Mumbai Court August 2004 Judgments

Lallubhai Amichand Ltd. Vs. Commr of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These are the cross appeals. Shri V M Doiphode, ld. Advocate appeared for the appellant. Shri Ajay Saxena, ld. SDR appeared for the revenue.2. At the outset the Id. SDR submitted that in the appeal filed by the revenue, a prayer has been made to remand the appeal to the Commissioner (A) to decide on merits. In the appeal of the revenue following grounds have been taken:- 1) The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the appeal before him involved from classification of goods like lotion bown, bed pan, sieves, chassis, Tubes, suitcase and school bags of aluminum. The issue before the Commissioner (Appeals) involved only classification of the product viz. Rice boiler, Milk Cooker, Idli Patra, Idlistand, separator and Trays and the availability of Exemption Notification No. 180/88-CE dt. 13/5/1988, as such his findings regarding the classification of lotion bown, Bed pan, Sieves, Chassis, Tubes, Suitcase and School Bags of aluminum Idli Cooker exceed the scope of appeal befo...

La-bel Laminates Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(117)LC1005Tri(Mum.)bai

1. At the behest of the Revenue an early hearing in this case was granted and the matter was posted for hearing on 10.2.2004.Subsequently at the request of the appellant the matter was adjourned 19.3.2004, on which date the Ld. Chartered Accountant appearing for the appellant informed the Bench that he was withdrawing his Vakalatnama.Finally the matter was again posted for regular hearing on 31.8.2004.None appeared on behalf of the appellant.3. The matter pertains to a demand of differential duty which arose out of a classification dispute way back. Paper Based Laminated sheets manufactured by the appellant according to him are correctly classifiable under Chapter Heading No. 4818.90 and according to the Revenue, the goods fall under Chapter Heading No. 3920.31. In appeal the Tribunal held that the goods are classifiable under Chapter 48 of CETA. The Revenue went in appeal to the Apex Court. The Apex Court decided the matter in favour of the Revenue classifying the said goods under Ch...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. HussaIn Sheth Ship Breakers Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC609

1. Revenue is in appeal as the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the revenues appeal as regards the valuation of a old and used vessel imported at Bhavnagar. The Order-in-Appeal No: 331/2003 (108- JMN) Cus/Commr(A)/Ahd dated: 10.10.2003 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Ahmedabad is not proper and legal on the following grounds: While discussing the facts of case from Para 1 to 6 of the said order, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal), Ahmedabad, the said Commissioner (Appeals) have mentioned the fact that the following removals, detected by the independent Surveyor, MIs. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson, Bhavnagar, in the presence of the Customs officials and the representative of the Buyer, on 08.11.2001, prompted the Importer-1 to cancel the first MOA dated 22.10.2001 and also aided the said party to reduce the price of the subject vessel:------------------------------------------------ Sr. No Name of the Removal Items Nos. (Set)------------------------------------------------ ...

Madanlal Gupta Family Trust Vs. Joint Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)1SOT292(Mum.)

Both the cross appeals arise out of the order 28-10-1999 passed by the learned CIT (A) for the assessment year 1996-97. Both the appeals were heard together. They involve common issues and hence they are being disposed of by a consolidated'order.The parties represented by their respective counsel/representatives have been heard.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in holding that there was chargeable capital gains arising on sale of premises at G-002, Vikas Centre, Santacruz, Mumbai, even thought there was no cost of acquisition.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in holding that: (b) That the appellant had received a gift of the capital asset from Madanlal Gupta, thus attracting provisions of section 49(1)(ii); (c) That there was a transfer of capital asset to a trust by Shri Madanlal Gupta, thus attracting provisions of section 49(1)(iii)(a); (d) That the cost of acquisition of...

ito Vs. Surana Traders C/O S.G. Salecha

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)92ITD212(Mum.)

1. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on the business of trading in Stainless Steel Pattas ('SS Pattas', for short). For assessment year 1993-94, the assessee filed a return of income, declaring an income of Rs. 66,826. The AO found the assessee to have made its entire purchases of Rs. 4.42 crore from three concerns of Jodhpur. These three firms carried on the business of re-rolling SS Pattas. The partners of the assessee firm, alongwith their other family members, owned them. The assessee's purchase prices for SS Pattas of various sizes and gauges ranged from Rs. 32 per kg to Rs. 47 per kg. On total sales of Rs. 4.66 crore, the assessee had declared a gross profit margin of around one per cent. The AO observed that the assessee's purchase documents stated lot number, challan number, size, gauge, number of Pattas, number of bundles and total weight, etc., whereas the assessee's sales bills and challans did not contain these details. They mentioned only total weight sold and r...

