Mumbai Court August 2004 Judgments

institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. H.S. Ghia of Mumbai In ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR517; [2004]141TAXMAN95(Bom)

R.M. Lodha, J.Shri H.S. Ghia is a Chartered Accountant in practice and a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. For the sake of convenience we shall refer Shri H.S. Ghia as the respondent. One Shri N.N. Sayani (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) filed a complaint before the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India under section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1949) against the respondent on 4-4-1991.2. According to the complainant the respondent agreed to sell his premises Prabhu Niwas, 148, Vittalbhai Patel Road, Bombay-400 004 for a total consideration of Rs. 3,00,000. The complainant is said to have paid Rs. 2,00,000 and balance of Rs. 1,00,000 was paid by his mother. The respondent, however, failed to sell the said premises and property to the complainant and returned the consideration of Rs. 3,00,000 in the month of August, 1990 under six cheques for Rs. 50,000 each (four in favour of t...

Marshal Trading Co. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for modification of stay order No.C-II/1027/WZB/2004 dated 19.3.2004 is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants who submits that non-appearance on the date fixed for hearing of the stay application was only due to the fact that the matter was listed for hearing before Court No. II which did not sit on that day and he was not aware that the short matters would be taken up by Bench II on that day. Arguing on the application for modification, he submits that the applicants are engaged in the trading activity and they were not carrying out any manufacturing activity, but were only producing some goods on trial basis and, therefore, the question of differential duty demand on any goods manufactured by them does not arise. In the alternative, he challenges the quantum of the differential duty demand arrived at by the lower authorities. The prayer of the learned counsel is opposed by the learned DR. He submits that the Bench had considered the findings of the Comm...

Hindustan Aegis Lpg Bottling Co. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT193Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of excise duty of Rs. 3,98,20,722/- and penalty of equal amount confirmed against M/s.Hindustan Aegis LPG Bottling Company Ltd. and duty of Rs. 5,05,29,615/- and penalty of equal amount confirmed against M/s. Aegis Chemical Industries Ltd. and penalties of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- imposed on Shri S.K. Hazra, Director of M/s. Hindustan Aegis LPG Bottling Company Ltd. and Shri Pradeep N. Das, Authorized Signatory of M/s. Hindustan Aegis LPG Bottling Company Ltd. and General Manager of M/s. Aegis Chemical Industries Ltd. arise out of the order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai. Duty demands have been confirmed in respect of clearances of LPG Mix made by M/s. Hindustan Aegis LPG Bottling Company Limited during the period 22.12.99 to 7.8.2000 and by M/s. Aegis Chemicals Industries Ltd. during the period 7.8.2000 to 27.2.2002.2. The demands arise as a result of holding that the above mentioned two companies manufactured LPG Mix ...

Manoj Processors Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of (i) duty Rs. 90,61,458 and penalty Rs. 10,00,000/-; (ii) duty Rs. 6,38,57,516/- and penalty Rs. 75,00,000/-; and (iii) duty Rs. 4,74,08,977/- and penalty Rs. 50,00,000/-, we find that it is possible to hear and decide the appeals themselves at this stage and hence we proceed to do so with the consent of both the sides after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts.2. The demands have been confirmed and penalties have been imposed for the reason that the appellants could not produce the proof of export before the adjudicating authority. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that in respect of the order-in-original No.03/DEM/2004, under the cover of letter dated 20^th February, 2003, proof of export was submitted and, therefore, the Commissioner has erred in holding that no such proof was furnished by them. In respect of the other two orders-in-original, he su...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Voltas Air Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue is in appeal in this case, against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who has upheld the contentions of the respondents who had imported a consignment of fan for car air conditioners and sought their classification under Customs tariff Heading 8414.59, as fan and others. The Revenue's plea is to classify the said goods under Heading 84.15.90 on the grounds that: (i) the goods are admittedly specific fittings solely and principally suitable to be used as a part of car air conditioner. (ii) The importer himself admits the same to be used for manufacture of air conditioning machines for cars. (iii) On examination of the goods it was revealed that they were fans along with specific fittings which made them solely and principally suitable to be used as parts of auto air conditioners and therefore as per HSN Note at page 1163: "This heading excludes fans fitted with elements additional to their motors or housing (such as large dust separating cones, filters, cooling or heat...

The Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT335Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue for determination in this appeal is, the excisability of Electro-Static Precipitators fabricated and erected by the appellants herein (who are manufacturers of cement) in 1983-84. According to the appellants, ESPs are not goods on which excise duly is leviable as they are immovable property, wrote according to the Revenue, ESPs are goods falling for classification under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and are chargeable to duty.2. We have heard both sides. The ESP is a plant widely used in the process industries and power stations to effectively remove the suspended fine dust from the exhaust gases in order to prevent atmospheric pollution. It essentially consists of a very large sized box of steel, inside which are installed several rows of electrodes.These electrodes are hung from suspension hangers placed at the roof of the casing and when the dust-laden exhaust gases pass through the electric field between rows of electrodes, the dust particles a...

Yunuskhan Yusufkhan Pathan Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ1685; I(2005)DMC9

R.S. Mohite, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') seeking to quash and set aside the judgment and order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay on 8th February 1988 in Sessions Case No. 669 of 1985.2. Brief prosecution case is as under:A) The deceased Shehnaz @ Yasmeen was daughter of PW 2 Sugrabi Rasool. On the date of the incident i.e. 8/7/1985, the deceased was residing along with PW 2 Sugrabi and her three children i.e. son PW 5 Mohin and two daughters Bablee and Asma in her house at Filter Pada, Pathanwadi, Aarey Road, Mumbai. Deceased Yasmeen was first married to a person named Matin. That marriage had resulted in a divorce and after her divorce, Yasmeen had married the present accused in Bhopal. After this marriage, the family shifted to Bombay and was residing at the aforesaid address where the incident took place. From her first marriage the deceased had a son PW 5 Mohin. From her second marriage with the accused, ...

Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corporation Limited Vs. Administrat ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom65; I(2005)BC557; 2004(6)BomCR557; [2005]127CompCas920(Bom); 2005(1)MhLj813

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Chairperson of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal in Misc. Appeal No. 132 of 2004. Briefly speaking the facts in the present case are as under :-2. The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act 1 of 1956 and is inter alia engaged in the manufacture and distribution of fertilizers, pharmaceuticals products, etc. The Unit Trust of India (UTI) was a body corporate under the provision of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 which is since repealed by the provisions of the Unit Trust of India (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal) Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said UTI Act of 2002'). Under a common loan agreement dated 1.10.1992 which was executed between the petitioner, the said Unit Trust of India and IDBI as the lead institution a sum of Rs. 1000 lacs were advanced to the petitioner herein. An additional loan of around Rs. 2500 lacs w...

Girija Rajaram (Dr.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR673; 2005(1)BomCR174

Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. This petitioner is a senior scientist with a distinguished record spanning four decades of experience in the Space and Earth Sciences. Her claim is simple enough: pension for about 19 years of service rendered by the petitioner, between May, 1977 and September, 1985 as reader; 15th March, 1990 to 15th March, 1992 as Visiting Scientist and 1st April, 1992 to 28th February, 2001 as Associate Professor and Professor. The petitioner claims an addition of five years to her qualifying service under Rule 30 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. The respondents have denied to the petitioner the benefit of service rendered from 1977 to 1985 and from 1990 to 1992. The petitioner was informed that her service between 1992 and 2001 is 8 years and 11 months, which disentitles her to the benefit of pension on the ground that she does not have 10 years of qualifying service.2. The petitioner completed her B. Sc., in the first class in 1957, an M. Sc., again in the firs...

Dilip N. Shroff (Karta of N.D. Shroff Smaller Huf) Vs. Joint Commissio ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2007]291ITR513(Bom)

1. Heard Mr. S.J. Mehta, learned Counsel for the assessee-appellant.2. The assessee for the assessment year 1998-99 declared income of Rs. 30,80,030. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family, and his case was selected for scrutiny. In his return, the assessee had shown long-term capital loss of Rs. 34,12,000 on account of sale of property being land and building known as Jekison Niwas, 220, Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai. The assessee is said to have a 1/4th share in the property. According to the assessee, his share was sold for a consideration of Rs. 8 crores. The assessee adopted the cost of acquisition as on April 1,1981, at Rs. 2,25,00,000 as per the report dated June 25, 1996, of the registered valuer. The report of the registered valuer based on which the assessee declared long-term capital loss was not found acceptable since as per the Department's Valuation Officer, the fair market value of the assessee's share in the property as on April 1, 1981, was at Rs. 1,44,92,907 as against Rs...