Mumbai Court February 2004 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. Videocon Appliances Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT156Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondents herein imported timer switches for washing machines set wash/spin time for desired duration. The goods were assessed under Customs Tariff Heading 91.07 rejecting the importer's claim for classification under CTH 8450.90 as parts of washing machines and seized the goods since clearance of the goods was permissible only under cover of specific import licence, which the importers did not possess. The adjudicating authority directed release of the goods with a caution to the importers to produce import licence for the next consignment. The Revenue challenges this order, contending that the goods ought to have been confiscated and penalty imposed.3. The importers claimed classification of the goods as parts of washing machines but subsequently stated that they would apply for a specific licence and requested that a lenient view be taken. However, we find that classification of the goods have now been decided by the Tribunal in the importer's own case as seen from Order N...

Mumal Marbles Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT110Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Appellant filed a refund claim for Rs.11,06,138/- on the ground that while computing the assessable value of the machine imported, consumables and spares were assessed on merits instead of assessing them along with the machine and that service charges were wrongly included in the value of the machine. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim stating that the spares supplied along with the machine have to be assessed separately because such spares are separately charged and they are not compulsory supplies. His further contention is that under rule 9 of the customs valuation rules charges paid towards services are includable in the A.V. The Appellant appealed against this order to the Commissioner (appeals). The latter rejected the appeal.3. The ld. Advocate argued that the service charges in their case are for construction, erection and maintenance undertaken after importation. In any case they have not paid these charges to the supplier as the appellants themselves undertook...

N.H.H. Textile Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 16 lakhs and penalty of equal amount arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Ahmedabad, who has dismissed the appeal filed before him by the applicants against the order of the Additional Commissioner who confirmed a duty demand and imposed penalty as set out above, on the ground of non compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs. The duty demand was confirmed on the basis of determination of annual production capacity and noting that the claim for abatement of duty was rejected by the Commissioner by his order dt. 28.2.01.2. We have heard both sides, we find that the order of the Commissioner rejecting the claim for abatement is the subject matter in appeal No.E/1895/2001-Mum which is pending before the Tribunal. The question as to whether the claim for abatement was rightly or wrongly rejected will be decided by the Tribunal when it disposes of the above mentioned appeal. W...

Kurian Babu and ors. Vs. Central Bank of India

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: III(2004)BC27

1. This misc. appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendant Nos.3 and 4 being aggrieved by the order dated 16.6.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune on Exhibit No. 43 in Original Application No. 38/P/2001. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application made by the Bank to lead secondary evidence as the original documents could not be traced though extensive search was made by the concerned officers of the applicant Bank to find out the same. The defendants felt aggrieved and hence have filed the present appeal before this Appellate Tribunal.2. I have heard Mr. Kurian Babu, the appellant in person (original defendant No. 3) and Mr. Thakore appearing for the respondent No. 1 Bank. I have gone through the proceedings including the impugned order and in my view, the learned Presiding Officer has not acted fairly in allowing the application made by the Bank when in fact no case was made out by the Bank to take re...

Plastiblends India Ltd. Vs. the I.T.O.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)94ITD295(Mum.)

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 14.7.99 of CIT(A)-XL, Mumbai. The first ground of appeal is as under: "In the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred legally and factually in upholding the decision of the AO and in upholding the conclusion drawn by the AO in the assessment order and finally in thrusting depreciation of Rs. 2,67,69,235/- on the assessee company, though depreciation allowance was not claimed by the company. The depreciation allowance Under Section 32 has not been claimed by the assessee company and the depreciation of Rs. 2,67,69,235/- therefore ought not to be thrust upon the assessee company:" 2. The relevant facts, briefly stated, are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacture of Master Batches and for the AY under appeal, in respect of two industrial undertakings, deduction Under Section 80 IA was claimed by the assessee company with regard to the income of Rs. 1,69,89,298/-. During the cou...

