Mumbai Court September 2003 Judgments

Johnson and Johnson Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants have placed on records a written submission and have prayed for decision on merits. Accordingly, we have heard Ld. JCDR. The dispute in the present appeal is as to whether the consignment of Clear view HEC Elisa begin Elisa Diagnostic Tests for pregnancy detection would be eligible for exemption under Notification No. 208/8-Cus.2. The said exemption had been denied to the appellant on the ground that the benefit of the notification restricted to Enzyme linked immuno assay kits i.e. these kits have to be enzyme based and inasmuch as the imported kits have no enzyme present in them, the same cannot be treated as Elisa Kits, eligible for duty free benefit.3. The appellants have relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Collector of Customs, New Delhi v. Ethnor Ltd., reported in 1996 (86) ELT 558 (Tri) wherein it was held that absence of enzyme is the new technique for carrying out pregnancy tests and that will not take away the item from the ambit of the descri...

Mrs. Rupali R. Desai Vs. Additional Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)88ITD76(Mum.)

1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the CIT(A)'s order dt. 3rd Feb., 1999, confirming the penalty of Rs. 41,50,000 levied by the AO under Section 271D on the ground that the assessee had contravened the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act.2. At the outset, we may point out that only ground No. 1 is the relevant ground of appeal and ground Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 contain the arguments in support of the ground No. 1. Ground No. 6 is general in nature and is not required to be dealt with. The arguments contained in ground Nos. 2 to 5 are reproduced as under: "Ground No. 2: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the lower authorities erred in not appreciating the fact that the provisions of Section 269SS of the IT Act, were enacted to prevent circulation of unaccounted money. In the present case the payer and the payee are both identifiable and known. Further, the deposits made by the appellant had to be so made to comply with the directions of AAIFR authorities. T...

Dhruv N. Shah Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)88ITD188(Mum.)

1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)'s order dt.30th March, 2002, passed under Section 263. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are argumentative but it is noticed that grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are in fact the substantive grounds of appeal and the remaining grounds are the arguments in support of the aforesaid grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal No. 1 and 2 are reproduced as under: "1. The CIT erred in passing the order under Section 263 on the ground that the original assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 2. The CIT erred in treating liquidated damages of Rs. 21,00,000 received by the assessee from M/s Mahendra Builders (P) Ltd. as revenue receipt taxable under the head 'capital gains'." 2. The facts are that assessee alongwith his father Mr. Nanalal Kapurchand Shah jointly (whose name was recorded for the sake of convenience) agreed to purchase share certificate No. 34 containing five equity shares of Rs. 50 ...

Jeetay Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)90ITD739(Mum.)

1. This is an appeal by the assessee and is directed against order dated 28^th April 1998, passed by the CIT(A) IV Mumbai, in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The short but interesting point requiring our adjudication in this appeal is whether or not the CIT(A) was justified in holding that, on the facts and circumstances of this case and for the purpose of computing capital gains on the sale of shares, the cost of acquisition of those shares was required to be taken on the basis of average cost, i.e. by spreading the actual purchase cost on the bonus shares as well, and not on the basis of 'actual cost' - which is challenged in this appeal at the instance of the assessee.3. The issue in appeal lies in a narrow compass of undisputed facts.During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that while the profit and loss account of the assessee reflects profit on sale of shar...

Finacord Chemicals (P) Ltd., S.R. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT537Tri(Mum.)bai

1. M/s. Finacord Chemicals (P) Ltd., Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as FCPL) imported two consignments of undenatured ethyl alcohol (malt spirit plus or minus 59.3% vol.) at Nhava Sheva port under two bills of entry. As per the invoices submitted along with bills of entry dated 9.9.1991, the goods were supplied by M/s. Ravco International Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as RIL), England, vide their two invoices, both dated 15.8.1991, at the rate of Pounds Sterling 1.40 per litre CIF Nhava Sheva. According to the packing lists, country of origin certificates and bills of lading submitted along with the bills of entry, goods were shipped by M/s. Morrison Bowmore, U.K., on account of RIL. Clearance of the goods was claimed under two import licences, dated 23.1.1991 and 12.3.1991, valid for import of items permissible as per the provisions of paragraph 192 of the Import & Export Policy 1990-93, Bills of entry were assessed and clearance of the goods was allowed on declared value. Custo...

