Mumbai Court February 2005 Judgments

Man Industries (i) Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT39Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Permission sought by the appellants for conversion of DEPB Scheme Shipping Bills to DEEC Shipping Bills has been denied on the ground that as per CBEC circular No. 04/2004-Cus dated 16.04.2004, conversion from one export promotion scheme to another export promotion scheme is allowed only in cases where the benefit of an export promotion scheme claimed by the exporter has been denied by DGFT/MOC or Customs due to any dispute and the request for conversion is to be made by the exporter within one month of such denial/rejection.2. We have heard both sides. Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides that 'the proper officer may, in his discretion, authorises amendment of any document, after it has been presented in the custom house. However, this is subject to the provision that no amendment of bill of entry or shipping bill or bill of export shall be authorised to be amended after imported goods have been cleared .......... or export goods have been exported, except on the basis of...

Gujarat State Fertilizers and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC76

1. The issue in the above appeals namely, as to whether the assessee's claim for refund of Rs.14,11,605/- is barred by limitation and also hit by doctrine of unjust enrichment is taken up for decision by this common order.2. The relevant facts are that the appellants herein above are engaged in the manufacture of various chemicals and fertilizers and also manufacture of ammonia, which is exempted from payment of duty under Notification No.40/85-CE dated 17.03.85 subject to the condition that the ammonia is used in the manufacture of fertilizers and molten urea.Show cause notice dated 02.07.1986 was issued proposing the denial of benefit of the Notification on the ground that Ammonia was used for a purpose other than that specified in the Notification and proposing recovery of duty of Rs.14,11,605/- on quantity of 1411.605 Mts of Ammonia. The demand was confirmed by the Assistant Collector vide his order dated 26.9.1986. The appellants paid the disputed duty demand on 28.11.1986 and fi...

Somesh Paper Tubes Pvt. Ltd., Shri Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 12,15,884/- and penalty of equal amount confirmed against the first applicant company and penalties of Rs. 1 lakh each on the two directors of the company, we found that it was possible to hear and decide the appeal themselves at this stage and hence we proceed to do so, after waiving pre-deposit.2. Duty demand was confirmed and penalties imposed on the ground that the company indulged in clandestine removal of Paper Tubes during the period April 1994 to March 1998. Appeals were filed along with applications for waiver of pre-deposit before the Commissioner (Appeals) and several opportunities of hearing on the stay applications were granted by the lower appellate authorities. However for failure of the applicants to appear before him, he took up the appeals and the stay applications for hearing and dismissed the appeals, as being devoid of merit. No order in terms of Section 35F was ...

Nowrosjee Wadia and Sons Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT1064Tri(Mum.)bai

These appeals arise out of four orders in original No. 11/2002, 13/2002, 18/2002 and 19/2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II. The issue is common in all the appeals and are therefore taken up for disposal together. We propose to deal with Appeal Nos. 2233 to 2235 arising out of the Commissioner's order No.11/2002 dated 10/04/2002.1. On 12/07/2000 it rained rather heavily in Mumbai. In an archaic way somebody would have referred to cats and dogs. A lot of slum dwellers and some exporters who stored their export goods in Kurla godowns suffered in the bargain. M/s Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited and M/s Nowrosjee Wadia and Sons Limited were two of them. It is not necessary that in God's scheme of things only the poor should suffer His wrath all the time. The two said companies and M/s Asmita Enterprises their job workers are the appellants.2. M/s Bombay Dyeing Mfg Company Limited and M/s Nowrosjee export textile made ups. In that effort they clear ...

Joint Cit Vs. Cipla Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)2SOT617(Mum.)

As all the above appeals are inter-related, so we are disposing them of by this common consolidated order for the sake of convenience.I.T.A. No. 2062/M/1999 is an appeal by revenue for assessment year 1995-96 and is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai dated 25-1-1999.I.T.A. Nos. 3057 & 3036/Mun-i./2000 are cross-appeals by assessee and revenue respectively for assessment year 1996-97 and are directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai dated 16-3-2000.I.T.A. Nos. 4731 & 4619/Mum./2000 are cross-appeals by assessee and revenue respectively for assessment year 1997-98 and are directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai dated 19-7-2000.The grounds taken by revenue and assessee are reproduced below for the sake of convenience.(i) the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 3,66,60,505 for Kurkumbh Unit for assessment year 1994-95 which has been set off against other income of ...

ito Vs. Max Well Dyes and Chemicals (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)2SOT461(Mum.)

