Mumbai Court October 2005 Judgments

thermoflex Cable Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of wires and cables. They filed classification lists claiming concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 78/90, dated 20-3-90 for supply of wires and cables to the Green Environment Services Co-op. Society Ltd. This was done on the basis of certificate issued by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board. The Department issued show cause notice dated 21-1-98 for recovery of differential duty of Rs. 1,31,760/- by denying the benefit of the Notification on the ground that :- (a) the certificate was signed by the Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Environment & Forest, Government of Gujarat while the authority prescribed in the Notification was the Dy. Secretary of the same Ministry of the Central Government. (b) Wires and cables were not listed in the schedule to the Notification.2. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings accepting that the certificate was in accordance with the condition of the Notification an...

Kamala Mehta Charitable Trust Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The appellants are a Charitable Trust. The learned advocate for the appellants has shown us certificates from the State Government authorities as proof of distribution of the imported materials to poor and needy people as required under the impugned Notification No. 148/94-Cus., dated 13-7-1994. As such, the orders passed by the lower authorities are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Original Authority to allow the exemption after verifying the utilization certificates submitted by the appellants, We are of the view that this is a fit case for condoning the delay beyond the time limit of 6 months within which the appellants are required to produce a certificate. The appeal is allowed by way of remand....

Omega Pharmaceuticals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellants are a manufacturer of excisable P & P Medicines which they manufacture on their own account, availing the benefit of Notification 9/2002-C.E. & 9/2003 as amended during inc period 2002-2004 along with Cenvat credit facility. They also manufacture various formulations on behalf of loan licencees & remove such goods on payment of duty at the applicable tariff rates since the products manufactured by the assessee on behalf of such licencee were being cleared on payment of duty at tariff rate. Their values were not reckoned and considered for determining the aggregate value of clearances made during, preceding financial year. In view of para 3 of notification No. 9/2002 and Clause (b) of para 3(A) of notification 9/2003. The Revenue authorities objected to this and issued the notice demanding duty and penalty on the grounds. (a) that the appellant have been manufacturing P&P Medicines on their own and availing the benefit of Notification No. 9/2003-C.E., date...

Gujarat Composite Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The prayer in the application is for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of amount of Rs. 23,85,227/- and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed upon M/s. Gujarat Composite Ltd., and Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on Shri S.K. Mishra, Senior Manager of the Company under the provisions of Rule 209A read with provisions of Rule 173Q.2. After hearing both sides, duly represented by Shri Uday Joshi, Ld.Advocate, appearing for the appellants and Shri S.S. Bhagat, Ld. SDR, appearing for the revenue, we find that the matter had earlier came up before the Tribunal when the same was remanded vide order No.A-12/KOL/2003, dated 16-1-2003 by taking note of the disputed issue relating to the reversal of Modvat credit of duty in respect of inputs lying in stock when the final product manufactured by the appellants became exempted and by taking note of the Larger Bench's decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot v.Ashok Iron & Steel Fabricators reported in 2002 (14...

Mrs. Perviz Wang Chuk Basi Vs. Joint Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)102ITD123(Mum.)

1. Computation of deemed cost under Section 55(2)(b)(ii) for computing capital gains on sale of flat No. 19A in Sterling Apartments. 2. Non-allowance of long-term capital loss on transfer of 7 per cent capital investment bonds.2. During the course of hearing, the Learned Counsel for assessee did not press ground No. 1, hence, the same is rejected.3. Regarding ground No. 2, the facts are that the assessee claimed long-term capital gains/loss of Rs. 1,17,920 on redemption of 7 per cent capital investment bonds (for short 'bonds') matured during the year and it is set off against long-term capital gains, which the assessee had earned on sale of its flat. According to the Assessing Officer, the redemption of bonds did not constitute transfer for the purpose computing capital gain or loss. This was confirmed by the CIT(A). While confirming, the CIT(A) considered the definition of transfer under Section 2(47). According to which, there should be an asset existing on the date of the transfer...

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit Spacial Range 49 Mumbai

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)5SOT217(Mum.)