Ms. Smita D/O. Krishna Shetty Vs. Shri Vinay Shankar Shetty

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR252; 2004(2)MhLj1066

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule. Learned Counsel for this Respondent waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against two interim orders passed by the Additional District Judge at Thane. The first of these orders dated 27th May, 2003 directed the mother of the minor child, the Petitioner before the court, to hand over interim custody to the father who is the Respondent. By the second of these orders dated 28th July, 2003 on an application filed by the Respondent the Additional District Judge directed the officer in charge of Maninagar Police Station, at Ahmedabad to make arrangements for the production of the child before the Court.3. The parties were married on 29th December, 1991. A male child named Prithvish was born on 17th December, 1992 from the wedlock. The Petitioner filed for divorce on 12th May, 2002. A decree came to be passed in pursuance of consent terms which were filed before the Civ...

Dinar Rashid Wadia and anr. Vs. Kersy Eruch Lalkala and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom159; 2004(3)BomCR504

ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This order would dispose of the preliminary objection taken on behalf of the Defendants that the remedy of originating summons in the fact situation of the present case is not the appropriate remedy. The plaintiffs have filed the suit on the following premise.2. That, Sir Rustom Jehangirjee Vakil was the adopted son of one Khan Bahadur Jehangirjee Pestonjee Vakil and his wife Bai Soonabai. The said Rustom Jehangirjee Vakil died on or about 1st Nov. 1933, leaving behind him his widow, namely, Tehmina, three daughters, namely, the original plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and one Mrs. Gospi Homi Colah, and three sons, namely, Jehangir, Percy and Toos. It is not necessary to advert to other factual narrations, in the plaint. Suffice it to mention that the plaint refers to trust deed executed by the Jehangir, which makes provision of the beneficiaries. The trust dated l4th January, 1992, (sic) Trust, provides that Rustom Jehangirjee Vakil may appoint the beneficiaries of ...

Nectar Beverages P. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assess ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Bom)319; [2004]267ITR385(Bom)

A.M. KHANWILKAR J.1. This appeal by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for the sake of brevity), questions the judgment and order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Goa, in Income-tax Appeal No. 268(PN) of 1997 dated October 17, 2002, pertaining to the assessment year 1991-92.2. The principal question, which is a substantial question of law that arises for our consideration in this appeal is : Whether the sale proceeds received by the assessee on selling the scrapped bottles and crates (trays) could be taxed as income by virtue of Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?3. Briefly stated, the assessee is a private limited company, which derives income from the manufacture and sale of soft drinks. The assessee was claiming depreciation in respect of the bottles and crates (trays) purchased by the assessee, being the full value of such purchase under the proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) of the sai...

Devappa Keshav Nayak Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004CriLJ1940

V.G. Palshikar, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed on 8-12-1999 by II Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sess. Case No. 100/99 the appellant named above has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal and as verbally canvassed by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant before us.2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the defence and the prosecution we have scrutinized the record and reappreciated the evidence.3. The facts as disclosed on reappreciation of evidence on record stated briefly is that the accused was husband of the deceased and there used to be frequent quarrels between the two. On the fateful day i.e. 19-3-1999 the accused hit one blow on the head of victim and realising that he has hurt the wife which may be serious took her to the hospital. Then the local doctor to whom she was taken advised examination by Neuro Surgeon and therefore he took the wife to a Neuro Surgeon...

Sheshrao Bhikaji Kale Vs. Damodar Pandhare

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR880; 2004(6)BomCR354; 2004(3)MhLj357

S.T. Kharche, J.1. Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.Relevant facts are as under:2. The petitioner had filed Special Civil Suit bearing No. 12/2001 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Washim seeking relief of specific performance of contract on the basis of Isarchitthi (an agreement of Sale) dated 23-8-1999 or in the alternative for refund of consideration and damages in respect of agricultural land survey No. 322 of mouza Gaundhala. The land was agreed to be sold for consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/-. When the document of agreement of sale was produced before the Court, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division passed the order below Exh.32, an application filed by the respondent-defendant for giving direction to the plaintiff to get the said document impounded as per the provisions of law. The learned Civil Judge heard the parties, considered the contentions and directed that the agreement of sale be impounded in view of the provisions of Article 25, Sc...