Mumbai Court October 2005 Judgments

Hmt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeal arising out of the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Pune, who confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 14,37,805/- on certain machinery items, but set aside the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed upon the appellants by the adjudicating authority.2. The demand has been confirmed as a result of holding that the disputed items did not fall for classification under Chapter Heading 84.34 to the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 attracting Nil rate of duty, but fall under other Chapter Heading 84.3. The assessee claimed classification of item Nos. 1 to 7 above under Chapter Heading 84.34 and for serial No. 8 classification under Chapter Heading 8434.90. The authorities below have applied Note No. 2 of Chapter Heading 84 and HSN explanatory note excluding such items, which are in the nature of pasteuriser/chiller etc. from the coverage under Chapter Heading 84.34. Note No. 2 to Chapter Heading 84 clearly sets out, that subject to the operation of Note 3 to Sec...

Neptune Equipments Pvt. Ltd., Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 28,24,881/- confirmed against M/s. Neptune Equipment Pvt Ltd., along with imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on the second appellants Shri M.S. Shah. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the inclusion of the value of Hot Air Generator and filter, which the appellants have bought from the market and directly dispatched to site in the assessable value of the products manufactured by the appellants.2. It is seen that the appellants has deposited an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs during investigation, which stands appropriated vide the impugned order. In addition, modvat credit of duties paid on the inputs has also been denied to the appellants on the ground that the same was not the issue. However, we find that in case of subsequent duty demand against an assessee he has to be allowed the benefit of modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs, in terms of...

Assistant Cit, Circle 3(3) Vs. Prerna Premises (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)7SOT288(Mum.)

These appeals are directed by the revenue against the respective orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). Since common issues are involved in these appeals, these were heard together and are being disposed off by the single consolidated order for the sake of convenience.Facts in brief resulting into controversies in all these appeals are that the assessee-company was carrying on business as developers and builders. It acquired plot Nos. 222 and 223 from the Government of Maharastra in the year 1974 to develop and construct Offices and sell the same in ownership basis after reclaiming the land from the sea known as Bankbay Reclamation scheme. The assessee reclaimed the land from the sea and accordingly constructed two buildings under the name and style of Maker Chamber-III and Maker Chamber-IV on these two plots of land. For the purpose of income-tax assessment, it opted to follow project completion method of accounting on the ground that project would take a lot of time for completion an...

General Electric International Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)102ITD218(Mum.)

1. These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate orders of the Director of IT (International Taxation) (DIT) both dt.27th March, 2002, passed under Section 263 of the IT Act. Both these appeals are disposed of by this common order as common issues are involved. The grounds Nos. 1 and 2, which are on the same issue, are as under: On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned DIT has legally erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the IT Act. The learned DIT has legally erred in holding that the order passed by the AO in conformity and in accordance with the ratio of the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal for the asst. yr. 1987-88 is erroneous so as to enable the learned DIT to assume jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act.2. The relevant facts, briefly stated are that the assessee-company filed its return of income on 29th Nov., 1994 declaring total income of Rs. 93,00,558. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a).Subsequently, notice un...

Gautam S. Nanavati Vs. Dy. Cit, Central Circale 9

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)5SOT627(Mum.)

These cross appeals are preferred on behalf of the assessee as well as the revenue against the consolidated order of the Commissioner (Appeals) pertaining to different assessment years. Since common issues are involved in these appeals, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this single consolidated order for the sake of convenience.The facts of the case in brief are that a search under section 132 was conducted at the residential premises of the assessee's as well as the assessee's group and the assessee was served with a notice under section 158BC and in response thereto a Nil return for the block period was filed. But, the assessment was framed on a total income of Rs. 47,90,431. Against which, assessee has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) by raising multiple grounds of appeal. In the block assessment, assessee's disclosed the perquisites under the head "Rent-free accommodations' and certain other heads had been substantially enhanced and the as...

