Mumbai Court October 2005 Judgments

Tribhuvandas Gulabchand and Brothers and ors. Vs. Additional Collector ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR201; 2006(2)MhLj632

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioners - tenants challenge the order dated 7-9-f987 passed by the Rent Controller, order dated 19-1-1990 passed by the appellate authority and the order dated 31-3-1993 passed in review. The Rent Controller granted permission to present respondent No. 2 to terminate the tenancy of petitioners on the ground of bona fide requirement and said order of Rent Controller has been maintained in appeal as also in review.2. Respondent No. 2 filed application before the Rent Controller under Clause 13(3)(vi) and (vii) of C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as Rent Control Order), on or about 26-11-1980 and sought permission to terminate the tenancy of present petitioners in relation to western half of his House No. 9-B or in the alternative of entire house. He contended that the premises were required by him to start a business of his ow...

Harischandra Biyani Vs. Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2007)BC417; 2006(4)MhLj381

V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant i.e. original accused, learned advocate for respondent i.e. original complainant and the learned A.P.P. for the State.2. The applicant is facing prosecution in Criminal Case No. 796/S/2001 which is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai. The said case is under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In the said case the complainant has filed an affidavit of evidence by way of examination-in-chief as per amended provisions under Section 145(2) of Negotiable Instruments Act. The said affidavit was taken on record.3. The applicant had preferred an application before the learned Magistrate for calling the complainant for recording his examination-in-chief. By order dated 18-5-2005, the learned Magistrate rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the said order, this application has been preferred.4. The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that various fac...

Kitchen Grace Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Duty of Rs. 1,74,827/-was confirmed against the appellants and penalty of equivalent amount was imposed on the ground that during the period 1-4-96 to 4-12-97, the appellants have manufactured and cleared complete kitchen cabinet falling under heading 9403.00 without payment of duty and without observing other Central Excise formalities.2. The appellants, in their defence have contended that kitchen cabinets were manufactured and cleared by M/s. Omkar Furnitures in ready to assemble condition. Mere assembly of the same at the appellant's end did not amount to manufacture. The cabinets were received in the form of edge banded pre drilled cut to size components of pre laminated particle board with necessary hardware fittings in loose condition and they were merely assembled at their end. Referring to various decisions, it has been contended before us that mere assembly of such parts did not amount to manufacture.3. After hearing both sides, we find force in the appellant's contention...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kedareshwar S.S.K. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC623

2. The issue relates to modvat credit on M.S. Sheets and chequered plates as capital goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) in para 8 has noted as under: I visited the factory site Kedareshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. on 08.02.2002 in view to assert the actual use of the said goods. I have carefully examined the said Sugar Plant Machinery and found that all the goods i.e. M.S. plates & Chequered plates worth Rs. 16,67,874/- were used for fabrication, erection & installation of Sugar Plant Machinery and the documents related to the fabrication, erection & installation of the Sugar Plant Machinery in Page 0624 which the redeemed M.S. Plates & Chequered plates nave been utilized. The Karkhana has used the said plates for manufacture of Pan Supply Tanks, Pan Bodies. Evaporator Bodies and Calendrias and Chequered plates were used for staging components of Vapour pans and Evaporators.3. Thus in view of the above. I do not find any reasons to interfere with the order of the C...

Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(194)ELT39Tri(Mum.)bai

1. As per facts on record, the appellants are sending Liquid Fatty Alcohol Sulphate, which is a mixture of water and solid, water content being about 70% and solid content being about 30%, to their job worker for extraction of Sodium Laurel Sulphate Powder. In terms of the agreement, between the appellants and their job workers, recovery of the powder from the said product should be around 95%. The said powder was being received by the appellant from their job workers. However, as the losses exceeded 5% during the span of the period involved in the present appeal, the appellants raised a debit note of Rs.1,80,269/- against their job workers for a total loss of 2912 kgs of such powder, which was not received back by them.2. Revenue raised demand of duty on the said amount on the ground that the goods sent by them for job work under the provisions of Rule 57F(4) have not been received back by them to the full extent and as such duty of Rs.32,448/- was confirmed against them by the impug...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Siemens

