Mumbai Court April 2005 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs Vs. R.P. Sons and ors.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT183Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Revenue is in appeals. Seven provisional assessments were finalised by one common Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal granting the benefit of Notification 23/98-Cus dated 2.6.1998 under Serial No. 108 of the Table read with List No. 3A entry No. 30. This entry number grants exemption to use any leather industry "Rubber, resin rubber, EVA or crepe sheets for soles and heels." 2. The goods under import were synthetic rubber in primary form which was declared as 'KNB 35.' (i) "That the word 'or' occurring between 'EVA and crepe' should be read to mean 'either' and not as 'and' and the item term 'rubber, resin, rubber, EVA or crepe sheets for sole and heels' should be read and interpreted to mean 'rubber or resin sheets or EVA for soles and heels.' (ii) In any case, the imported product is a primary form of synthetic rubber which was not used in leather industry.4. After hearing both sides, and considering the materials, it is found: (b) Issue of whether import of synthetic rubber in...

Patel Ambalal Hargovanlal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT65Tri(Mum.)bai

1. All these appeals are against a common issue and that is the levy of Service Tax on the activity of transfer of money provided by the appellants, who are known as 'Angadia.' Hence these appeals are disposed of by this common order.2. The ld. Advocates for the appellants fairly concede that their clients indulge in providing services for transport of valuable documents, like diamond packets, and other articles of gold and silver from various branches to their H.O. and from H.O. to branches and inter branch transports are so effected. Door to door service is also provided whenever and wherever required. The ld. Advocates do not contest the registration and or payment of Service Tax on remunerations for these services. The appellants are aggrieved only as regards the Service Tax levied on the commissions retained, on facility provided, by them for transfer of money. Under this facility, a client can approach any branch and deposit Indian currency in cash or otherwise with the branch, ...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Reckit and Colman of India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT221Tri(Mum.)bai

1.1 M/s Reckit & Colman of India Ltd imported a consignment of 'MOUNTS & HEADS FOR TOILET SPRAYS' and filed a BE on 26.5.97 and claimed the clearance under special Import Licence (SIL for short). The lower authority rejected the clearance on the SIL as the goods were found to be covered under heading HS ITC code 961610.00 and not under 842490.00 is claimed as mechanical appliances.1.2 the goods are claimed by the importer to be not part of scent sprays to qualify for classification under 9616.10. The CC(A) in appeal found that- I have heard the Advocate, Shri T Vishwanathan, on 31.5.1999, Referring to the dictionary meaning of spray, which clarifies the spray as referring to water or other liquid flying in small drops from the force of the wind or waves, the action of an atomizer etc it was contended that, the goods imported are used in the mechanical appliances not for spraying purposes but for dispersing/projecting. Dispersing/projecting cannot be called as spray by virtue o...

Kiran Industries, Deepti Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for rectification of mistake arose out of the final order of the Tribunal No. A/1606-1620/WZB/2004/CI pronounced on 25/10/04. The Tribunal disposed off Appeal Nos. E/3253, 3254 and 3244/98 by a common order.2. The applicants plead that an error apparent on the face of the records occurred in the above said order in as much as the Bench's findings in para 12, 14 and 16 of its order the Bench observed thus: "the further contention raised in these appeals is that the appellant firm has not used the brand name 'ASHOK INDIA' on switchs manufactured by them during the relevant period. This ground has not been raised by the applicant before the original adjudicating authority as could be seen from the written submissions filed before him...We therefore reject it" The Bench thereupon proceeded to say that the switches manufactured by Deelip Engineering Works, Deepti Electrical Products and Kiran Industries are not entitled to SSI exemption.3. The Ld. Advocate for the appli...

Cybertech Systems and Software Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)3SOT121(Mum.)

This is a bunch of six appeals. Three appeals are filed by the assessee and three by revenue. These cross appeals are directed against the orders passed by the CIT(A)-VIII at Mumbai on 12-03-2003, 13-03-2003 and 31-03-2003 respectively. They arise out of the assessments completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The Principal issues involved in these appeals are Whether the assessee is entitled for exemption under section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Whether the assessee is eligible for the deduction under section 80HHE of the Income Tax Act, 1961? The assessee is a company incorporated in India on 19-1-1995, under the name and style of M/s. Cybertech Systems & Software Limited (CSSL). The main objects of the assessee company are as follows: "1. To design, develop, alter, make, manufacture, produce, process, assemble, contract, buy, sell, export, import, trade or lease, hire or otherwise deal in computers, computer machinery, spare parts, hardware, software, co...