The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Neelam Applicances

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR927; [2006]145STC301(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. These two references are forwarded by the Sales Tax Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue for opinion of this Court under Section 61(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1958 ('The Act for short'). Since the issue in both these references are identical, both the references are heard and disposed of by a common judgment. For the sake of convenience we have taken the facts from the case of M/s Neelam Appliances.Statement of Facts:2. The respondent-Nilam Appliances is a manufacturer of stainless steel articles registered under the provisions of the Act. The respondent applied to the Commissioner of Sales Tax for determination of the correct rate of tax on the sale of stainless steel water filter, effected under their invoice No. 42/93-94 dated 3.5.1993.3. It was the contention of the respondent before the Commissioner of Sales Tax as also before the Tribunal that the stainless steel water filter was stainless steel utensil, covered by Schedule Entry C-II-46 covered by Entry No. 145(...

Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. Vs. Employees State Insurance Corpo ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR983; 2006(1)BomCR155; (2005)107BOMLR766; [2006(108)FLR964]; (2006)ILLJ791Bom; 2006(4)MhLj74

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard counsel for the appellants and the respondents.2. This Appeal is filed by the appellants against the order of the E.S.I. Court, Mumbai, dated 17.2.2005 dismissing the application of the appellants. It was an application under Section 75 of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. Before the ESI Court, it was the stand of the Respondents Corporation that the Appellants club is a shop within the meaning of the Notification dated 18.9.1978 issued by the Government of Maharashtra and it was employing 19 persons for the wages and who were rendering services. It was also their contention that Inspector of the Corporation verified the record including the Books of Accounts for the years 1978-79 to 1982-83 and found that applicant had not covered all their employees and had not paid contribution on certain payment of wages. The issue is of temporary staff engaged on race days for issue of tickets and dividends. The ESI Court frame...

Mrs. Sunita Vilasrao Salukhe Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR970; 2006(1)BomCR121; (2005)107BOMLR740; 2006(3)MhLj227

S.A. Bobde, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Chinchalikar, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and Mr. More, the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, appear and waive service of rule. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.8.2005 passed by the State Minister for Urban Development in Appeal No. 3856 of 2005 by which the learned Minister has upheld the order disqualifying the petitioner under Section 44(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', and further confirmed the order under Section 44(1)(e) in accordance with Section 55A of the Act. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner was declared elected on 10.12.2001 as President of the Pandharpur Municipal Council under Section 51 of the Act as submitted by Maharashtra Act No. 8 of 2002. The newly introduced section provides for a direct general election of the President by voters whos...

Shri Shankar Rama Gaude, Son of Rama Shankar Gaude and ors. Vs. Devast ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom82; 2006(1)ALLMR601; 2006(1)BomCR630; (2006)108BOMLR155

N.A. Britto, J.1. This is plaintiffs' second appeal arising from Regular Civil Suit No.9/96. 2. The dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendant is regarding the property surveyed under no.263/3 of village Tuem in which admittedly there is a house belonging to the plaintiffs and a temple of Sri Sateri belonging to the defendant. There is no dispute that the property surveyed under no.263/1 belongs to the defendant wherein the main temple of Sri Bhagwati is located and so also other affiliate temples of Sri Mahadeo, Sri Vishnu and a Dharmashala belonging to the defendant. 3. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the suit. 4. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that the said property was known as 'Deusu' or 'Deulacodil Sorvo Gorbatulem Gaudo' and that the same was their ancestral property having Land Registration No.18644 and Inscription No.13443 and that the plaintiffs were regularly paying land tax in respect of the same. The...

Vitthal S/O Fakruji Madavi and ors. Vs. Zilla Parishad and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)BomCR348; 2006(2)MhLj124

B.R. Gavai, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.Mr. Sudame, the Learned Counsel, waives notice on behalf of the respondent-Zilla Parishad. Mr. Agrawal, A.G.P., waives notice on behalf of the respondent-State.By consent, heard finally.2. All these three petitions involve a common question as to whether B.Ed, is a necessary qualification for grant of higher pay scale to Primary Teachers as per Government Resolution dated 11-8-1999 (hereinafter referred to as the said resolution).3. In Writ Petition No. 4772/2004, the two petitioners are possessing B.Ed, qualifications, whereas two petitioners are possessing graduate qualification only. All these four petitioners were granted higher pay scale, but vide impugned order dated 20th September, 2004, they have been reverted back.4. Writ petition No. 5193/2004 has been filed by a Primary Teacher who was appointed on 15-10-1981. He acquired B.Ed. qualifications in the year 1998. He was granted higher pay scale on 30th December, 2003. Howeve...