Joint Cit Vs. Sumatinath Enterprises

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)1SOT312(Mum.)

All these four appeals are revenue's appeals for assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91, 1992-93 & 1993-94 directed against the separate orders of the learned CIT (A)-XXXIX, Mumbai dated 14-5-1999 and 18-5-1999. Since the common issue is involved in all these four appeals, we are disposing off all fiese appeals by this common order for the sake of convenience. Although, three grounds have been raised by the revenue in all these four appeals, the only grievance of the revenue is that the total interest income of the assessee should be assessed under the head 'Income from other sources' and total interest payment should be deducted from business profits only.Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee has received gross interest of Rs. 2,15,531 in assessment year 1989-90, Rs. 2,62,026 in assessment year 1990-91, Rs. 29,95,037 in assessment year 1992-93 and Rs. 9,13,595 in assessment year 1993-94. It was claimed by the assessee that the interest income is assessable under ...

Grindwell Norton Ltd. Vs. the Dcit, Spl. Rg. 23

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)91ITD412(Mum.)

1. As there was a difference of opinion between the Accountant Member and judicial Member, who heard this appeal originally, following question was referred Under Section 255(4) of the Act to the Hon'ble President for nominating a Third Member to resolve the controversy. "Whether on facts and in law, the assessee was entitled to deduction of Rs. 25,07,833/- being advances made to two other companies, in computation of profits of business?" 2. The learned Vice-President, Shri M.K. Chaturvedi, sitting as the Third Member vide his order dated 28^th April, 2004, has concurred with the view taken by the Accountant Member. In accordance with the majority view, we hold that the assessee is not entitled to deduction of Rs. 25,07,833/- being advances made to two other companies, which were written off by the assessee in computation of profits of business.3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, the other ground pertaining to disallowance of Rs. 6,57,606/- Under Rule 6D having...

Aleli and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

This is an appeal filed by the assessee arising out of the order of CIT (A) XLII, Mumbai, dated 22-8-2000 and the issue involved is in respect of disallowance of bad debt of Rs. 3,66,032.Parties heard and the orders of the authorities below perused. During the course of assessment proceedings assessee was asked to furnish the details in respect of the bad debts written off amounting to Rs. 3,66,032 and it was found that the same pertained to the previous business of the assessee of textile carried out by an old management.The assessing officer has observed that during the year there was a change in the management of the assessee company and the new management took over the company for carrying out a new line of business of Soap manufacturing. So the assessing officer was of the view that since the bad debts pertained to the previous business of textile run by an old management and did not pertain to the business of new management, hence not allowable. The assessing officer has also as...

Rakesh R. Sharma Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Prosecutio ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ774

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. This appeal is filed by the accused against his conviction under Section 29 r/w 8(c) and 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act by the Special Judge (NDPS), Brihanmumbai, vide his judgment dated 13.3.2001 by which the accused has been sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. One lac and in default to undergo S.I. for 3 months. The accused is in custody since 19.6.1998 till this date.2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that, The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Sahar Airport, Mumbai received a letter dated 18.6.1998 from on Taqseef Khan, Air Port Manager, South African Airway, Mumbai to the effect that two bags of South African Airways Flight SA-277 dated 18.6.1988 were found to be tagged twice by the counter staff of the airline with the Tag No. SA-157605 and SA-157606 and as such the said tags were overloaded and the concerned passenger was required to identify the tags. Further information in the said letter is that all the four bags were tagged ...

Rikhabchand Manikchand Lalwani Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR684

Shah A.P., J.1. The land bearing Survey No. 383 admeasuring 8-H and 72-R situate within the Municipal area of Manmad Municipal Council originally belonged to the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 Manmad Municipal Council prepared a Development Plan for Manmad city under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. For implementation of the said plan, respondent No. 4 required to acquire various lands including the land belonging to the petitioner. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 19th April, 1981. This notification came to be corrected by corrigendum dated 26th November, 1981. Thereafter in exercise of power under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, possession of the land was taken on 26th September, 1983. It appears that the petitioner was paid Rs. 36,000/- as advance compensation for 1-H and 80-R. and a further compensation of Rs. 74,000/- was paid for 3-H and 77-R. of which possession was taken on 8th March, 198...