Mumbai Court December 2005 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Poona Snuff Factory

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The Ld. SDR inter alia submitted that the issue relates to inclusion of cost of electric consumption, labour charges, transport charges & water charges in the assessable value; that the appellant has not included these charges in the assessable value on the ground that he has reduced the margin of profit; that Annexure A to the show cause notice shows that there has been consistent increase in the cost of these items whereas there is no change in the price sector as such it was incumbent upon the Commissioner (Appeals) to have included this charges in the assessable value; that the product in question is the tobacco related snuff and during investigation Manager of the appellant factory and its statement dtd 15/12/94 recorded before the Superintendent of the Range as admitted; that while arriving at the cost of goods and fixing the price of goods, the cost of transport charges from Excise Duty paid at Pune, factory expenses at Solapur and electrical and water and every expenses...

Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri V.S. Nankani, Id. Advocate for the appellants mentions that against an order of this Bench Nos. S/275,276/WZB/05, CI/M/299/WZB/05 C.I., dtd. 13-12-05, the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai has moved the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition (LOD) No. 3054 of 2005.The prayer made in the Writ Petition is; that interim order should be set aside. Shri Nankani produces a copy of the Bombay High Court order dated 20-12-2005 on the Writ Petition to the following effect:- Heard Mr. Kantawala in support of this petition. The same be listed on 11th January, 2006. The appeal is to come up for hearing before the Tribunal tomorrow. We expect the Tribunal to pass an order directing the respondent to renew the bank guarantee for a further period of 6 weeks in the event the appeal is decided in favour of the respondent. We make it clear that this observation does not mean that there is a case for the respondent or that there is no such case.2. The Id. DR for Revenue produces a letter No. ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Leela Scottish Lace Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The Department is in appeal aggrieved by the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai.3. The Respondents are engaged in the manufacture and export of readymade garments. As they were in requirement of furniture for their office and factory premises, they engaged M/s. Shilpa Interiors, 5, Apollo Estate, Mogra Pada, Andheri (East), Mumbai, to manufacture furniture on job work basis. The material for the work was supplied by the Respondents. The Department treated the Respondents to be the manufacturer under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and issued Show Cause Notice dated 31.05.2005 demanding central excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,13,557/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Seven only) for the furniture under Chapter sub-heading No. 9403.00, flush doors under Chapter sub-heading No. 4410.11 and mirrors of sub-heading No. 7006.90 under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Rule 9(2) of the Central ...

institute of Marine Engineers (i) Vs. Asstt Dir. of It

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the assessee is agaiinst the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-XXXIII, Mumbai, dated 19-1-2005 relating to assessment year 2001-02. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal against the action of the authorities below in denying exemption under Sections 11 to 13 of the Income Tax Act. (i) The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the order of the ADIT(E) denying exemption under Section 11 of the Act to the appellant without adjudicating ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the grounds and without considering all the submissions made by the appellant's representatives at the time of hearing. (ii) The assessing officer erred in refusing to consider that the income of the appellant trust is not taxable in accordance with Sections 11 to 13 of the Act. In doing so, the assessing officer had not considered rule of consistency which is applicable in tax proceedings. It has been judicially held that if facts and circumstances for earlier years are similar, same view shoul...

ito Vs. Sitaram Chamaria

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)6SOT594(Mum.)

These appeals filed by the revenue are directed against separate orders both dated 15-2-2002 of the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) XXI, Mumbai, pertaining to the assessment year 1998-99. Since common issue is involved in both the appeals, they are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience."On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id.Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in directing to tax the sale consideration of Rs. 71,13,670 in respect of both the assessees as capital gains in terms of section 45(1) read with section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act instead of taxing it as business receipts." Since the facts in both the assessees are identical, we discuss the brief facts in the case of Shri Sitaram P. Chamaria (L/H), which are as under:- The facts in brief are that Shri Sitaram P. Chamaria (L/H) alongwith his wife and a son Shri Sushil S. Chamaria, owned three plots of land at Malad, Mumbai. All these three persons have entered into ajoint development...

