Mumbai Court June 2005 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. H.M. Polycontainers Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(203)ELT628Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Revenue is in appeal. Respondents have been granted the benefit of Modvat credit inputs even though they have voluntarily paid duty when the goods manufactured were fully exempt.Gothi Plastic Industries v. CCE and judicial discipline requiring him to follow the same has been urged in the grounds taken in this appeal to be against CBEC Circular F.No.93/19/90 CEX3 dt 4.1.1999 and thus not binding on the department and not relevant as these cases do not refer to the said circular. We cannot appreciate the reasoning of the Commissioner in the ground taken. Baord's Circular are not binding on Commissioner (Appeals).However, in judicial discipline, the Commissioner (Appeals) is bound by the decision of the higher Tribunal. The decision relied upon hold that it is the option of the assessee to avail an exemption. We find no reason to differ with the same. No merits are found in the ground of Trade Notices issued etc as taken. No contra decision shown. Appeal of Revenue is to be rejected a...

Geonics (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Sahar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal has been filed by M/s Geonics (I) Pvt. Ltd. Navi Mumbai against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Mumbai - 400 099. The Commissioner has passed the following order: (1) The import value of TSS 321 Sensor, Atlas Deso 20 Echosounder respectively in the Bill of Entry No. 208 dated 1/12/96 and Bill of Entry No. 3559 dated 10/4/97 is rejected. The value for the same is determined as Rs. 4,72,000/- for Deso 2 D Echosounder and Rs. 3,25,340/- for TSS Sensor. (2) Duty amounting to Rs. 6,44,944/- be recovered on the enhanced value of the goods under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. (3) The goods mentioned in (1) above are confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I give the importer an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 4 lakhs in lieu of confiscation under the provisions of Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962. (4) 10 numbers of items valued Rs. 8,21,000/- seized under Panchnama dated 17/06/96 are...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Olympic Synthetic Sacks Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT90Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These two appeals being inter linked are being disposed, by this common order, after hearing both sides as - (a) Appeals E/1596/03 by Revenue is on the order of CCE(A) ordering a remand of the matter. The ground taken by Revenue is that CCE(A) was not empowered to remand the matters due to an amendment. Following Gujarat HC decision in CCE v. Medico Labs -2004 (173) E.L.T. 117, we find no merits in this appeal & it is to be rejected. We also find that subsequent to the remand in this case, the lower authority vide order dated 16-8-2004 has passed an order classifying the tapes manufactured by the assessee under Chapter 39. (b) Appeal E/1198/05 & E/S/998/05 therein are filed by the Revenue against an order dated 18-1-2005 by CCE(A) in an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 16-8-2004 of Asstt. Commissioner vide the remand, as mentioned in E/1596/03 supra. Revenue has taken the grounds - (i) HDPE sacks are exempt & tapes used in the manufacture of such sac...

Rajendra Bansilal Raisoni and Vs. Hdfc Bank Ltd. and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: 3(2006)BC138

1. This miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendant Nos. 3 to 6 being aggrieved by the order dated 23rd September, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Pune on Ext. No. 28 in Original Application No. 226 of 2003. By the impugned order the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellants for staying proceedings in the D.R.T. on the ground that criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act initiated by the Bank are pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dadar.2. I have heard Mr. Shintre for the appellant and Mr. Nasikwala for the respondent Bank. I have also gone through the proceedings including the impugned order and, in my view, the learned Presiding Officer has correctly passed the order.3. It is the contention of the appellants that since criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dadar, proceedi...

Shri Jhamu U. Sughand Vs. the Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)284ITR82(Mum.)

1. This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order of the CIT(A) Central VII, Mumbai dated 11.10.04 for the A.Y. 2000-01. The only dispute pressed during the course of hearing relates to the addition of Rs. 2,02,07,515 as deemed dividend under the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee is an individual having a proprietory business in the name of M/s. Friends India, whose business was to act as producers, distributors and exporters of feature films. During the assessment year under appeal the assessee was also a substantial share holder of M/s.Sughand Productions Pvt. Ltd. (SPPL), a company in which public are not substantially interested. M/s. Friends India has taken a loan of Rs. 3,13,50,776 from SPPL. The Assessing Officer went through the balance-sheet of SPPL and found that it had accumulated profits to the extent of Rs. 2,02,01,515. The assessee submitted that the main business of SPPL was advancing of money and the money was advanced to M...