Cybertech Systems and Software Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)106TTJ(Mum.)257

1. This is a bunch of six appeals. Three appeals are filed by the assessee and three by Revenue. These cross-appeals are directed against the orders passed by the CIT(A)-VIII at Mumbai on 12th March, 2003, 13th March, 2003 and 31st March, 2003 respectively. They arise out of the assessments completed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961. Whether the assessee is entitled for exemption under Section 10B of the IT Act, 1961? Alternatively Whether the assessee is eligible for the deduction under Section 80HHE of the IT Act, 1961? 3. The assessee is a company incorporated in India on 19th Jan., 1995, under the name and style of M/s Cybertech Systems & Software Ltd. (CSSL). The main objects of the assessee-company are as follows: 1. To design, develop, alter, make, manufacture, produce, process, assemble, contract, buy, sell, export, import, trade or lease, hire or otherwise deal in computers, computer machinery, spare parts, hardware, software, computer stationery, peripherals, lin...

Shivappa S/O Bhujangappa Bembale Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR437; 2005(3)MhLj709

P.B. Gaikwad, J.1. Petitioner Shivappa s/o Bhujangappa Bembale has filed present Writ Petition against Zilla Parishad through its Chief Executive Officer and requested for direction to regularise his services as a Peon w.e.f. 24-7-1970; further direction is sought to regularise his services as Peon w.e.f. 1973. Petitioner also claimed arrears; and, thereafter, by amending petition on 12-9-1995, claimed relief to grant pension.2. The gist of the contention of the petitioner that he is resident of Bardapur, Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed. It is further claimed that he was working as part time Peon in a Primary Girls School at Bardapur since 1-8-1970. He worked as part time Peon till 10-7-1990. The said school is run by Zilla Parishad, Beed. It is further claimed that he was thereafter appointed and taken in regular cadre as Peon in the pay scale of Rs. 750-12-870-DR-14-940 by order dated 6-7th July, 1990 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad. Beed. The petitioner was, accor...

Sarang Arvind Goswamy Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj774

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. Perused the record.3. This application takes exception to the order passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune dated 14th March, 2005, cancelling bail granted in favour of the applicant in connection with the C. R. No. 212 of 2004. The principal reasons, for which bail granted in favour of the applicant has been cancelled at the instance of the prosecution, is that, subsequent to the order of bail, further offence has been added against the applicant in the same C. R. No. 212 of 2004 registered by P. I. Camp Police Station, Pune invoking provisions of special enactment namely Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act.4. The prosecution moved the Sessions Judge for cancellation of the bail already granted in favour of the applicant on the assertion that as the provisions of Special enactment have been applied against the applicant, the earlier bail order cannot continue and the same be cancelled in view of the st...

Prakash Mahadeo Khot and ors. Vs. Maruti Dadu Khot and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR775; 2005(4)BomCR568

Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. Rule, by consent returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. By consent of Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The Eighth respondent is a Co-operative Society, registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies' Act, 1960 ('the Act') and is a notified Society under Section 73IC. On 7th December, 2002 an election programme was declared by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies for electing 13 members of the Managing Committee. It appears that there was no nomination for one of the posts which had to be filled up from amongst Denotified Tribes 12 posts were accordingly filling up. On 17th and 18th January, 2004, 7 members of the Managing Committee including the four petitioners and respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 7 tendered their resignations to the Secretary of the Eighth respondent. One of the members of the Managing Committee had expired. Consequently, only four members of the Managing C...

Special Land Acquisition Officer and anr. Vs. Babu Datta Naik Dessai a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR414; 2006(1)MhLj433

Lavande A.P., J.1. All these appeals can be disposed of by common Judgment since the lands involved in these appeals are acquired by the same notification and the point of law involved is also the same. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties have also submitted that all these appeals be disposed of by common judgment since the facts involved in all these appeals are almost identical. By notification dated 5-12-1991, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act'), the Government acquired large chunks of land for the Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. The lands belonging to the respondents were part of the acquired land. They are situated at Nagorcem-Palolem, Canacona Taluka. The details showing the land acquisition case numbers, corresponding appeal numbers, area acquired, survey numbers, and the dates of judgments/Awards passed in each case are as follows:L.A.C. No. Appeal No. Area in m2 Survey Nos. Date of Award of Ref. Court.34...