Mumbai Court April 2005 Judgments

Vithat Grape Growers Co-op. Soc. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT258Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The challenge in the present proceeding is to penalty of Rs.25,000/- imposed upon the appellant who is a 100% EOU on the ground that they have used the imported machinery under the provisions of notification no. 13/81 (Cus) dated 09.02.81 and notification no.123/81 (Cus) dated 02.06.81 for use in the manufacture of goods to be exported where as they have utilised the same as also bonded warehousing premises for pre-cooling of grapes which were not meant for export. The appellants has referred to the Tribunal's judgement in the case of India Charge Chrome Ltd. v. C C Bhubaneshwar reported in 2001 (138) ELT 609 (Tri-Kolkata) wherein it was held that there is no restricted clause in the said notification to the effect that the imported goods would be 'solely' or 'exclusively' used for the purpose of manufacture of goods for export. The said decision stands confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court. As such, by following the ratio of the above decision, we are of the view that the pena...

Baroque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT660Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 6,39,295/- and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Vadodara. The duty demand has been confirmed as a result of holding that the applicants was are engaged in the manufacture of PP medicament on their own behalf as well as under loan licence agreement and availing SSI exemption under Notification 9/2003 dated 1.3.2003 with cenvat facility, were not entitled to avail the benefit of the notification as the aggregate value of clearances during 2002-2003 had exceeded Rs. 3.00 crores and they were required to pay duty at the normal rate of 16% ad valorem and not the concessional rate of duty of 9.6% ad valorem.2. We have heard both sides and find prima facie force in the submission of the applicants that the clearances of their own goods cannot be clubbed with those of branded goods produced by them for loan licence holders, in terms of para 2(vi) of notification 9/2003, ...

Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(197)ELT108Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeals arise out of two separate orders, one passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise by which demand of duty of Rs. 1,11,48,401/- has been confirmed and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed upon the assessee (subject matter of Appeal No. 2650/04) and the other order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the confirmation of demand of Rs. 33,03,450/- and imposition of a penalty of equivalent amount, by the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise (subject matter of Appeal No. 2585/04).2. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of yarn, labrics etc. falling under Chapter 52 & 55 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985. For the manufacture of the yarn and fabrics etc. they have a factory in Elphinstone Road at Mumbai. They have another mill known as Spring Mill wherein grey fabrics are manufactured out of yarn spun therein. During the period 3.9.96 to 2.6.98, Notification No. 29/96-CE dated 3.9.96 extended deemed credit to grey fabrics at the time of payment of ...

Kodak India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides on the application for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has allowed the appeal of the Revenue against the order of the Asst. Commissioner who sanctioned refund of Rs. 11,95,219/- to the respondents therein, we find that it is possible to dispose of the appeal at this stage itself and hence after granting stay, we proceed to do so with the consent of both sides.2. The importers had cleared the goods namely colour photographic film rolls and claimed refund on the ground that the actual unit price agreed upon by the suppliers as US $ 2.96 per linear foot instead of US$ 3.9107 per linear foot as shown in the invoice. The initial refund claim was rejected; the matter went upto the Commissioner (Appeals); the case was remanded to the lower authorities to decide the matter afresh. During denovo consideration, the Asst. Commissioner, on the basis of gate pass -cum - sale invoices showing that the sale price was constant for the goods...

J.K.T. Fabrics (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit, Special Range 39

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)4SOT84(Mum.)

The only issue involved in this appeal is whether or not the assessee has an option to claim depreciation allowance while computing deduction under section 80-IA of the Income tax Act, 1961, in a case where the assessee has not claimed the depreciation in the books of account.This issue is squarely covered by the Tribunal's decision in the case of Plastiblends India Ltd. v. ITO (2005) 94 ITD 295 (Mum-Trib) in favour of the assessee.Learned Departmental Representative, however, contends that the Tribunal has subsequently taken a view in faovur of the revenue, and urges us to follow the same. Our attention is invited to Tribunal's decision in the case of Prince SWR Systems (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (IT Appeal No. 2811 (Mum) of 2004, dated 10-9-2004), and to Tribunal's decision in the case of ITO v. Venus Jewels (IT Appeal No. 3842 (Mum) of 2001, dated 25-10-2004).We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered the factual matrix of the case as also the ...

