Mumbai Court October 2005 Judgments

Conceicao Fernandes Vs. Milagres Fernandes

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR598; I(2006)DMC765

R.M. Lodha, J.1. This First Appeal is directed against the judgment and Decree dated 22nd December, 2000 passed by the Civil Judge, S.D., Ponda in Matrimonial Civil Suit No. 10/2000/A whereby the said Court dismissed the suit for divorce and dissolution of marriage filed by the present appellant. 2. Conceicao Fernandes and Milagres Fernandes are the parties to the litigation. They are wife and husband. Their marriage was solemnised in the office of the Civil Registrar of Quepem on 14th May, 1994 in the Marriage Registration Book. According to Conceicao (wife), before the marriage she made representation to Milagres (husband) that it would not be possible for her to stay at Assolna, Quepem where he resided as that house was very small and occupied by other family members and there was no separate room for them to stay. She requested Milagres that after marriage they should live together in the house of the plaintiffs mother at Digas, Panchwadi. As per the said agreement, after the marri...

Coromandel Steel Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants herein are Engineering Contractors, who undertake various erection and assembly jobs of different type of engineering goods. An Information was received in the Central Excise Collectorate, Nagpur that the appellants erected/manufactured and commissioned 2 Dragline machines at the site of two collieries of M/s. Western Coalfields Limited without following Central Excise procedure and without payment of duty leviable thereon. The assembly/manufacture of draglines commenced in 1989 and supplied in 1991. Statements of various persons were recorded, documents and records were scrutinized and it was revealed on investigation that Dragline machine was liable to duty and was not eligible to the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 182/87, dated 10th July, 1987, as the machine came to existence in open yard and erected platform situated in the mines, which cannot be treated as workshop. On this basis, Show Cause Notice proposing recovery of duty of Rs. 3,82,84,72...

C.C.E. and C. Vs. Limca Flavours and Fragrances

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the order of Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad. The Commissioner in the impugned order dropped all proceedings initiated against the respondents in the Show Cause Notice F. No. V/22/15-18 DA 94 dated 24-2-94. M/s. Limca Flavours and Fragrances Ltd. (LFFL) is a limited company. It manufactures soft drink flavours with what they call, code names, namely G-44T, L-33A, T-11PC, T-11P, R-66M, K-55T and L-22L. During the period 89-90 to 93-94 it availed of the benefit of Notifications 175/86 & 1/93 (SSI exemption). It is a holding company of M/s. Parle Exports Ltd. (PEL). Its (LFFL) Directors S/Shri R. Chauhan, P. Chauhan, R.N. Mungale and S.K. Motani It sells its product to PEL, Parle International Ltd. (PIL) and franchises of M/s. PEL.3. M/s. PEL is a Ltd. Company. It uses the products sold by M/s. LFFL to manufacture Non alcoholic Beverages Base (NABB). S/Shri R. Chauhan, P. Chauhan, R.N. Mungale, R.B. Verma and Mrs. Zainab C...

Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Paschim Chemical Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue for determination in this appeal is admissibility of benefit of exemption from the payment of duly to Dichloroquinoline (4.7 DEQ) falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 2942.00 in terms of Notification No. 35/91-C.E., dated 25th January, 1991 during the period from 6-1-95 to 26-3-95. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs. 17,,95,716/- (Rupees Twenty-seven lacs ninety-five thousand seven hundred sixteen only) against the Respondents on the ground that the benefit was available only with effect from 27th March, 1995 when they filed classification list claiming the benefit of Notification and imposed penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lacs only) on the assessee under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order on the ground that although the Notification No. 35/91-C.E. was rescinded and the new Drug Price Control Order, 1995 came into effect on 6th January, 1995 in supersession of 1987 Drug Price Control Order and...

Amphetronix Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC32

1. The above appeals, first one filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the second one filed by the Revenue against the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals) involve common issue and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. In appeal No. E/2407/00, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the demand of Rs. 23,90,312.40 (Rupees Twenty three lacs ninety thousand three hundred twelve and paise forty only) together with interest and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees Ten thousand only) on the assessee on the ground that parts of connectors used in the manufacture of complete connectors supplied by the appellants to the Defence Organization, ISRO, Bharat Electronics Limited & CVRDE etc were marketable. The adjudication order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), who confirmed the findings of the Assistant Commissioner. Thus, this appeal by the assessee.3. In appeal No. E/2750/01, the Assistant Commissio...

