmed duty demand of Rs. 10 lakhs @ Rs. 2 lakhs per chamber per month (there are 5 chambers in the Hot Air Stenter) and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs. The appellants do not contest the duty demand but only challenge the penalty.4. The submission of the appellants who are represented...

Krishna Silk Mills Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications are for waiver of deposit of duty totalling Rs. 53,14,472/- and penalty of equal amount.2. The applicant is engaged in the processing of textile fabrics. It filed in December 1998 an application for determination of capacity of the stenters based upon the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 and that the Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded to determine the capacity and the duty consequently payable. It is contended that at any time thereafter the applicant wrote to the Commissioner, asking for determination of duty on the basis of actual production in terms of Section 3A. The representative of the applicant, in reply to a specific question, is not able to produce any such material. The applicant however did not discharge the duty as determined by the Commissioner but, it is claimed, paid on the basis of actual clearances. This resulted in issue of three notices demanding the duty in question and proposing penalty.The...

Shakti Plastic and Rubber Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the finding of the Assistant Commissioner in the order impugned before him that the dust tubes "for two wheelers and to motor vehicles and for use in the railways and F.V. caps for electrical appliances" were classifiable in heading 85.86 of the Central Excise tariff and not in heading 3924.90 as claimed by the appellant, demanding duty on the clearance of the goods and imposed penalty.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have read the memorandum of appeal and other papers and heard the departmental representative.3. The Assistant Commissioner had adjudicated upon a notice dated 16.11.1995 issued to the appellant, proposing recovery of differential duty on goods cleared between July 1991 and April 1993. A copy of the notice has not been produced but it would be clear that it would have invoked the extended period of limitation. The appellant had, in the classification list that it fi...

New Era Fabrics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT902Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants herein processed embroidery on base fabrics. In terms of Note 8 to Chapter 58 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1985, the activities of bleaching etc. were deemed to amount to manufacture. Show cause notice dated 24-2-2000 holding that during the period 16-3-95 to 10-8-95, duty on embroidery fabrics so processed was not paid and proposing recovery of duty and imposing of penalty, was issued to them and after hearing them, the Commissioner passed orders confirming demand of basic excise duty of Rs. 3,27,08,340/- and additional excise duty of Rs. 49,06,251/- and imposing penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs upon the appellants. Hence, this appeal.Dora Processors v.C.C., Mumbai and C.C.E. v. Encee Dying and Printing Works, the Tribunal by the Order Nos. CB/426 to 428/03-WZB, dated 7-2-2003 has held that Note 8 to Chapter 58 does not apply to embroidery, having regard to the scheme of the Tariff, the word used in Tariff headings under Chapter 58, the language of Chapter Note...