Chunilal and Co. (Tm) (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 8(1)(2), Mumbai

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)4SOT309(Mum.)

This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order dated 19-7-2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 2001-02.The main grievance raised in this appeal is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that there was a cessation of business of the assessee. The assessee contends that, for that reason, the Commissioner (Appeals) further erred in not allowing deduction in respect of expenses debited to the profit and loss account, the terminal benefits paid to the employees and the amount paid to the workers under settlement. The assessee is also aggrieved that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not considering the claim of set off of brought forward loss of Rs. 25,18,705 from the assessment year 2000-01 claimed in the computation of total income in the return of income filed on 31-10-2001.The main controversy, however, hinges on whether or not it was a case of cessation of business.We have heard the rival contentions, perused the mater...

Harshad L. Thakker Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-18(2)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)3SOT227(Mum.)

The only issue arising in this appeal relates to the addition of Rs. 8,10,000 made by the assessing officer on account of unexplained investment in excess stock.Briefly stated the facts are, that the assessee was the Proprietor of M/s. Quality Wire Products, manufacturing wire mesh and poultry equipments. A survey action was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 4-12-1996 in the course of which, the stock inventory was prepared. The Closing Stock as per the Trading Account was worked out to Rs. 14,42,082 while the stock as per the inventory prepared amounted to Rs. 22,45,941. Thus, according to the survey party, there was excess stock of Rs. 8,03,859. The statement of the assessee was recorded on oath on the same date in which the assessee expressed his inability to explain the discrepancies found in the stock. Accordingly, the assessee offered the amount of Rs. 8,10,000 for the purpose of taxation. However, in the return of income filed on 31-10-1997 for the year un...

Mehratex India Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle 6(5)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)3SOT539(Mum.)

This is an appeal filed by the assessee, and is directed against CIT(A)s order dated 19-3-2001, in the matter, of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1998-99. The only issue involved in this appeal is whether or not the assessee has an option to claim depreciation allowance while computing deduction under section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in a case where the assessee has not claimed the depreciation in the books of account.This issue is squarely covered by the Tribunals decision in the case of Plastiblends India Ltd. v. ITO (ITA No. 4542/Mum/1999, dated 10-2-2004), in favour of the assessee.Learned departmental Representative, however, contends that the Tribunal has subsequently taken a view in favour of the revenue, and urges us to follow the same. Our attention is invited to Tribunals decision in the case of Prince SWR Systems (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (IT Appeal No. 2811/Mum/2004, dated 10-9-2004), and to Tribunals decision in th...

Mukesh D. Ambani Vs. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)7SOT521(Mum.)

Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee arising out of two separate orders of Commissioner (Appeals) XXXII, Mumbai both dated 22-6-1999 pertaining to the assessment year 1994-95. Issue raised in both the appeals as per grounds of appeal are identical, hence these appeals are consolidated and hereby decided by this common order. The substantive ground reads as follows (i) confirming the treatment given by the Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Circle 81(1), Mumbai to the payment of Rs. 2,37,370 (Smt. K.D. Ambani Rs. 1,69,212) made by the tenant on behalf of the appellant, as the income of the appellant and thereby confirming the income from property at Rs. 2,31,997 (Smt. K.D. Ambani Rs. 1,77,282 as against the income of Rs. 48,000 (Smt. K.D. Ambani Rs. 48,000) shown in the return of income.(ii) Disregarding the clear provisions of section 23(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which defines rent as under:- (a) the sum for which property might reasonably be expected to...

Vishal Jivan Jogure Vs. Smt. Megha Vishal Jogure and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)MhLj54

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. Rule. Mr. Deshmukh waives notice for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Gadkari, A.P.P., waives notice for Respondent No.2. As short question is involved, application is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent. 2. This application takes exception to the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur, dated 23rd February 2005 on application, Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 1, preferred by the Respondent No.1, whereby directed issuance of search warrant for search of the two children, who are in custody of the Applicant, being their father. The application as is originally filed by the Respondent No.1 asserts in the following manner. The Respondent No.1 after marriage was staying along with the Applicant at Mulund and has given birth to two children, Yash on 16th October 1999 and Veerja on 16th November 2001. However, because of the improper behaviour of the Applicant, she had to leave the matrimonial home to secure he...