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. There are two appeals against the impugned order, one by the department and one by M/s Siemens Ltd. The department's appeal is for increasing the redemption fine and imposition of penalty on the ground that the value of the impugned goods was Rs. 9,32,995/- whereas a very low redemption fine of only Rs. 1 lakh has been imposed with no penalty. Learned advocate for M/s. Siemens Ltd. argues that the impugned goods were not ordered by them and that their bona fides are clear from the fact that they had submitted a separate letter declaring the excess goods on the very date of filing the Bill of Entry. Hence, he argues for waiver of the redemption fine.2. We have considered arguments from both sides and perused the case records. We find that the impugned goods were neither manifested nor declared in the Bill of Entry. However, considering the submissions from M/s. Siemens Ltd. that these goods were imported by mistake, the adjudicating Commissioner has allowed export ...

Lml Ltd. a Company Registered Under the Companies Act, 1956 and Sanjee ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR904; (2006)201CTR(Bom)115; [2006]285ITR282(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Although the Constitutional validity of Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) is challenged in this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners has given up the issue relating to the constitutional validity and has restricted his arguments to challenge the intimation issued under section 143(1)(a) of the Act dated 28/5/1990 for AY 1989-90, rectification order dated 5/2/1991 passed under section 154 of the Act rectifying the intimation dated 28/5/1990 and the intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act dated 27/3/1991 for the assessment year 1990-91.2. The facts relevant for the present petition are as follows:-During the financial year 1988-89 relevant to AY 1989-90, two companies namely LML Fibres Ltd. and Prkati Synthetics Ltd. had paid interest due to the petitioner No. 1 Company (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') after deducting tax at source (TDS) as per the provisions of the Act. LML Fibres Ltd. had deducted TDS a...

German Remedies Ltd., Since Amalgamated with Cadila Healthcare Ltd. Vs ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Bom)193; [2006]285ITR26(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. In these two writ petitions, the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) both dated February 18, 2005 relating to the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 are challenged. Even the objections raised by the assessee have been rejected by the assessing officer. Since the reasons for re-opening the assessment are identical, both the petitions are heard and disposed of by a common judgment.2. For the sake of convenience, we set out the reasons recorded for re-opening the assessment for A.Y. 1999-2000 which read as follows:'M/s. GERMAN REMEDIES LTD.A.Y. 1999-2000It is seen from the assessment records that:1) Expenses on interest, royalty, consultancy and analytical fees paid in foreign currency were allowed though the assessee has not furnished any evidence to show that TDS has been deducted at source before remitting it.2) Deduction of gross dividend has been allowed against the allowable net dividend.3) Central Excise duty and ...

Uco Bank Vs. Ramchandra Namdeo Shirke and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR454; I(2007)BC345; 2006(1)MhLj405

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The petitioner-bank had instituted Special Civil Suit No. 94 of 1990 and the said suit came to be decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Baramati on 16-11-1992. The defendant Nos. 1 to 7 were directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs. 4,25,073.45 to the plaintiff with the proportionate costs and it was further directed that the principal amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- shall carry interest on the agreed rate of 16.1/2% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation of the amount. The defendant Nos. 1 and 7 are the husband and wife and defendant Nos. 4 and 6 are their sons. The defendant No. 1 was the manager of the joint family and was dealing in the construction business. On his approach, the plaintiff-bank had granted him cash credit facility of Rs. 75,000/- on executing the demand pro note dated 10-7-1981 (Exhibit 52). He had agreed to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 19.50% per annum with quarterly rests. By way of ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Excel Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT477Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The respondents have received the capital goods initially in their factory at Roha and taken credit of 50% of duty as Modvat credit. Subsequently, they removed the capital goods to their own factory at Lote Parshuram. On such removal, they reversed only 50% credit, which they have earlier taken. This was clearly irregular as Rule 57AB(1)(b) required full duty to be paid on removal of such capital goods. However, they took credit of only the amount reversed by them in their Lote Parshuram unit. Subsequently, they have taken credit of the balance 50% duty directly in their Lote Parshuram unit. I find that such credit was admissible under Rule 57AC(2)(b) since the condition of capital goods being still in the use of the manufacturer was fulfilled even though the capital goods have moved to another unit of the same manufacturer. Though, there is a contravention of Rule 57AB(1)(b) in the sense that when the capital goods were removed, full duty on the same was not paid...