Mumbai Court February 2005 Judgments

Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for rectification of mistake arose out of the Tribunal's order A/1719-1721/WZB/2004/C-1 dated 3.12.04.2. The applicants' contention is that while passing the above said order the Tribunal has not considered their submissions at (iii) (iv) and (vi) mentioned in the application for rectification, have not been considered even though they are specifically mentioned in the appeal memorandum. The submissions above stated are listed below: (i) Alternatively, of Rule 6(b) (i) of the Valuation Rules, 1975 is to be applied then in terms thereof, the difference on account of various other factors must be taken into account between the assessed goods and the comparable goods-amount refundable le to the appellant. (ii) Physicians samples are not excisable goods as not marketable in view of the bar in selling them in terms of Rule 65 (18) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. (iii) In any case, duty already paid on physicians samples in view of the fact that its cost is alread...

Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This stay application arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who held that value of physician samples cleared by the applicant should be determined in accordance with the valuation Rules adopting 115% of the cost of the production as assessable value. The applicant's contention is that the value as arrived at by him on the cost construction method is the correct method.2. After hearing both sides, we find that it is possible to decide the appeal at this stage itself. Accordingly, we waive pre-deposit of duty and allow stay application and proceed to deal with the same.3. The issue as to know the assessable value of physicians sample is to be determined is settled by the Tribunal in the case of Cheryl Laboratories v. Collector (1997) (93) ELT 129). The Tribunal held that proper way to determine the value is to adopt Rules 6(1)B of the Valuation while determining the issue before him. The appeal is therefore remanded to the original authority to follow the law laid do...

Marigold Coatings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 23.06.99 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Vadodara, The issue relates to denial of Modvat credit.2. M/s. Marigold coatings Pvt. Ltd., (the appellants) were manufacturing goods falling under Chapter 27, 28 and 38 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff, 1985 on job work basis out of raw materials supplied by M/s. Pyrene Rai Metal Treatment Ltd., Mumbai, free of cost, as per Agreement dated 30.1.1991 entered into between them. The aforesaid goods were manufactured according to the specifications, details and with the brand name of the supplier of the raw materials, namely, M/s. Pyrene Rai metal Treatment Ltd. and the appellants were required to clear the goods to the customers of the above supplier after payment of the duty on the assessable value payable by the supplier of the raw materials. Prior to 1.4.94, the raw materials or inputs were purchased by M/s. Pyrene Rai Metal Treatment Lt...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Kores (India) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT58Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This application for stay arose out of the order of Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order the Commissioner modified the order of the lower authority who held that excess duty was paid and therefore refundable but credited the amount to Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that the incidence of duty had been passed on to the buyers. The Commissioner in the impugned order held that the refund should be sanctioned and disbursed to the assessee. The Revenue is aggrieved by this order. Hence the application for stay.2. On the issue of unjust enrichment the Commissioner (A) observed that in the case of depot sales the assessee was charging composite sales and the amount of excise duty was not indicated separately. He held that when composite sales price was charged and the sale price remained constant irrespective of the amount of duty paid by the assessee during different periods, the duty was not passed on to the customers in respect of sales from depot.3. The Revenue's contenti...

J.F. Laboratories Ltd. Vs. the I.T.O.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)98TTJ(Mum.)389

1. These three appeals filed by the assessee and arising from the common order dated 4.2.2003 of CIT(A)-V, Mumbai, are disposed of by this common order as grounds of appeal are common.2. The first ground of appeal, which is identical for all the three assessment years, pertains to the finding of the Revenue authorities that no expenditure against the gross interest income earned by the assessee during the pre-operative period, is deductible Under Section 57(iii) of the IT Act. The facts may be stated in brief. The assessee company had undertaken a project for setting up a 100% export oriented unit for the manufacture of Amino Acid at M.I.D.C., Kurkumbh. During the previous years relevant to the three AYs under appeal, the aforesaid project was in the stage of construction and setting up and the business of the company was not commenced. The assessee company had raised funds to be utilized in the construction of the said project from various financial institutions and was paying substa...

Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs. Dy Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)2SOT784(Mum.)

This appeal was filed by the assessee having been aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) dated 3-4-2000, for the assessment year 1999-2000 in the case of assessee.1.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the appellant had obligation of deducting tax on the amount alleged to be paid to M/s. Robert Fleming and Co. Ltd., London and M/s. International Finance Corporation, Washington (here-in-after referred to as the 'Lead Managers').2.0 That on, the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to other grounds, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the orders passed by the DCIT (TDS) under sections 195, 201(1) and 201(1A) all dated 8-12-1999 are well reasanable Lime and not barred by limitation.3.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A),,vas not justified in holding that the services rendered by Lead Managers were in the nature of technical, m...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Mukund Namdeo Halunde

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj1014

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The accused were charged, tried, but acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302, 306, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). Therefore, this Appeal by the State of Maharashtra (for short 'State') only against the original accused No.1, the husband of the deceased Smt. Chhaya. 2. The deceased married with the respondent on 2nd June, 1986. The alleged ill treatment started after 5 to 6 months of their marriage. On 1st August, 1987, the deceased informed about the ill treatment and beating by the accused to her brother PW4, Ulhas. On 1st February, 1991, at about 2.45 p.m., the neighbours noticed that the deceased was lying inside the house in a burnt condition. The accused was not allowing anybody to enter into the house. However, some persons entered the house forcibly and took the deceased to Sassoon General Hospital, Pune. However, on the same date, she succumbed to the injuries. As per the prosecution, the deceased was burnt by original accus...

The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Roche Products Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)11VST88(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay, the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for the decision of this Court under Section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 : ' 1) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the impugned sale was effected by transfer of documents of title to the goods after the goods have crossed customs frontiers of India when according to the contract bill of lading itself was taken out in the name of the purchaser M/s. A. Sevantilal & Bros.? 2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that a letter dated 16/7/1971 addressed by the respondent dealer to M/s. A. Sevantilal & Bros. the purchasers, had the effect of altering or modifying any of the material terms of the original contract of sale dated 30/6/1971, so as to provide completion of sale on presentation of documents 3) Whether the Tribunal was ...

Special Land Acquisition Officer and anr. Vs. Filipe Neri Piedade Corr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR768

Lavande A.P., J.1. By this appeal, the appellants assail the Judgment and Award dated 15-3-1999, passed by the Addl. District Judge, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No. 20/1996, partly allowing the reference, and enhancing the market value of the acquired land from Rs. 13/- to Rs. 88/- per sq. metre.2. By Notification dated 8-8-1991, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act'), an area of 1070 sq. metres of Survey No. 1/6 of Village Duncolim belonging to the respondents was acquired by the Government for Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents claimed Rs. 250/- per sq. metre. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs 13/- per sq. metre. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, reference was sought by the respondents herein, claiming compensation of Rs. 250/- per sq.metre. Before the Reference Court, the respondents examined three witnesses, namely Anton de Jusus Joao de Correia (AW....

Smt. Jyoti W/O Anil Gondhlekar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR1466

S.T. Kharche, J.1. This revision has been filed by the original complainant Jyoti taking an exception to the judgment and order of acquittal dated 5.7.2000 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. (Court No. 1), Akola, in Reg. Criminal Case No. 524 of 1998, whereby respondents 2 to 7 have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts are required to be stated as under : Complainant Jyoti's marriage was solemnized with original accused No. 1 on 17.5.1998 and soon after the marriage she joined her husband at Akola. Respondent No. 3 is the elder brother, respondent No. 4 is the husband of the sister, respondent No. 5 is the mother while accused No. 6 is the sister of respondent No. 2 Anil and all of them were living jointly at Akola in one and the same house. Complainant Jyoti lived with respondent No. 2 at Akola till 25.7.1998. During the span of near about two months, it is contended that Jyoti was being ill-treated...