Daga Containers (P.) Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)6SOT666(Mum.)

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on a solitary ground that the loss incurred on breeding of horse not to be treated as loss incurred on running and maintenance of horse as per provisions of section 74A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.During the course of hearing it was noticed that this appeal is time barred by 4 days. The assessee has moved an application for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay in filing of the appeals.Being convinced with the explanation for the delay in filing of the appeal, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.The facts with regard to this issue on merit are that on going through the details filed by the assessee, the assessing officer noticed that the assessee has shown in its computation two P&L Accounts from two activities, ie., business of horse breeding and horse racing and shown loss in horse racing activity at Rs. 57,289 which is claimed to be carried forward under ...

Ashok Gyanchand Vohra Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ1270; 2006(3)MhLj163

V.G. Palshikar, Acg. C.J.1. The above writ petitions were heard by us and the judgment was reserved. Then I prepared the judgment of the Bench in November, 2005 and circulated it to my learned colleagues on the Bench. However to my dismay, I was informed by both my colleagues that they do not agree with the view taken by me on the presumption that they agree with me. I then read the majority view rendered by Hon'ble Shri Justice D.B. Bhosale. Having given my anxious consideration to the views expressed I found it impossible to agree with the majority view. Hence this opinion.2. I regret my incapacity to convince my learned colleagues to the view that I propagated. In my humble opinion, the majority view has the result of virtually destroying the safeguards provided under the MCOC Act. The majority view reads several things into the Act which are not legislated. It has the effect of permitting the Special Court under the Act not only to take cognizance of private complaint alleging comm...

Parubai Savliram Kshatriya (Since Deceased Through Her Legal Heir Anus ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR587; (2006)108BOMLR37; 2006(3)MhLj89

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Second Appeal No. 332 of 1991 has been filed by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.164 of 1984 whereby the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Sinnar in Regular Civil Suit No.101 of 1972 came to be modified. Second Appeal No. 416 of 1991 has been filed by the original defendants being aggrieved by the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sinnar in Regular Civil Suit No.101 of 1972 as well as the Judgment and Order of the Extra Joint District Judge, Nashik in Regular Civil Appeal No.164 of 1984. In Second Appeal No.332 of 1991 the following substantial questions of law have been framed while admitting it on 18/7/1991 by this Court: (a) Whether the lower appellate court was justified in construing the provisions of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by granting decree of partition and possession only in respect of the rented portion of dwe...

Smt. Chandrabhaga W/O Ganpat Kirve Teli and ors. Vs. Kantilal Dharsibh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR50; 2006(5)BomCR876; 2006(1)MhLj887

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This Second Appeal arises from the Judgment and Order dated 3/7/1984 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Karmala in Solapur District in Regular Civil Suit No.222 of 1975. The learned Judge was pleased to decree the suit for possession and mesne profits in respect of the suit house No. 440 under Municipal Council, Karmala and a plot of land admeasuring 40 x 20 ft. This decree came to be confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge at Solapur vide his Judgment and Order dated 28/2/1990 in Civil Appeal No. 558 of 1984. The substantial questions of law framed while admitting this appeal are as under:-(a) Whether both the committed an error by alleged Sale Deed which pleaded in the Plaint courts below have misconstruing the was not specifically by the Plaintiffs? (b) Whether both the courts below have committed an error by treating the Mortgage Deed in respect of the suit property, whereas actually the same was in respect of some other property?...

S. Sant Singh @ Pilli Singh Vs. Secretary, Home Department, Government ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ1515; 2006(2)MhLj422

V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for respondents. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent matter is heard finally.2. By his judgment and order dated 30-4-2002 the learned Sessions Judge convicted the petitioner under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The said judgment and order was challenged by the petitioner in an appeal which is pending before this Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner preferred application for parole on the ground that his wife was required to be operated. The said application came to be rejected. Against the said order of rejection, the petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court. The said writ petition came to be rejected as the petitioner had remedy of preferring appeal against the order of rejection of parole. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the State Government which came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by the ...