Mumbai Court February 2005 Judgments

Ghodela Impex Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT380Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants are an 100% EOU, who received printed fabrics from other 100% EOU's on CT3 certificates and fabricated garments from such printed fabrics. These garments and waste was removed of payment of duty under the provision of notification 8/97 as amended and on payment of duty provided therein. Revenue finds that to be not permissible support and demanded duties by denying the benefit of notification 8/97 on the grounds that the garments and their material were removed were not fabricated/manufactured from Raw material (i.e. printed fabrics) manufacture in India. Revenue claimed that since goods were obtained on CT3's from other 100% EOU's, as deemed export; as they were not entitled to be considered as manufactured in India and the liability of duty confirmed as proposed. Hence this appeal.2. After hearing both sides and on finding that no materials on records exists to establish that the printed fabrics in this case were not manufactured by the 100% EOU's as fabrics in India a...

A.J. Khatnani, M.S. Shah and B.J. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants herein have assailed the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad wherein they were imposed penalties viz Ashokbhai Jessaram Khatani Rs. 6,00,000/- Milind Sureshbai Shah Rs. 50,00,000, /- and Bhagwandas Jailal Fagnani Rs. 40,000.2. Shri Ashokbhai Jessaram Khatnani is the sole proprietor of a firm functioning in the name and style of M/s Roopam Textiles, which is inter alia engaged in the business of getting grey fabrics processed through a job worker functioning in the name of M/s. Mini Textiles. The entire billing and documents were prepared in the name of Ashokbhai and not in the name of Ashokbhai and not in the name of M/s. Roopam Textiles and he has been making payments to M/s. Roopam Textiles for the job work done where as M/s Mini Textile was also getting grey fabrics for the purpose of process from one Shri Ashokbhai Sindhi as well as Shri Ashokbhai Sadiwala and the appellant. On the basis of an intellegence that M/s Mini Textiles ...

C.C. (P) Vs. Khanbhai Essoofbhai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT223Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants are engaged in the business of breaking old ships procured. One such ship was purchased from M/s Shipping Corporation of India. They did not file a Bill of Entry for the same on the plea that the said vessel was built in India and was not liable for any import duty under Custom Act 1962. The lower authorities did not approve of the same. A Bill of Entry was filed consequent to order of Commissioner (Appeals) as arrived at for this ship. This order of the Commissioner (Appeal) is the subject matter of this appeal. Revenue has filed, cross-objection vide No. C/00-570/04. Appeal and cross-objection are being disposed by this common order. a) "Vishwa Karuna" purchased from Shipping Corporation of India, ("SCI", for short) is the subject matter of dispute. b) This vessel was built in India, by M/s Hindustan Ship Yard Ltd ("HSL", for short) in their bonded Ware House. Thereafter sold to SCI some were in 1973. It was delivered to SCI on payment made in Indian Rupees. The SCI so...

Manmohan Gupta and Actis Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC217

1.1 Appellant has filed this Appeal against Order-in-Original No.CAO.CC(YGP) 18/2004 Adj. dtd. 23rd June 2004, issued under F. No: SIIB/GEN-38/2002 ACC, S 10-16/2002 SIIB ACC passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the Commissioner) wherein the Commissioner has imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,50,000 (Rupees Seven Lakhs fifty thousand only) on the appellant under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 & has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 57,98,140 against General Engineering & Spares (Presently known as ACTIS TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD) wherein the appellant was the partner of the erstwhile partnership firm which was finally converted into a Private Ltd Company under the new name and style wherein the appellant is a Director. Also a mandatory penalty of the equivalent amount of Rs. 57,98,140 on the said erstwhile partnership firm, under Section 114A of the Act has been imposed and has directed payment of interest by t...