Telco Ltd., Shri A.P. Arya, Shri Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT694Tri(Mum.)bai

Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J) 1. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of Chassis of Motor Vehicles in their factory at Jamshedpur since 1954. With the levy of Central Excise duty on Motor Vehicles under Tariff Item 34 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Schedule in 1956, the appellants were paying excise duty on all their clearances of Motor Vehicle Chassis (herein after referred to a MVCs) irrespective of the category of the customer/location, based on its Net Dealer Price (hereinafter referred to as NDP) charged for sales made at its factory gate, even in respect of vehicles stock transferred from the factory to various Regional Sales Offices (herein after referred to as RSOs) from where sales were made eventually to the dealers/buyers. In the middle of September, 1975, the appellants filed price lists in terms of the proposed new Section 4 of the Central Excise Act introduced in October, 1975, indicating that the sales are being made at the factory gate to deale...

Telco Ltd., Shri A.P. Arya, Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of Chassis of Motor Vehicles in their factory at Jamshedpur since 1954. With the levy of Central Excise duty on Motor Vehicles under Tariff Item 34 of the Central Excise duty on Motor Vehicles under Tariff Item 34 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Schedule in 1956, the appellants were paying excise duty on all their clearances of Motor Vehicle Chassis (herein after referred to as MVCs) irrespective of the category of the customer/location, based on its Net Dealer Price (hereinafter referred to as NDP) charged for sales made at its factory gate, even in respect of vehicles stock transferred from the factory to various Regional Sales Offices (herein after referred to as RSOs) from where sales were made eventually to the dealers/buyers. In the middle of September, 1975, the appellants filed price lists in terms of the proposed new Section 4 of the Central Excise Act introduced in October, 1975, indicating that the sales are bei...

R. Tex and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application of Shrinath Prints (application 920/03 in the appeal E/1443/03) is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 4,06,803/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. Application by A.C. Kikla, partner of this firm is against penalty imposed on him of Rs. 1 lakh. The applications by the other applicants are for waiver of deposit of penalty imposed under 209A of Rs. 20,000/- on each of them.2. The duty has been demanded, and penalty imposed on Shrinath Prints (appellant in appeal E/1443/03) was engaged in the processing of textile fabrics. The duty has been demanded from it and penalty imposed on it and on its partner on the ground that it cleared fabrics without payment of duty and covered to failure to pay duty by issue of invoice differently maintained from those which were issued for payment of duty. Penalty has been imposed on the other applicants on the ground that they received fabrics processed by this firm knowing that appropriate duty had not been paid.3. The common representativ...

Tata Consulting Engineers (Erstwhile Division of Tata Sons Ltd.) Subse ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)MhLj430

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 24-3-2003, passed by the Industrial Tribunal whereby he Tribunal has allowed the application for subsistence allowance pending the hearing and final disposal of the approval application by the petitioners and which is pending for disposal before the Industrial Tribunal.3. Placing reliance upon an unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Air India Limited v. Mr. Libio Francisco Colaco and Anr. in Appeal No. 351 of 2003, delivered on 30-6-2003, along with other appeals and writ petitions, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that it has been clearly held by the Division Bench that in cases where domestic inquiry is held to be either defective or there was only a facade of an inquiry or there was no inquiry at all, only on such finding being arrive...

Aniruddha Sitaram Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom31

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This Chamber Summons has been taken out in an Execution Application for a declaration that the order/decree dated 3rd July 1986 passed in Writ Petition No. 1162 of 1982 is a nullity as against the applicant and his premises and that the order is not executable. A further direction is sought to quash the warrant of possession dated 7th April, 2000.2. The facts giving rise to the present Chamber Summons are as follows:--A writ petition being writ petition No. 1167 of 1982 was filed against the Bombay Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') by the erstwhile owners of Plot No. 348 of the Town Planning Scheme of Bombay City (Mahim). The petition was filed against the occupants of unauthorised structures situate on this plot including the applicant. The learned Judge by the order dated 3rd July 1986 made Rule absolute in terms of prayer (a) of the petition. Prayer (a) of the petition reads as under:--'(a) that a writ of mandamus or a writ in ...