Mumbai Court May 2005 Judgments

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Ashit M. Patel

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)96TTJ(Mum.)439

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue and is directed against the order dt. 14th June, 2001, passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act for the asst. yr.1997-98.2. Grievance of the Revenue is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) erred in holding that the sum of Rs. 30 lakhs, being the amount received by the assessee from M/s Firemenich SA in terms of the restricted convenant and taxed by the AO as income from business and profession, was a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax. The short issue that we are really required to decide, therefore, is whether the compensation received by the assessee is capital in nature or is of revenue in nature.3. The factual matrix of the case is like this. The assessee was managing director of a company by the name of M.C. Davar Aromatics Ltd. (MCDAL, in short), since inception but his association with the MCDAL ceased w.e.f. 2nd Sept., 1996. MCDAL had a collaboration agreeme...

Milton Polyplast Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. M/s. Milton Polyplast (I) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as MPL) are an assessee of Central Excise engaged in the manufacture of several varieties of Casseroles and tiffins. The products manufactured are insulatedwares having Stainless Steel (SS) containers falling under 9.10 (Sic) of the Central Excise Tariff Act) 1985. This manufacturing is undertaken on job work for M/s. Milton Polylast (I) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as MPPL). Modvat credit was availed under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules in respect of the manufacture of this products. Based on intelligence that MPP were availing Modvat credit and were engaged in the evasion of Central Excise duty in respect of goods manufactured by them, the officers DGAE, Mumbai searched their premises and conducted enquiries.2. Based on the investigation conducted, a Show Cause Notice was issued dated 20-1-2000 wherein it was alleged - (i) The assessee had received a total quantity to 11,58,018.50 kg. of AS304 grade steel (8...

Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC649

1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 & 65 of the Customs Act, 1962. (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 & 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 & 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended. (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 & had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Governm...

Sapna Engineering Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of parts of Air Conditioning and Refrigeration appliances falling under Chapter Headings 8415 and 8418 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 in their factory at 313, Thakkar Industrial Estate, Mazgaon, Mumbai-10. The officers of DGCEI, acting on an intelligence, searched the appellants factory and office on 22-7-1997 and statements of the appellants proprietor and manager as also various officials of M/s.Voltas Ltd. were recorded which culminated in issue of Show Cause Notice dated 26/28-9-1998 demanding duty of Rs. 32,69,001/- from the appellants on the ground that the goods cleared in the guise of repaired and reconditioned coils and condensers under invoices of M/s.Neha Refrigeration were goods manufactured by the appellants in their factory. The other appellant is the Manager of M/s. Sapna Engineering.2. On adjudication, the Id. Commissioner vide the impugned Order confirmed the demand against the appellants and imp...

Royal Security Force Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 1,24,700/- and of Rs. 2,000/- under the provision of Section 76 and 77 of Finance Act, 1994, I take up the appeal itself for final disposal.2. The appellants are engaged in providing security service and liable to service tax. During the period April 2001 to March 2002, service tax to the extent of Rs. 5,03,554/- was not deposited by them. It is the appellants' contention that the their accountant, who was responsible for depositing the service tax was withdrawing the amount from the company's account for the said purpose but instead of depositing, was utilizing the amount for his own personal gains. The said fraud committed by the employee was detected by the appellants themselves and a F.I.R. was also registered on 30/07/2002. Subsequently they deposited the entire amount of service tax alongwith interest in October, 2002.3. On the above basis proceedings for imposition of penalty were initiated against them whi...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Haresh Govindbhai Parmar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT142Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above miscellaneous application and the appeal are taken up for disposal.2. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Pune. The prayer in the miscellaneous application is to allow additional evidence to be filed before the Tribunal. The miscellaneous application as well as the appeal are taken up for disposal.3. Briefly the facts are that the respondent imported a motor car (LEXUS) and sought its clearance through ICD at Pune. The declared CIF value is Rs. 9,68,000/-. The car is fitted with various accessories described in the impugned order. The importer tendered a certificate, issued by an authorised dealer in Lexus Toyota in London, dated 5.11.1998 indicating that the FOB value of a new car of the same model is British Pounds 22,555/- which includes the value of the said accessories. The said certificate gave the chassis number which tallied with the car sought to be cleared. The Commissioner found that the Express 1998 World Car Guide 44th E...