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 9-3-1998 of commissioner (Appeals)-XXXIII, Mumbai. The first ground of appeal pertains to the disallowance made by the assessing officer from out of travelling expenses under rule,6D and sustained by the learned commissioner (Appeals).The learned counsel, Shri B.K. Khare, appearing for the assessee was fair enough to point out that this issue is covered against the assessee by virtue of ITAT's orders in assessee's own case for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 in ITA Nos. 3325/Mum/97 and 3270/Mum/97, respectively. Copies of the relevant orders are complied in the Paper Book. Accordingly, on this issue, the order of the learned commissioner (Appeals) is confirmed.The ground No. 2 regarding the expenditure of Rs. 4,42,307 incurred by the assessee from out of welfare fund of Tractors division is not pressed by the learned Counsel for the assessee and, accordingly, on this issue also, the order of the learned commis...

Vimal Nath, an Indian Inhabitant Carrying on Business in the Name of S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR526; (2005)107BOMLR953; 2008(232)ELT592(Bom); 2006(1)MhLj769

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. A short but interesting question of law raised in this petition is, whether, the Commissioner of Customs, Bombay has jurisdiction / authority to demand customs duty from the petitioner in respect of goods which are not at all imported by the petitioner at the Bombay port 2. The facts relevant for this petition are that on 16/2/1994 an advance licence was issued by the licensing authorities at Delhi permitting the petitioner to import duty free raw materials amounting to Rs.22,82,803/- with corresponding export obligation as more particularly set out in the licence. The said licence was valid for 12 months. The port of registration mentioned in the licence for the purpose of imports was the port at Bombay. The said licence was duly registered at the Customs House at Bombay. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that before utilisation of the said licence, the petitioner applied to the Licensing authorities at Delhi for change of Port of registration from Bombay to New ...

Shri. Sadanand Yeshwant Hede, (Since Deceased Represented by His Legal ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR576; (2005)107BOMLR916

N.A. Britto, J.1. This is defendants' second appeal arising from Reg. C.S. No. 14/98/B.2. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the suit. The plaintiff having filed a suit for injunction simpliciter against the defendant - since deceased and now represented by his legal heirs, the same was decreed by the trial Court by judgment/decree dated 30.10.99. The defendants carried an appeal to the District Court , Panaji, and the same was dismissed by the learned Second Additional District Judge on 16.8.01.3. This appeal was admitted on 13.6.02 on four substantial questions of law but it has been agreed by the parties that only two questions need be answered by this Court, and they are:1. Whether the Sale Deed dated 26.9.72, fundamental document having direct bearing on the result of the suit has been misconstrued?2. Whether the Courts below have considered inadmissible evidence having direct bearing on the result of the suit or have ignored ...

Smt. Rohini Shamrao Burud Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2006)ACC295; 2006(1)ALLMR44; 2005(6)BomCR514; (2005)107BOMLR1071; [2006(108)FLR609]; 2007(1)SLJ498(Bombay)

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This Appeal has been filed by the wife of the deceased-workman against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation rejecting her application.2. The deceased-workman was working with the Respondent doing the work of loading and unloading of goods. On 14.3.1990, at about 8.30 pm, the deceased met with an accident while riding his motor cycle opposite Mosco Bazaar, Darukhana, Sewree. The deceased was removed to JJ Hospital, Mumbai where he succumbed to his injuries at about 10.30 pm. At the time of the accident, the deceased was 28 years of age and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 4,000/- inclusive of allowances. By a notice issued under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, the appellant called upon the respondent to pay compensation on account of the death of the workman. She claimed that he had died due to injury sustained by him arising out of and during the course of employment. The appellant claimed an amount of Rs. 84,716/- alongwith int...

Shri Genba Sahadu Modak (Since Deceased Through His Legal Heir Subhash ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom62; 2006(1)ALLMR48; 2006(2)BomCR681; (2005)107BOMLR1099; 2006(3)MhLj295

P.V. Kakade, J.1. Both these review petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners in both petitions. Perused the record.3. The petitioner Genba in both review petitions is the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 897 of 1990 for partition and separate possession, and original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 1481 of 1988. Both suits were decreed by the Trial Court.The civil appeal was preferred by the original defendants against the order passed in R.C.S. No. 897 of 1990 (wherein present petitioner Genba was the respondent) bearing Civil Appeal No. 630 of 2000 came to be allowed by order dated 12.3.2002 of the Ad-hoc Dist. Judge, Pune, and against the lower appellate Court's order Second Appeal No. 1134 of 2004 was filed.Another civil appeal was preferred by the original defendants against the order passed in R.C.S. No. 1481 of 1988 (wherein present petitioner Genba was the appellant) bearing Civil appeal No. 627 of 2000...