Mumbai Court March 2005 Judgments

Shanta Bai Shivaji Kale Vs. Jaspal Singh Keval Singh Manhas and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2006)ACC102

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. This letters patent appeal is directed against the order dated 26th October, 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 886 of 1999 by which the appeal was dismissed in limine. The order passed by the learned Single Judge reads thus:No cause for enhanced compensation as the appellant has not produced any documentary evidence.2. The first appeal was filed by the appellant-claimant (for short 'claimant') against the judgment and award dated 10th February, 1999 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai in Application No. 541 of 1982 by which the respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000 with interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum from February 1995 till realisation of the amount.3. Briefly stated the facts, sans unnecessary details, are as follows:On 9th November, 1991 the claimant was cleaning utensils outside the house when a lorry bearing No. MTS 1757 hit her at lumber region. When the acci...

Colour Chem Limited and Usv Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant placed an order on M/s M/s Interscape for wooden tables, open and closed cabins, file cabinets and wooden panels etc.M/s Interscape executed the order and fixed the material in appellants' premises who made the full payment for the fixing and the material. The Department made out a case against M/s Interscape alleging that they manufactured and cleared wooden furniture without payment of Central Excise Duty leviable thereon. A part of the furniture manufactured by M/s Interscape on which duty has not been paid was found in the appellants' premises. It was seized and later confiscated by the Commissioner in the impugned order A redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed. The value of the furniture in dispute is determined to be Rs. 15,15,000/-. The appear is against such confiscation.3. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant argued that the appellant was an innocent buyer of the furniture; that he was not aware whether the goods he ordered for were duty paid or not; that t...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Shri R. Ramalingam, Shri

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These stay applications are filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Mumbai. In the impugned order the Commissioner set aside five orders of the lower authority. The lower authority confiscated imported goods found in the possession of five passengers who arrived from Chennai to Mumbai under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and imposed penalties under Section 112(a) and (b) of the same Act.2. Briefly the facts in all the stay applications are that five passengers were intercepted while they got down from a local train at Ghatkopar. They arrived from Chennai. They were found in possession of goods with foreign markings allegedly brought into the country without payment of duty. The goods consisted of Mobile phones, Still Cameras, Video Recorder etc. When asked to explain as to how they came to possess the goods the passengers through their advocate filed baggage receipts evidencing payment of customs duty on arrival. They also claimed that they pur...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Gujarat Small Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT579Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is a Revenue's appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) who in the impugned order held that sufficient or valid reason does not exist to discard the transaction value of the goods. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Tractors [2000 (41) RLT 621] and set aside the order of the lower authority. Hence the appeal by the Revenue, 2. The respondents purchased 499.983 Mts of Polyester Texturised Yarn on high sea sale basis. Originally the said goods were imported at the unit price of US$.1.70 Kgs CIF by M/s Ganpati Commerce Limited. The Department sought to enhance the value to US$.2.60 Kg on the basis of the price of similar goods imported contemporaneously as reflected in the computer print out.3. The Commissioner in the impugned order held that the goods were imported in October 1995 whereas the computer print out relied upon pertains to imports made during the period which is not contemporaneous; that a mere computer print out does not d...

Jai Ambe Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The stay application is taken up after condoning the delay in terms of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarats' order dated 27.9.04. The stay application arose out of the order of Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad.2. The issue relates to determination of annual capacity of production under Hot Air Stenter Independent Processor Annual Capacity Determination Rules 1998. In the impugned order the Commissioner held that Drying Cylinder assists the process of heat setting or drying of fabrics hence the same is to be considered for determining Annual Capacity Production. Accordingly Annual Production Capacity is fixed for the year 1999-2000. The applicant pleads that these drying cylinders are located away from the hot air stenters and their length should not be included while determining the APC. The Commissioner determined Rs. 58,96,605/- as duty for the period April 99-February 2000 and Rs. 7,14,745/- for the month of March 2000 under Section 3 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read wit...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Trade Tek Corporation

