Mumbai Court July 2004 Judgments

Rajendra Electrical Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT129Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides, and considering that the issue in this case is Service Tax levy on the appellant who is the manufacturer of electrical motors, and who had entered into an agreement for sale and distribution of the electrical motors, so manufactured and cleared on payment of duty, with another company mainly M/s Remi Sales and Engineering Ltd. This agreement is titled as "Agreement of Consignment Agent.2. Considering the definition of the term "clearing agents and as found in Clause 25 of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 which reads as follows: "(25). 'Clearing and forwarding Agent' means 'any person who is engaged in providing any service either directly or indirectly, connected with the clearing and forwarding operations in any matter to any other person and includes a consignment agent." The lower authorities have confirmed the demands on this service user and not service provider i.e. M/s Remi Sales and Engineering Ltd.L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd and Ors.v. CCE, Meerut...

Tekfrens Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who in the impugned order confirmed the order of the lower authority.2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant is a manufacturer of Electrically Operated Travelling (E.O.T.), Semi-E.O.T., and Hand Operated Travelling (H.O.T.) Cranes classified under Chapter Heading 84.26 of Central Excise Tariff Act. These goods are manufactured as per customer's specific drawings and design. In the event of refusal by the customer, said goods cannot be sold to any other customer. The appellant receives some part of the price in advance to protect his interest, in case the buyer cancelled the order. The charge against the assessee is that he receives advances/deposits from his customers and the notional interest on such deposits/advances is addable to the assessable value. A similar issue was decided by a Co-ordinate Bench vide its order No. A/1023 to 1033/WZB/2004/C-I dt. 4.6.2004 in the appellants favour. The Bench in the a...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Manohar Synthetics Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT913Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal arose out of the order of Commissioner (Appeals), who in the impugned order set aside the order of the lower authority and allowed the appeal. The revenue is in appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order.2. Briefly the fads are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Texturising Yarn falling under 54 of Central Excise Tariff Act. The inputs, POY and final products of the assesses were made specified goods under Notification No. 1/93 vide Notification No.90/94 dt. 25.4.94 and the benefit of modvat credit was allowed to these goods vide notification No. 24/94 CE (NT) dt. 20.5.94. The assessee was availing the benefit of proforma credit under Rule 56A prior to the issue of notification No. 24/94. They started availing benefit of first slab of Rs.30 lakhs of clearance value of goods at nil rate of Central Excise duty under SSI exemption. A show cause notice was issued demanding Rs. 48,682/- being the alleged short payment of duty on the ground that the g...

Jayshree Power Volt. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT478Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The issue involved is whether without filing the necessary classification declaration claiming the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 78/90-CE dt. 20.3.90 appellants can avail the benefit of concessional rate of 5% Adv. under the said notification. The notification in question exempts goods that are used in Pollution Control Equipments in excess of 5% Adv. subject to the condition that an officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Environment & Forest certifies in each case that the goods manufactured are intended for Pollution Control purposes. Under a schedule to the notification description of goods are given:- "The appellant cleared Electrical Transformer valued at Rs. 4,50,000)/- on payment of Central Excise Duty availing of the benefit of notification. The allegation of the department is that he did so without filing a classification declaration under Rule 173B, before removing the excisable goods as required under that Rule...

income Tax Officer Vs. Charomatic Dyestuff Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)94TTJ(Mum.)550

1. This is a Revenue's appeal directed against the Order of the learned CIT(A)-XLIV, Mumbai, dt. 14th July, 2000, for asst. yr. 1997-98. The only ground raised by the Revenue in this appeal is as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to allow deduction of Rs. 27,79,685 to the assessee under Section 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961." 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is in the business of manufacturing and export of synthetic organic dyestuff.The assessee is also a trading exporter. It was found by the AO that the assessee has claimed deduction under Section 80HHC even on the interest-income of Rs. 4,83,777 and bill discounting income of Rs. 54,95,161. The assessee's case was that these incomes were also business income and, therefore, entitled to deduction under Section 80HHC. But this was not accepted by the AO and 90 per cent of this interest income of Rs. 4,83777 and bill discount...

