Mumbai Court December 2005 Judgments

Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The issue relates to valuation of yeast cleared by the appellants to its depots, from where the said yeast was sold. The period of dispute is after 28th September, 1996 when depot was notified as a place of removal. The ld. Commissioner has by his impugned order directed that the assessable value of such yeast transferred to the depots should be determined based on the highest price prevailing at the Depot. The Commissioner has involved the larger period of limitation on the ground that even though the appellants have filed price declaration in Annexure II, but the same was a tentative price on the day of filing of the declaration and that appellants ought to have voluntarily debited the differential duty whenever the goods were sold from the depot at a higher price. The ld. Counsel for the appellants has contended before us that there was absolutely no legal basis disclosed to justify adoption of highest price prevailing at the depot for determination of the assessable value and t...

Ccex Vs. Shri Amar Sinnji Stationary Inds.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. We find these Revenue's appeals relate to period January 2000 to May 200. We note that a set of similar appeals were filed by Revenue for the period March 1995 to December 1999, which have been rejected by the Tribunal by a detailed order vide CCEx, Rajkot v.Amjar Sinhji Stationery Inds Ltd. .2. As such, we do not think it necessary to re-examine the same issues raised before us in these appeals. Hence, following the earlier order of the Tribunal (cited supra), we reject these appeals....

Tulsi Clearing and Forwarding Vs. Commr. of Cus. (Gen.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs cancelling the CHA licence of the appellant herein and ordering forfeiture of security amount of Rs. 25,000/-. The CHA licence has been cancelled on the ground that the articles of charge that the CHA allowed preparation of two sets of invoice in his office while clearing export consignments on behalf of M/s. Attire Inc., thus resulting in contravention of the provisions of Regulation 14(d) of the CHALR, 1984, and non-maintenance of job register in respect of the export consignments cleared by the CHA, stand proved.3. We find that the entire case revolves around the question as to whether the appellant assisted M/s. Attire Inc., the export firm whose proprietor was one Mr. Manoj Khubchandani, in obtaining excess inadmissible drawback by over-invoicing the shipping bills. The contention of the appellant is that although the events occurred in the years 1997 to 2000, no show cause notice has been issued either to the ...

Additional Commissioner of Vs. Grindwell Norton Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)100ITD245(Mum.)

1. This appeal by the revenue is against the order of the learned CIT(A) XV, Mumbai dated 21-9-2000 relating to assessment year 1998-99.The only issue raised before us is against the direction of learned CIT(A) to allow interest under Section 244A of the Act on the amount of self-assessment tax paid by the assessee under Section 140A of the Act.2. The brief facts of the case are that, the return of income filed by the assessee was processed by way of intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act and no interest under Section 244 A was allowed by the Assessing Officer. In the appellate proceedings before CIT(A), the assessee had submitted that the Assessing Officer had not allowed interest on the refund determined at Rs. 48,71,729 i.e., on the amount paid as self-assessment tax on 30-9-1998. The Assessing Officer submitted the report dated 2-8-2000 before the learned CIT(A) in reply to the submissions made by the assessee and stated that the claim of the assessee for interest under Sec...

Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)102TTJ(Mum.)53

1. The assessee as well as the Revenue are impugning the orders of learned first appellate authority in this bunch of 14 appeals and two cross-objections in asst. yrs. 1989-90 to 1999-2000. The learned Counsel for the assessee has placed on record a comprehensive chart exhibiting the grievances of respective parties in different years. A perusal of this chart shows that orders of the learned first appellate authority are being impugned on 28 counts. Some of the issues are common in the appeals of the respective parties as well as in different years. Therefore, we proceed to take up the issue in dispute in seriatim.2. Before taking up the issues on merit it is pertinent to note that cross-objections of assessee in asst. yrs. 1998-99 and 1999-2000 are time-barred by 3 yrs., 101 days and 2 yrs., 217 days, respectively, therefore, first we deal with the petition for condonation of delay in filing the cross-objections.3. In order to explain the delay assessee has submitted that the grounds...

