Mumbai Court August 2003 Judgments

Maharashtra State Electricity Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)90ITD793(Mum.)

1. This is an appeal by the assessee and is directed against CIT(A)'s order dt. 26th March, 1996, for the asst. yr, 1994-95. Solitary issue requiring our adjudication is whether or not the assessee had any liability to withhold tax from the payments made by the assessee to M/s Freshfields, a UK-based firm of solicitors, in consideration of services rendered by the aforesaid firm of solicitors.2. The issue in appeal lies in a narrow compass of material facts. The assessee tax deductor Maharastra State Electricity Board (MSEB, in short), on 21st June, 1993, entered into an agreement with one M/s Freshfields, a London based firm of solicitors, for availing certain 'legal advisory services'. These services were required by MSEB as it intended to enter into a power purchase agreement to purchase power from, what was popularly known as, Enron Project. MSEB was a beneficiary of the proceeds of a loan granted by the International Bank for Reconstruction & Development (IBRD, in short) to G...

Bhagwan Tukaram Paradeshi, Deceased Through His Heirs and Legal Repres ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR710; 2004(1)MhLj741

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The petitioners who are the original plaintiffs instituted a suit for eviction against the respondent. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioners is that they are the owners and landlords of a property bearing City Survey No. 359 which is an open plot admeasuring 102 square feet. The plot of land was let out to the defendant on a monthly rental of Rs. 40/- and a cess of Rs. 2/-. The respondent is stated to be carrying on the business of preparing wooden boxes for packing. The case of the petitioners is that they were residing in rented accommodation which is unsuitable and insufficient for their purposes. The suit for eviction was, thus, filed on the ground that the suit premises were required reasonably and bonafide for the purpose of constructing a house thereon for the residence of the petitioners. (An additional ground that there was a default in the payment of rent was also advanced. But on this, there is a finding by both the Courts negotiating the case of...

Shri Vilas Sahebrao Gadakh Vs. the Divisional Joint Registrar, Nasik D ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR128; 2004(3)BomCR851; 2004(1)MhLj824

D.G. Karnik, J. Rule. Respondents waives service. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.1. Respondent No. 18 Pimpalgaon (B) Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (hereinafter referred to as the 'market committee') is formal respondent. Fresh service on respondent No. 18 is therefore dispensed with. The petitioner has filed this petition for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for a declaration that respondent Nos. 3 to 13 are disqualified to continue as members of the market committee and are also disqualified for contesting the next elections or any bye elections for a period of six years under Section 38A of the Maharashtra Agriculture Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).The facts may be briefly stated as under:2. Elections to the posts of members of the committee of the respondent No. 18 market committee were held in March, 2000. Respondent Nos. 3 to 13 were declared to be elected, while the petitione...

Commissioner of Cen. Excise Vs. Telco Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue in dispute in the above appeal of the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune is, as to whether freight and transit insurance charges received by the respondents/assessees from their customers is required to be included in the assessable value of the vehicles cleared by them. The show cause notice issued to the respondents proposed to recover Rs. 17,44,09,403/- and automobile cess of Rs. 59,654/- on the ground that sale took place only at the premises of dealer/customer as defined in Sub-clause (iii) of Section 4(4)(b) of the Act and not at the factory gate, as the title of the goods was transferred only at the premises of the buyers and the sellers were collecting insurance charges for transporting the goods, indicating that the ownership remains with them till delivery to the customers. The notice also proposed imposition of penalty. The period in dispute is 28.9.96 to 31.12.2000. The Commissioner of Central Excise dropped the demands and p...

Jai Bharat Steel Company Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for failure to deposit duty of Rs. 9.35 lakhs out of the total duty of Rs. 12.39 lakhs.2. The applicant imported a ship into Alang for breaking up and filed a bill of entry on 24.2.1999 for its clearance. It is contended that as a result of orders passed by the Sheriff of Mumbai arresting the-ship based on the order of the Bombay High Court applicant did not wish to process the bill of entry and sought for its withdrawal in April 1999.Subsequently, after the Sheriffs order was vacated it filed another bill of entry on 24.4.1999 claiming applicability of lower rate of duty which has been changed by the budget 28.2.1999. This has not been agreed to by the department. Further, it is stated that the value of the ship itself was reduced as a result of negotiation for reduction for failure of the supplier to deliver the ship in the agreed time.This reduction value has also not been taken into account.3. As to the first point, it is to b...