Persepolis Construction Co. (P) Vs. Additional Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Mum.)92

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee. We are concerned with the asst. yr. 1998-99. The appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-V at Mumbai and arises out of the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961.2. The assessee in this case, a company, was formed with the object of a building project in association with M/s Salsette Parsi Association, which is a charitable trust. The assessee-company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the said charitable trust on dt.28th April, 1993, for the purpose of executing building projects in the land belonging to the said trust. This is in fact a development agreement executed in between the assessee-company and the charitable trust. The said agreement was approved by the Charity Commissioner of Maharashtra State and the terms of the deed entered into between the assessee-company and the charitable trust have been approved by him.3. As per the agreement, the assessee-company was to construct eight bu...

income Tax Officer Vs. Raghuvir Prasad S. Vaid

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)101TTJ(Mum.)247

1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dt.17th Oct., 1994 of the CIT(A)-XXI, Mumbai, deleting the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs on account of alleged jewellery worth of Rs. 10 lakhs pertaining to the asst. yr. 1991-92.2. The facts in brief are that during the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, there was a marriage of the assessee's son, viz., Sh. Novnit R. Vaid with Ms. Vandana Kedia on 10th Dec., 1990 at Ball room, Taj Mahal Hotel, Bombay. A survey action under Section 133A(5) of the IT Act was conducted by ADIT, Survey Unit-I, Bombay on the bridegroom and bride side. The assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs. 57,391 and his case was selected for scrutiny on the basis of information from DDIT, vide report dt. 25th March, 1991, regarding marriage expenses incurred of Rs. 5,01,100 at the time of assessee's son's marriage. It appears that the ADIT was satisfied with the source as well as the reasonableness...

Rajesh Bhiwaji Nande Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)MhLj980

S.T. Kharche, J.1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code), the petitioner-husband has challenged the order dated 5-12-2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 92/01, whereby the revision has been dismissed and the order dated 12-9-2001 passed by the learned Magistrate below Exh. 23 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 42/2000, filed by the husband in recovery proceedings under Section 125(3) of the Code seeking the relief that he be released from jail, was rejected.2. Brief facts are required to be stated as under :The respondent-wife had filed Misc. Criminal Application 42/1996 under Section 125 of the Code claiming maintenance for herself and her two minor children. The learned Magistrate allowed the said application on 8-11-2000 and granted maintenance @ Rs. 600/- to the wife and Rs. 300/- per month each to two children, with costs. The amount of maintenance remained unpai...

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jayesh Engineering Works

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR371

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners raise an objection to the award made by the Arbitral Tribunal dated 9th October, 2005 directing the petitioners to make certain payments to the Respondents.2. The petitioners are a company carrying on business of insurance, while respondent is a partnership firm engaged in the work of construction. On April 7, 1981 the petitioners and respondent entered into an agreement, whereby respondent undertook the work of construction of additional floors on 13 existing buildings at Juhu Lane, Andheri (West), Bombay. The work was to be carried out under the supervision of M/s. M.K. Talpade & Associates, Architects and Engineers. The Agreements were in fact two separate agreements, both of the same date in respect of 13 buildings and titled as tender No. 1 and tender No. 2. The work was to commence on January 15, 1981 and was to be completed by April 14, 1982. Clause 37 of the conditions of contract provided arbitration. The clause, inter alia...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Orbit Park Inn Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT83Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Revenue has filed this appeal and the brief facts of the case as given in this appeal are as follows: "On going to the literature, the goods have been found to have application primarily in air conditioning only and thus it was classified in 8415.83 @40%+5%+CVD 30%. The goods appears to be under the restricted list of Export-Import Policy 1997-2002 and as such may be cleared against an SIL. It seems from the literature that the heat exchange units are of three types:- (i) Concentric tube systems-one fluid flows in the annular internal, the other on the central tube. (ii) A tubular system for the one fluid enclosed in a chamber through which flows the other fluid. (iii) Two parallel serried of inter connected of inter connected narrow chambers formed of baffle plates. The catalogue of the product describes it as a "modular tube-in-tank ice thermal storage system". The catalogue does not state that the product is heat exchanger. To make it a heat exchanger there ought to be two diffe...

H. Fillunger and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Employees State Insurance Corpo ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR123

ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard advocate for the appellants. Respondent is served. Nobody is present for the respondent. The matter is on board yesterday for final hearing. But nobody appeared for the respondent. It was keep today in order to enable the respondent to keep their advocate present. Today also nobody is present for the respondent. 2. A short question is involved in this case and, the question is, if Main Office or Head Office of the appellant is in Pune and it was not covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act, then whether the Corporation was justified in issuing notices to the appellant to pay contribution under the ESI Act after taking into consideration the total strength of the employees in Pune Office and other branches at Bombay, Bangalore, Delhi, Culcutta, 34 in number Counsel for the appellant drew my attention to the Notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra No.ESI-1875/800/PH-15 appointing the 27th November 1976 as the date on which all the prov...