Mumbai Court February 2004 Judgments

Credit Llyonnais Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)94ITD401(Mum.)

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order, dt. 31st March, 1995, passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of assessment Under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yr.1991-92. Based on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant respectfully submits that the learned CIT(A) erred on the following grounds : 3. In disallowing the deduction claimed Under Section 80M amounting to Rs., 2,70,91,836.3. We will first take up assessee's grievance against CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of deduction Under Section 80M amounting to Rs. 2,70,91,836. This is the main issue in this appeal, since for the reasons we shall set out later in this order, the remaining issues are the issues covered by the binding judicial precedents.4. There is no dispute about the position under the IT Act to the effect that deduction Under Section 80M is available only to the domestic companies. As far as the provisions of the IT Act are concerned, the assessee...

Silverchem Industries Pilot Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri M.H. Patil, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and submitted that there is a total duty demand of Rs. 55,95,794/- on LPG on the ground that the appellant has conducted the manufacturing activity by mixing propane and butane gas. When Butane is blended with propane by raising pressure, without doing this it cannot be marketed as LPG. These propane and butane are mixtures of hydrocarbons which are gaseous at normal and ambient temperature but can be liquefied at normal temperature by application of moderate pressure, then only can be termed as LPG. The Ld. Advocate has relied in support of his case on CCE v. Goyal Gases (P) Ltd. reported in 2000 (119) E.LT.5 (S.C.) and claimed that the activity undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture. He also submitted that Note 10 to Chapter 27 which deals with the manufacture with effect from 12.5.2000 is applicable only to CNG and hot LPG. He also claimed that duty and modvat benefit is to be given in view of ...

Bharat Containers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal relates to rejection of refund claim of Rs.61,465/-. The said amount was paid by the appellants as a pre-deposit consequent to the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35F of the Act, as a pre condition to hear their appeal. The matter was heard by the Commissioner (Appeals) and they obtained a favourable order.Consequently, the refund of Rs.61,465/- paid by them by debit in RG-23A Part II was sought in cash on the ground that crediting the amount to RG-23A Pt. II would not help them, as the factory was closed since April 2000.2. The Deputy Commissioner sanctioned the refund but ordered that the said amount be taken only as credit in RG 23A, part-II. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the findings. Hence, the appeal to the Tribunal.3. It is noted that, the payment of Rs. 61,465/- was made by debit in the RG-23A Pt.II and in the normal circumstances, the refund thereof would also lead to crediting of the said amount in the RG-23A Pt.II record. However, ...

Vipor Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT487Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal of the appellant is directed against the rejection of refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants made a claim for refund of duty of Rs. 52,900/- before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. Against the rejection of the claim, the appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). The same was rejected and hence the present appeal to the Tribunal.2. The facts in brief are that, the appellants received chemicals "Chlorhexidine Gluconate B.P" from the customers on its rejection. The appellants gave the intimation to the jurisdictional authorities about the receipt of the material, the same was verified, as required under the provisions of Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules 1944. They also maintained separate account for re-processing the said material and thereafter the same was cleared on payment of duty. After completion of the process, the claim for refund of aforesaid amount was filed. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim solely on t...

Pasupati Prints Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These 19 appeals are being disposed of by this common order, after hearing both sides and considering that the issues involved herein has been settled by the larger bench. The appeals are taken up for disposals by this common order, as they emanate from the same order of the Commissioner (Appeals), after waiver of pre deposit and with the consent of both sides, the following order is passed.2. It appears that, after the enquiries conducted in the shop premises of M/s Rainbow Silk Mills engaged in the trading of processed man made fabrics, it appeared that the value of the grey cloth procured by them and sent to different mills for processing was more than the values declared for the grey fabrics by the processors. It was an admitted fact that when the rate of grey fabrics increased and the values of grey fabrics were intimated only and no declarations under notification description was obtained from the processors and filed that the Central Excise officers, the values were declared...

Sensotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT485Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These three applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise.In the impugned order, the Commissioner demanded Central Excise duly of Rs. 55,07,696/- under Section 11(2) of the Central Excise Act confiscated the goods seized in the factory premises of the applicants, confiscated the goods valued at Rs. 1,31,706/- seized from the transporter's godown, imposed a penalty under Rule 173Q of Rs. 39,03,475/- and a penalty of Rs. 16,04,221/- under Section 11AC of the Act on M/s. Sensotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd. and penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules of Rs. 10 lakhs each on Niraj Gupta and Sumeet Gupta, directors of M/s. Sensotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd. The stay applications were posted for hearing on 5.12.2003, but on request of the applicants' advocate, it was adjourned to 9.12.2003. When the matter came up for hearing on that day, a further prayer for adjournment was made. No reason was given for seeking su...

Parental Drugs (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC270

1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore for having been denied the benefit of exemption notifications for certain Intra Venous Injection fluids (hereinafter referred to as IV fluids) being manufactured by them and ordering in three Show Cause Notices as follows: (a) confirming a duty demand of Rs. 74,92,015/- under the proviso of Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (b) imposing a penalty of Rs. 74,92,0157- on the appellants under Section 11 AC of the Act and Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; (a) confirming a duty demand of Rs. 97,68,8557- on the appellants under Section 11A (1) of the Act; (b) imposing a penalty of Rs. 97,68,855/- on the appellants, under Rule 173Q of the Rules; and (a) confirming a duty demand of Rs 57,59,223/- on the appellants under Section 11A (1) of the Act; (b) imposing of a penalty of Rs 10 lakhs under Rule 25 of the Rules; and 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of intraven...

Pirappa Mahadeo Birajdar Vs. Arti Co. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004BomCR(Cri)11

Ranjana Desai, J.1. The petitioner is the complainant in R.C.C. No. 34 of 2000 pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Solapur. The charge therein is under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent 1 and 2 are accused 1 and 2 respectively.2. The case of the petitioner in the complaint is that respondent 1 is a Finance Corporation and respondent 2 is a partner thereof. The petitioner had obtained a loan of Rs. 80,000/- with interest at the rate of 3.5% per annum for purchase of a tempo truck. It is the petitioner's case that the said amount was paid by him.3. According to the petitioner, in June, 1999, there was again some discussion between him and respondents 1 and 2 and respondents 1 and 2 agreed to give him another loan of Rs. 1 lac. The petitioner agreed to mortgage the said truck with respondents 1 and 2 for the said loan and as a security, certain cheques were also obtained by respondents 1 and 2 from the petitioner. On 15/10/1999, the petitioner too...

Mansur A. Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)MhLj550

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. Leave to amend granted.2. Heard Mr. Mundargi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Saste, learned A.P.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Banatwala for respondent No. 3.3. Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respondents waives service. By consent of the parties, heard finally.4. Mr. Saste, learned A.P.P. waives service for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Banatwala, learned counsel waives service for respondent No. 3. Heard finally by the consent of the parties.5. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the F.I.R. being C.R. No. LAC/94/2004 registered at Azad Maidan police station at the instance of respondent No. 3 for the offence mainly punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Atrocities Act') and the provisions of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. This petition for quashing has been filed on the ground that there is an amicable ...

Nandkishor S/O Shrimantrao Deshmukh Vs. Presiding Officer/Tahsildar an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)BomCR592; 2004(2)MhLj485

V.G. Munshi, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.2. This writ petition is directed, challenging the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, in appeal filed under Section 35(3C) of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, on 5-1-2004, thereby setting aside the order passed by Collector, Jalna, on 17-10-2003, holding that, the no confidence motion passed in the Panchayat meeting on 6-8-2003 is legal and valid.3. Before proceeding with the merits of the case, points to be decided, etc., it is necessary to acquaint ourselves with the facts and circumstances of the case with which we are concerned.4. The petitioner, in the year 2001, was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Dahigaon. The respondent Nos. 2 to 6, who were the members, on 30-7-2003, moved requisition/notice of no confidence motion against the petitioner. In pursuance to the said notice. Tahsildar, Jafrabad, convened a special mee...