Motiram Jagannath Bhoir Vs. Rajaram Gopal Mhaskar (Since Deceased, Per ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR704; 2005(1)BomCR325; 2005(1)MhLj169

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay, dated February 28th, 1989, in Tenancy Appeal No. 1 of 1985. Briefly stated, the land in question is agricultural land bearing Survey No. 43, Hissa No. 0 and Survey No. 49, Hissa No. 0, admeasuring 20 acres 8 gunthas and 16 acres 4 gunthas respectively of village Akurle, taluka Panvel, district Raigad. it is not in dispute that the Petitioner is owner in respect of the suit lands. it is also not in dispute that the Petitioner was born on June 16, 1944. in other words, on the tillers day, i.e., 1st April 1957, the Petitioner was minor. Petitioner attained majority on June 16, 1962. Nevertheless, the Respondent tenant failed to give intimation within the specified time under section 32F of the Act, but such intimation was sent by the Respondent tenant only on 2nd September 1977. it is in this backdrop the Petitioner filed application under section 32F of t...

J. MaraThe (Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs Mrs. Uma Vijay Gune ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR468; 2004(6)BomCR721; (2005)107BOMLR749; 2004(4)MhLj287

A.P. Shah, Acg. C.J.1. Whether acquisition of residential premises by a tenant in a different town can per se be considered as an acquisition of suitable residential premises within the meaning of Section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short Bombay Rent Act) is the question that is referred to by Karnik J. to the larger Bench for decision.2. The question arises in the following circumstances.The 1st petitioner is the tenant of the respondent of the suit premises situated in Mumbai and petitioner No. 2 is his son. The respondent had filed a suit against the petitioners in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai for possession, inter alia, on the grounds of bonafide requirement, subletting and that petitioner No. 1 had acquired suitable residential premises at Sangli. The ground that the petitioner No. 1 had sublet the premises to his son i.e. petitioner No. 2 was not pressed before the learned single Judge. The Trial Court decreed the suit...

Shri Waman Narayan Trimbakkar, Mahila Griha Vastu Bhandar Vs. Crompton ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR172

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the Industrial Court dismissing his complaint filed under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. According to the Petitioner, he had been deliberately deprived of the benefits of the permanency by giving him artificial breaks in service and thereby the Respondents had committed unfair labour practices. The Petitioner was initially appointed on 2.1.1975 on a temporary basis with Respondent No. 1 He worked there as such till 16.5.1975. After a gap of 10 years, the Petitioner was provided work by the Respondents on 4.9.1985. He continued in service intermittently as and when work was available with the respondent for a period of almost 5 years, that is, from 4.9.1985 to 6.5.1990. It appears that on 24.6.1988, a settlement was entered into between the Union representing the workmen and the respondent No. 1 herein. Clause 13 of the settlement dealt with permanency of temporary wor...

Mrs. Nakshatram Kanakraj Nadar Vs. the Commissioner of Police and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)MhLj465

S.S. Parkar, J.1. This petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, Kanakraj Pal Nadar, who was detained under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter called as 'the MPDA Act'), challenging the order of detention dated 26th September 2003 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay under Section 3(1) of the said Act.2. Pursuant to the aforesaid order the detenu was detained on 30th September 2003. In the grounds of detention two incidents in which the detenu was involved have been mentioned. The first incident was of 31st May 2003 in respect of which the crime was registered for offences under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC read with Sections 4, 25(1-b)(a) and 35 of the Indian Arms Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act at Nehru Nagar Police Station under C.R. No. 129/03. That was a case where robbery was committed on Thane-Mumbai Express highway by the ...

Laxman Dhondi Zurale, Since Deceased by His Legal Heirs and anr. Vs. Y ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR812; 2005(1)BomCR273; 2005(1)MhLj506

A.M., J.1. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated September, 29, 1988 in Revision Application No. MRT-KP-53/ 1985 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, camp at Kolhapur. Briefly stated, the land in question is agricultural land bearing Survey No. 95 of village Gargoti, taluka Bhudargad, district Kolhapur. The land was owned by Yashodabai, wife of Shripatrao Shinde. The predecessor of the respondent instituted Suit No. 121 of 1962 for possession under Section 29(2) read with Section 33(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. However, that suit was withdrawn. Later on, another suit came to be filed, being Regular Civil Suit No. 391 of 1976 for relief of possession and injunction against the petitioner. In the said suit, the petitioners filed written statement asserting that they were inducted in the suit land as tenant since the year 1960 and were in occupation thereof in that capacity. In view of that plea taken, the Civil Court framed issu...