The appeal filed by the department is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A) on the following grounds : "(1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the capital gains of Rs. 52,95,500 are not to be taken into account while computing the profits liable to be taxed under section 115JA of the Act and further that the decision of Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Veekaylal Investment Co. (P.) Ltd. (2) The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Addl. CIT Range 3(2) be restored.(3) The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary." Briefly, stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee-company had revalued certain shares at Rs. 53,30,500 and taken the difference between the revalued price of the shares and the book value of shares as shown prior to revaluation to the Investment Revaluation Reserve Account in th...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Maniben Valji Shah

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR661; (2006)204CTR(Bom)249; [2006]283ITR453(Bom)

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This Appeal is sought out of an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal holding that the re-opening under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act was not valid and thereby had directed deletion of the additions made to the assessment with regard to the Respondent assessee. 2. The above matter raises the following substantial question of law for decision of this Court at the instance of the Revenue:- 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT, Bombay, is right in law in holding that the action of the Assessing Officer in re-opening the assessment u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is invalid and also in deletion of additions made on account of unproved loans and cash credits?' 3. The relevant assessment year in the above is 1988-1989. It appears that the assessee had filed a return on 25.3.1991 and no regular assessment order was passed, however on 10.10.1991, a notice was sent to the Respondent assessee under section 143(1) for re-opening of the...

Atmaram Tukaram Suradkar Vs. Sau. Trivenibai Atmaram Suradkar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ2057; I(2006)DMC203

ORDERS.T. Kharche, J.1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, this petition takes an exception to the order dated 1-11-2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No. 70/2000, where by the revision is allowed and the judgment and order dated 28-7-2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1/1998 has been set aside and the applicant opponent was directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 500/- p.m. to the applicant wife from the date of application.2. Trivenibai had filed miscellaneous criminal application bearing No. 1/1998 against her husband Atmaram claiming maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the contentions that she is his legally wedded wife and since last one year of the filing of application she was cohabiting with him. The opponent husband was serving in M.S.E.B. Akola and ther...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Vinayak Mahadeorao Waze and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ2100

S.T. Kharche, J.1. This appeal against the acquittal filed by the State of Maharashtra takes an exception to the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27-7-1995 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha, in Reg. Cri. Case No. 161 of 1992, whereby both the accused have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act).2. Brief facts of prosecution are required to be stated as under :(a) Both the respondents/accused are said to be the partners of the shop known as M/s. Sadgurukrupa Kirana Stores situated at Seloo. Narayan Narwane (PW-1) was working as a Food Inspector. He visited the shop of the respondents along with the panch witness Mubarak (PW-3) on 11-12-1991 at about 10-00 a.m. and found that respondent No. 1 was sitting in the said shop. The Food Inspector expressed to respondent No. 1 that he wanted to collect the sample of ground nut oil. Accordingly he collected...

Suryalaxmi Cotton Mills Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR718; 2005(5)BomCR454

Gavai B.R., J1. By way of present petition, the petitioner is challenging the resolution dated 26th March, 2003, passed by the respondent No. 3. Standing Committee of Nagpur Zilla Parishad, thereby resolving to cancel the resolution dated 4th September, 2002 passed by the respondent No. 4 Gram Panchayat and the order dated 7th May, 2003 passed by the Chief Executive Officer of Nagpur Zilla Parishad the respondent No. 2 herein, Thereby informing the respondent No. 4 Gram Panchayat at that the resolution passed by it dated 4 September, 2002 is cancelled and directing the respondent No. 4 Gram Panchayat to take further steps in accordance with Section 125 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for short), and to submit a fresh proposal to the Zilla Parishad.2. The facts in brief out of which the present petition arise, are as under: The petitioner is a public limited company manufacturing cloth and it has its Denim Division situated within the juris...