Cc Vs. Hitkari Potteries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein imported goods described as Primacor under bills of entry. They paid duty and cleared the goods but subsequently claimed that they had paid duty in excess and that they filed claims for refund of the excess duty paid.The adjudicating authority examined the documents produced by the importers to establish that incidence of duty, which was being claimed as refund, had not been passed on to any other persons and found that the evidence was insufficient and hence directed that the refund amount be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The Commissioner (Appeals) perused the certificate of the Chartered Accountant and the Central Excise authorities certifying that the higher duty charged by them has not been included in the cost, and held as under :- "8. I have considered the submissions of the appellants and facts of the case. I find that the lower authority has already passed an order regarding the eligibility to the refund on...

H.H. Patel and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 28.86 lakhs approx. penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. Applicant manufactures unbranded tobacco classifiable under sub-heading 10 of heading 24,01 its factory at Chalisgaon in Jalgaon District and removes the entire quantity to its factory at Jamner in the same district, where it is packed and branded and therefore liable to classification in heading 90 labelling, packing of tobacco and packs in retail packs. By application of note 2 to Chapter 24 these acts amount to manufacture. The applicant had determined the value of the tobacco cleared at Chalisgaon on the cost of manufacture by applying Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules. Notice dated April 2002 demanded duty on tobacco cleared by him in 1.4.99 to 31.12.2001 on the ground that in determining the margin of profit had not been correctly calculated and various aspects such as advertisement cost etc. had not been included. In the order, the Commissioner had dropped the demand for t...

Rakesh G. Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT530Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Tribunal vide order dated 19-3-2003 dismissed the appellants appeal on noticing that there is no compliance of the order dated 2-1-2003 under which they were directed to make certain pre-deposits.When the matter came before the Bench on 28th February, 2003 to verify the compliance, on that day, no one from the appellants was present.The learned Counsel pleaded during the hearing today that the Tribunal order dated 2-1-2003 came to be passed ex parte, despite their request dated 19-12-2002 for adjournment. The Tribunal order does not disclose as to whether this application for adjournment was examined and the same was rejected. The learned Counsel therefore pleads that the request for adjournment has not been taken note of. So far as non-appearance on 28th February, 2003, it is pleaded that in the meanwhile they had submitted an application dated 22nd January, 2003 seeking modification of order dated 2-1-2003. The order of 19-3-2003 was passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appe...

Shiv Marine Ind. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT1042Tri(Mum.)bai

1. We have heard both sides. Of the two stay applications listed today, we take up the department's application first. It is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the impugned order on 25.7.2001 rejecting the appeal against order-in-original. However, he has issued an addendum to the said order-in-appeal on 09.11.2001. In terms of the order-in-appeal dated 25.7.2001, they value of the impugned vessel assessed as US $ 8,01,049.69 has been upheld whereas the effect of the addendum is to reduce the same to US $ 7,87,268.20. We note that once the Commissioner (Appeal) passed an order on a appeal under Section 128A of the Customs Act, 1962, he becomes a funtcus officio in regard to that appeal and ceases to have jurisdiction in that case unless the matter is remanded back to him again by a higher appellate body or court. Section 154 authorises correction of only clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any decision or order passed by the Central Government, Board or any officer of Cu...

Biogenics (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT289Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the exemption contained in Notification 208/81 in respect of the freeze dryer imported by it. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the decision of the Assistant Commissioner denying the benefit of the exemption on the ground that the goods have not been shown to be life saving medicine as specified in the Notification.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 Notification exempts from duty life saving drugs specified in the schedule to it and drugs or medicines or equipment not specified therein, which were certified by the specified officials of the office of the Director General, Health Services, New Delhi, in each individual case to be life saving drug, medicine, equipment, accessories or spare part and such certific...