Namdeo Karbhari Bodake, Vs. Chababu @ Chahadu Rangnath Bhise,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom120; 2006(2)ALLMR54; 2006(3)BomCR672; (2006)108BOMLR1; 2006(1)MhLj878

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This appeal arises from the decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.90 of 1982. Regular Civil Suit No.171 of 1971 filed by the present respondents was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Sinnar on 8/2/1982 and the Lower Appellate Court by the impugned decree dated 26/4/1991 has been pleased to decree the Civil Suit by holding that the appellants-defendants are encroachers on the land admeasuring 99 Ares in Gat No.281 owned by the plaintiffs and further directed to deliver actual, vacant and peaceful possession of the said encroached portion shown in blue colour in the map at Exh.44 prepared by the D.I.L.R. While admitting this appeal issues no.2,3 and 5 have been noted as the substantial questions of law and the substantial questions of law requiring consideration in this appeal are as under :(a) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation? (b) Whether the defendants had perfected their title...

Shri Raghunath Gangadhar Kakade and Shri Pandurang Ramchandra Kakade V ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom150; 2006(4)ALLMR637; 2006(3)BomCR802; (2006)108BOMLR24; 2006(1)MhLj738

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This second appeal arises from the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Mohol on 24/1/1985 partly decreeing R.C.S. No.187 of 1980 and confirmed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge at Solapur vide his Judgment and Order dated 19/4/1990 in Regular Civil Appeal No.209 of 1985. The appellants had instituted R.C.S. No.187 of 1980 and the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Mohol declared that they are the owners of agricultural land in Gat No.73 of village Ardhanari in Mohol Taluka, District Solapur to the extent of 1/6th share only. While admitting this second appeal on 21/10/1991, the substantial questions of law, as required under Section 100 of C.P.C., were not framed and during the course of arguments the learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the substantial questions of law have been framed in the appeal memo and they are as under:-(a) When the appellants were not a party to Regular Civil Suit No.32 of 1973 and the...

The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Standard Drum and Barrel Mfg. C ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)BomCR236; (2006)108BOMLR44; 2006(199)ELT590(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 2. A short but interesting question of law raised in this appeal is, where, the excise duty paid on goods cleared on provisional assessment is admittedly passed on to the customer, whether the refund arising on finalisation of the provisional assessment can be denied by applying the principles of unjust enrichment contained in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the present case, the provisional assessment was finalised on June 8, 1999 and the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') made an application on November 1, 1999 claiming refund arising on finalisation of the provisional assessment. The assessing officer rejected the application by applying the principles of unjust enrichment contained in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the 'Excise Act' for short). However, both the appellate authorities below, relying upon the decisions...

Mr. Prakash Babu Harmalkar Vs. State of Maharashtra,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR54; 2006(1)MhLj728

V.M. Kanade, J.1. By this Petition, the petitioner is seeking the appropriate writ, order and direction, directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not to implement and/or execute the impugned order dated 14/08/1997 passed by the respondent No. 2 -Controller of Accommodation whereby the respondent No. 2 had authorized the Area Inspector to take possession of the premises in which the petitioner is residing since the time of allotment of the premises through the Commissioner of Police, Bombay. 2. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this Petition are as under:3. The petitioner joined the police force of the Government of Maharashtra as Police Sub-Inspector in 1979. He was allotted Flat No. 6 on the first floor of the Building known as 'Jer Villa' situated at Parel, Bombay -400 012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said premises') by the respondent No. 2 through the Commissioner of Police, Bombay in the year 1984 and the petitioner has been residing in the said premises s...

Shri G.B. Gagare Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, a Bo ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR255; 2006(1)MhLj864

V.M. Kanade, J.1. By this Petition, the Petitioners are seeking appropriate Writ, order or direction quashing the Circular dated 11.8.92 and letter dated 29.9.92 issued by the Respondents. 2. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the present Writ Petition are as under; The Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer on 1.6.1990 by Respondent No. 2. He was initially appointed on probation for a period of two years and after completing the period of probation he was confirmed as Junior Engineer. 3. Before he was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the Municipal Corporation he was working with Maharashtra Housing Area Development Authority, hereinafter called as MHADA as a Junior Engineer since 1.12.1987. Before the Petitioner joined services in the Corporation he was pursuing AMIE degree course in Engineering and he had already passed Section A of the examination on 20.4.1988 and had appeared for Section B of the said examination in May 1989 and he had successfully p...