Clough Engineering Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs has confiscated 20 nos of 16" (400 mm dia) imported Seamless C.S. Pipes seized on 5.6.2003 from trailor trucks en route to M/s. Bombay Metal Works, the purchasers thereof under the provisions of Section 111(o) with an option to redeem on payment of a fine of Rs. 15 lakhs under Section 125, confiscated the trailor trucks with fine of Rs. 1 lakh confirmed a demand of duty of Customs of Rs. 24,67,536/- on the above goods, against the appellant who had imported 459.20 mtrs. of Seamless C.S.Pipes for execution of Laxmi Field Phase I project for petroleum/gas exploration on behalf of M/s. Cairns Energy Pvt. Ltd., Surat by availing benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No.21/2002-Cus., dated 1.3.2002 on the basis of essentiality certificate issued by the Director General of Hydro Carbon, New Delhi as per condition 31 of the Notification and sold goods in dispute as scrap after project confiscation and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 ...

Barmecha'S Impex (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)7SOT26(Mum.)

The first ground of objection (Ground Nos. 1 to 3) taken by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in disallowing the claim for exemption under section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.In this case the assessee filed the return on 22-10-2001 declaring income of Rs. 32,700 along with Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss Account and Auditors' Report. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice was issued under section 143(2) of the Act.Assessee is engaged in the business of cutting, polishing and exporting diamonds, labour job in diamonds and dealer in computer hardware and software. Assessee claimed exemption of Rs. 25,87,826.50 under section 10A of the Act, being a newly established undertaking in free trade zone. Assessee set up a new manufacturing unit at EPZ, Sachin in Gujarat. The nature of business in the requisite format, certified by the Auditor, has been mentioned as "manufacturers and exporters of diamonds" and the date of commencement of manufact...

Dcit Vs. Shri Kishore Kanungo

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)102ITD437(Mum.)

1. Both these appeals are assessee's appeals directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XLIV, Mumbai dated 8.3.2001 in case of Shri Kishore Kanungo and order of learned CIT(A)-XXXVI, Mumbai dated 30.1.1001 in case of Shri Deepak K. Kanungo both for A.Y. 1993-94. In both these appeals the issue involved is common; and hence, for the sake of convenience, both these appeals are being disposed off by this common order.2. In both the appeals, common grievance of the revenue is that learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing the adoption of fair market value at Rs. 33.73 lakhs as on 1.4.81 for the purpose of computation of capital gains on the property purchased for Rs. 1,05,643/- vide agreement dated 16.3.1981 and the other grievance of the revenue is that learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing indexation with effect from F.Y. 1981-82 instead of F.Y.1999-92.3. Briefly stated, the facts are that both the assessees were co-parcener of the HUF of Shri Kishor S. Kanungo. This HUF has entered into an...

Asstt. Cit (inv.), Vs. M. Ambalal and Co.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)7SOT208(Mum.)

"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,16,504 made by the assessing officer on account of rough, cut and polished diamonds mentioned in the stock register of the assessee's manufacturing division.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also erred in deleting the value of 829.39 carats of diamonds received by the assessee from one of the labour party namely Shri Talshibhai Patel.3. Commissioner (Appeals) has also erred in directing to allow deduction under section 80HHC on the addition under section 69 of unexplained investment made by the assessee in the purchase of diamonds.4. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also erred in deleting the interest charged under section 234B of the Income Tax Act." The facts of the case custom authorities carried out search on 21-23-3-1991, at the business and residential premises of the assessee.One boy named Raju Bhamre was found in possession of diamonds, which wer...

Barmecha'S Impex (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)105TTJ(Mum.)533

2. The first ground of objection (ground Nos. 1 to 3) taken by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT (A) in disallowing the claim for exemption under Section 10A of the IT Act, 1961.3. In this case the assessee filed the return on 22nd Oct., 2001 declaring income of Rs. 32,700 along with balance sheet, P&L a/c and auditors' report. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice was issued under Section 143(2) of the Act.4. Assessee is engaged in the business of cutting, polishing and exporting diamonds, labour job in diamonds and dealer in computer hardware and software. Assessee claimed exemption of Rs. 25,87,826.50 under Section 10A of the Act, being a newly established undertaking in free trade zone. Assessee set up a new manufacturing unit at EPZ, Sachin in Gujarat. The nature of business in the requisite format, certified by the auditor, has been mentioned as "manufacturers and exporters of diamonds" and the date of commencement of manufacture/production was 31...