Mumbai Court September 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Jagdumba Textile Engineer

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT327Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The officers of the department paid a visit to the factory of Jagdamba Textile Engineers, the respondent to this appeal, on 12.1.1993. They found that some quantity of final heaters stated to be component parts used in the manufacture of texturising machine and cooling plates were not entered in the RG1 register. A statement of Maheshbhai Shastri, Assistant Works Manager, was recorded on that date.In that statement, he said that the goods had been manufactured during the previous week, but it was a custom of the assessee to enter the goods in the RG1 register only just prior to delivery of the goods to the customers and its customer Borasara Machines had not come forward when the goods have not been entered. Notice was issued to the appellant proposing confiscation of the goods under Rule 173Q and penalty on it. The notice also alleged contravention of the provisions of Rule 226. Adjudicating on the notice, the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the liability to confiscation of the good...

Commissioner of Cen. Excise Vs. Topland Export Overseas

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)LC1055Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeals arise out of separate orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Ahmedabad granting refund of duties paid by the respondents herein on diesel oil engines procured by them, together with interest. (The details of the appeals are annexed to this order.) 2. We have heard Shri S.V. Parelkar, D.R. for the appellants (Revenue) and Shri V.S. Nankani advocate with Shri P.V. Sheth, advocate for the assessees (respondents) and record our findings herein under:- The respondents herein are manufacturers/exporters of centrifugal pump sets made by them by coupling together, brought out diesel engines and centrifugal pumps and mounting them on a common base plate and then exporting them. On 8.11.96, they applied to the Supdt. for registration in terms of Rule 192 of the Central Excise Rules 1944 for availing the benefit of Notification No. 47/94 CE dated 22.9.1994 which permitted manufacture in bond of specific export products from specific excisable goods for the pu...

Rhoda Textile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)LC162Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides for some time, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at the stay stage itself. As such, we waive the pre-deposit of duty and penalty and proceeded to hear the main appeal.2. Shri M.H. Patil, learned advocate for the appellants states that the appellants manufacture made-up textile articles for which they procure duty free fabrics. The made-up articles have been exported directly abroad from their factory through Merchant Exporters. A question was raised whether they are entitled for procurement of duty free fabrics under Notification No. 43/2001-CE (NT) since the exports were made through the Merchant Exporters. A clarification has b ene received from the Ministry under letter F. No. 267/59/2002-CX.8 dated 03.12.2002 stating that it has been decided to allow the procurement of inputs without payment of duty under Notification merchant exporters so long as the export takes place directly from the factory of the manufacturer/processor. A copy of t...

Rhode Textile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at the stay stage itself, As such, we waive the pre-deposit of duty and penalty and proceeded to hear the main appeal.2. Shri M.H. Patil, learned advocate for the appellants states that the appellants manufacture made-up textile articles for which they procure duty free fabrics. The made-up articles have been exported directly abroad from their factory through Merchant Exporters. A question was raised whether they are entitled for procurement of duty free fabrics under Notification No. 43/2001-CE (NT) since the exports were made through the Merchant Exporters. A clarification has been received from the Ministry under letter F. No. 267/59/2002-CX.8 dated 03.12.2002 stating that it has been decided to allow the procurement of inputs without payment of duty under Notification No. 43/2001-CE (NT) dated 26th June, 2001 where the exports are through merchant exporters so long as the export takes pla...

The Para Medical Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. a Society ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR83; 2004(1)MhLj1035

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the Petitioner and the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. As far as the Respondent No. 3 is concerned, there is no case for proceeding against the Respondent No. 3 disclosed in the Writ Petition. Hence, as far as the Respondent No. 3 is concerned, the Petition is dismissed in limini.2. Rule, by consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith.3. The Petitioners challenge the orders passed by the Co-operative Court and the State Co operative Appellate Court dismissing the application filed by the Petitioners for rejection of the dispute which was sought to be raised by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in relation to the election to the Board of Directors of the Petitioner No. 1-Society. The application for rejection of the said dispute was filed by the respondents contending that the same was raised beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 92(1)(d) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, hereinafter called as 'the sai...

Alfa Laval India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Bom)390; [2004]266ITR418(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. This tax appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 is filed by the assessee against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT' for short) dt. 4th Jan., 2001 relating to the asst. yr. 1989-1990.2. According to the assessee the following substantial questions of law arise out of the order the Tribunal, namely :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of case, the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 15,15,667 made to closing stock by the AO?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing: to exclude the amount of Rs. 81,33,667 from the book profits as defined in Section 32AB(3) of the IT Act, 1961?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest from customers, sales-tax set off and other refunds, claims, etc. do not form part of the business profit for calculating deduction under Section 80HHC ?'3. ...

Jyoti Partab Lalwani and anr. Vs. Collector of Mumbai and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR105; 2004(1)MhLj955

R. M. S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.3. The short point which arises in both these petitions is whether the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition (Privilege Fees) Rules, 1954, hereinafter called as 'the Privilege Fees Rules' are attracted in case of transposition of the names of the legal heirs of the deceased licence holder in the liquor licence and that therefore the legal heirs are liable to pay the privilege fees? Since common question of law and facts arise in both the petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.4. In Writ Petition No. 1860 of 2003, the excise licence granted for sale of foreign liquor in terms of the provisions of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 hereinafter called as 'the Foreign Liquor Rules,' read with the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, hereinafter called as 'the Prohibition Act.' stood in the name of o...

J.G. Hegde Vs. R.D. Shukla

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom55; 2003(4)ALLMR822; 2004(2)BomCR106; 2004(1)MhLj973

ORDERD.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard the learned counsel.2. The plaintiff has taken out this summons for judgment in the suit filed by him for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,18,000/- allegedly advanced by him to the defendant as a friendly loan together with interest thereon at 15% p.a. amounting to Rs. 98,000/-. In the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that he is a Doctor by profession and is a social worker and a member of the Congress Party. He knew the defendant who was also a worker of the Congress Party. The defendant was carrying on business in partnership in the name and style of M/s. Shivarri Garments, and represented to the plaintiff that he had suffered losses in the partnership business and requested for a friendly loan for discharging his liabilities and paying of the share of his partner. The plaintiff took pity on the defendant and advanced him a friendly loan of Rs. 2,18.000/-which the defendant promised to repay with interest at 15% p.a. within a period of three years. The defendan...

State of Maharashtra Vs. S.D. Shinde and Co.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR156

ORDER1. The appellant and the respondent entered into an agreement under which the respondent undertook to construct a certain project. The appellant herein from time to time issued work orders which the respondent alleges to have completed. It appears that certain disputes arose between the appellant and the respondent as a result of which the respondent filed a petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for appointment of an Arbitrator. An Arbitrator was appointed who gave an award. Subsequently, the arbitrator filed an interim award before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) for being made rule of the Court. After the notices were issued, the respondent filed an application for making the said interim award a rule of the Court. An interim order was passed whereby the appellant was directed to pay the final bill to the respondent, in relation whereof an application was filed by the respondent purported to be under section 18 of the Act...

Alfa Laval India Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR641; [2003]133TAXMAN740(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.This tax appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is filed by the assessee against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT for short) dated 4-1-2001 relating to the assessment year 1989-90.2. According to the assessee the following substantial questions of law arise out of the order the Tribunal, namely :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of case, the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 15,15,667 made to closing stock by the assessing officer 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing to exclude the amount of Rs. 81,33,667 from the book profits as defined in section 32AB(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest from customers, sales tax set-off and other refunds, claims etc. do not form part of the business profit for calculating deduction ...