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT227Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has held that service tax is not leviable on the respondents herein as they are not providing services to client as clearing and forwarding agent in relation to clearing and forwarding operations, relying upon Tribunal's order in Mahavir Generics v. CCE, Bangalore [2004 (170) ELT 78].2. We have heard both sides, the respondents herein act as consignment agent of M/s. Bharat Aluminum Co. Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as "BALCO") for sale of BALCO's Aluminium semi finished products. The department was of the view that they were engaged in activity of consignment agent. Since they had not obtained service tax registration and had also failed to file ST3 returns, Show Cause Notice dt.27.3.2003 was issued proposing recovery of service tax of Rs. 1,11,585/- under Section 68 of the Finance Act together with interest of Rs. 29,821/- under Section 78 of the Act, and proposing imposition of penalty under Section 76,77 ...

Avani Petrochem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for waiver of pre-deposit amount and to order stay of its recovery, as confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority vide impugned Order-in-Original dated 28.04.2004 in remand proceedings under Order No. C-II/2982-83/WZB/2003 dated 28.11.2003 by this Tribunal in appeal No. E/1460/03-Mum arising out of Order-in-Appeal dated 03.03.2003.2. The Petitioners are a company engaged in production and clearance of various finished excisable goods, falling under Chapters 27 to 38 of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. One of the finished excisable goods, produced by the petitioners, as a By-product, is a Mixture of number of Organic and Inorganic Chemicals, also containing Sodium Petroleum Sulphonate and being a Mixture of number of chemicals. The Petitioners classified the same under the sub-heading 3823.00 of the First Schedule to the said Tariff Act, prior to 01.03.1997 and thereafter sub-heading 3824....

Additional Cit Vs. Cube Investments (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)2SOT792(Mum.)

This is a bunch of three appeals. The appeals relate to the assessment year 1997-98. The appeals are filed by the revenue. The respondent-assessees are different; but the issue involved in all the three appeals is common. Therefore, they are disposed off by this common order.The common ground raised by the revenue in these appeals is reproduced below: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the rent collected by the assessee for the properties let out by it should be adopted as the Annual Letting Value for the purpose of computing the income from house property, whereas the rent paid by the ultimate user to whom these properties had been sublet, had been correctly adopted as the Annual Letting Value by the assessing officer as per the provisions of section 23(1)." Shri J.D. Mistry, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessees has made his preliminary submission that the ground raised by the revenue in these appeals has...

Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)94ITD242(Mum.)

1. The main issue requiring our adjudication in these appeals is as to whether or not the training fees paid to a US based company, which is said to be integral to the purchase of know-how from that company, is taxable in India. The assessee's core contention is that in view of the scope of Article 12(5)(a) of the India USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, the same is not taxable in India.2. Let us first set out, very briefly, the material facts giving rise to this dispute before us. The assessee had entered into a technical assistance agreement with one M/s Reyonlds (Europe) Limited, USA. Under this arrangement, the assessee had to pay US $ 50,000 (net of taxes), each calendar quarter year, as 'fees for technical services' and another US $ 12,500 each calendar quarter year, as basic 'fees for training of Hindalco's (assessee's) personnel at the works of Reynolds and/or its affiliated companies out of India'. For training at Hindalco in excess of 120 man-days, the training fees wa...

Dr. Sarwankumar Mandhwani Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Through Its Mi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR98

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.These petitions are being disposed of by common order as the facts are similar and they involve the same question of law. All the petitioners have passed M.B.B.S. Degree from Universities in Pakistan. They approached this Court placing reliance on a Notification dated 14th February, 1992. By that Notification in exercise of the powers under sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 the Central Government after consultation with the Medical Council of India amended the Second Schedule and included the following Universities from Pakistan with the Degree as notified in the Second Schedule. The Universities were:-University of Sind M.B.B.S. Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery U. Karachi University of Sind M.B.B.S. Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery U. Sind University of Punjab M.B.B.S. Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery U. Punjab2. On behalf of the respondents various replies were filed. Aft...