Baheti Metal and Ferro Alloys Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT134Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The appellants are manufacturer of Ferrro Alloys falling under subheading 7202.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the search of the premises of M/s. Baheti Metal Alloys Ltd., Odhav, Ahmedabad the officers of the Directorate General of Anti-Evasion found that one unit in the name of M/s. Baheti Metal & Ferro Alloys was paying Central Excise duty on Ferro Alloys since 25-7-91. On enquiry it was found that prior to this they were availing exemption from the whole of Central Excise duty under Notification No. 174/88, dated 13-5-88. The appellants were, therefore asked to produce the documents for purchase of aluminium scrap during the period from 1-4-89 to 24-7-91. On examination of the records and conducting the investigation by recording the statements of the concerned persons, it was found that the appellants were not entitled for exemption under Notification No.167/86, dated 1-3-86 and Notification No. 217/86, dated 2-4-86 for the goods, namely, aluminium powder/...

Cce Vs. Urisan Cosmetics Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After allowing Revenue's application for early hearing of appeal, we take up the appeal itself for final disposal inasmuch as the issue is covered by the earlier decisions of the Tribunal.2. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) vide which he has set aside the order of the original adjudicating authority confirming demand of duty against the Respondents on the ground that the same should have been paid under the provisions of Section 4A on the basis of the maximum retail price specified on the packaged goods instead of discharging duty on the assessable value in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. While setting aside the order of the authorities below, Commissioner(Appeals) has observed that Section 4A only applies to packaged commodities in relation to which is required by the provisions of the Standards of Weights & Measures Act, or the Rules or any other law for the time being in fo...

Chandrakant Uttam Chodankar Vs. Dayanand Rayu Mandrekar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom16; 2006(2)ALLMR707; 2006(1)MhLj676

ORDERN.A. Britto, J.1. In this election petition filed under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. the petitioner who is one of the unsuccessful candidates at the election held on 30-5-Q2 for 6-Siolim Constituency in the State of Goa has challenged the election of the respondent No. 1 (respondent, for short) the returned candidate, on the ground that the latter was holding an office of profit as contemplated by Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution, having been the Chairman of the Goa Khadi and Village Industries Board (Board, for short), constituted under the Goa Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1965 (Act, for short), on the date of the nomination as well as on the date of election to the said Constituency.2. First some undisputed facts are required to be mentioned.3. By virtue of Notification No. 4/12/87-IND dated 8-12-1999, the Board was constituted by the Government and the respondent was appointed as Member/Chairman for a period of three years with effect from 8-12-19...

Renaissance Jewellery (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)101ITD380(Mum.)

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 8-10-2004 of CIT(A)-XXIX, Mumbai.2. The grounds of appeal filed in Form No. 36 were not in consonance with Rule 8 of the I.T.A.T. Rules and, therefore, revised grounds of appeal have been filed by the assessee, which are as under: 1.1 The ld. CIT(A)-XX1X erred in confirming the disallowance of exemption under Section 10A in respect of interest at Rs. 2,67,212 earned on FDs kept with Bank/Nominated Agencies by way of margin for the purpose of the appellant's business. 1.2 Your appellant prays to hold that interest received at Rs. 2,67,212 in course of carrying on of its business cannot be considered as income from other source and has to be set off against interest paid. 1.3 Your appellant prays to hold that interest earned by your appellant's undertaking is derived from the business of the undertaking and is entitled to deduction/exemption under Section 10A(1) as read with Section 10A(4). 2.1 The ld. CIT(A) erred in...