B. Sorabji Vs. Ito, Ward 20(1)(2)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)95ITD540(Mum.)

This Hon'ble President of the Tribunal has referred the following questions to the Special Bench under section 255(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for decision: "(1) Whether the decision of Delhi Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Lalsons Enterprises v. Dy. CIT (2004) 89 ITD 25 (Del), holding that for the purpose of computing the deduction allowable under the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 80HHC in respect of export incentives mentioned in section 28(iiia), (iiib) and (iiic), the loss, if any, suffered by the assessee under any of the clause (a), (b) or (c) of the sub-section has to be ignored and deduction has to be allowed in respect of the amount computed under the said proviso, requires reconsideration in view of the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 521 (SC), especially considering the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court recorded therein to the effect that the provisions of section 80HHC are ...

B. Sorabji Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)96TTJ(Mum.)524

1. The Hon'ble President of the Tribunal has referred the following questions to the Special Bench under Section 255(3) of the Act, 1961, for decision : "(1) Whether the decision of Delhi Special Bench of Tribunal in the case of Lalsons Enterprises v. Dy. CIT (2004) 82 TTJ (Del)(SB) 1048 : (2004) 89 ITD 25 (Del)(SB) holding that for the purpose of computing the deduction allowable under the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 80HHC in respect of export incentives mentioned in Sections 28(iiia), (iiib) and (iiic), the loss, if any, suffered by the assessee under any of the Clause (a), (b) or (c) of the Sub-section has to be ignored and deduction has to be allowed in respect of the amount computed under the said proviso, requires reconsideration in view of the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Dy. CIT , especially considering the observations of the Hon'ble apex Court recorded therein to the effect that the provisions of Section 80...

Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit, Special Range 2

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)4SOT1(Mum.)

These two appeals involving common issues are disposed of by this common order as under: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 8-2-1990 of CIT(A)-IV, Mumbai. The first ground of appeal pertains to confirmation by the learned CIT(A) of disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 3.38 lakhs incurred by the assessee on construction of school premises at Haldia as not admissible under section 40A(9). Shri S.E.Dastoor, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee-company, which is a Government of India undertaking, submitted that similar issue arose in the immediately preceding assessment year and has been decided in assessee's favour by the Tribunal vide order dated 10-3-2003 in IT Appeal No. 4923/Mum/99. A copy of the order is placed on record. We find that similar issue has been dealt with elaborately by the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 1985-86 at pages 1 to 5 of the order. After dealing with the factual and legal position, ...

Man Industries India Ltd. Vs. N.V. Kharote Engineer and Contractors an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom311; IV(2005)BC352; 2005(5)BomCR92; 2005(2)CTLJ154(Bom); 2005(3)MhLj1163

S.A. Bobde, J.1. The petitioner company, hereinafter referred to as the 'Company', has challenged the impugned order of the 6th Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Pune, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 150 of 2004 upholding the judgment of the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune, restraining the respondent No. 2, Bank of Maharashtra, from paying the amounts guaranteed under the two bank guarantees. The bank guarantees have been executed by the respondent No. 2 bank, hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank', at the instance of the respondent No. 1 i.e. M/s. N. V. Kharote Engineers and Contractors, hereinafter referred to as the 'Contractors'.2. The respondent No. 1 placed orders on 10th March, 2003 for supply of 1422 mm dia. OD 2 mm thick M. S., Spirally welded pipes for 500 running meters (RMT) @ Rs. 9591/- per meter. The total value of this order was Rs. 47,95,500/-. The delivery of the said pipes was to be made by the end of March, 2003. In regard to this purchase bank guarantee No. ...

Dina Onkar Patil and ors. Vs. Dulba Rajaram Patil and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR397; 2005(4)MhLj1024

Naik A.B., J.1. The petitioners are the heirs of successors of one Onkar Keshav and the respondents are heirs and successors of one Rajaram Totaram, in whose favour an agreement was entered into by Rajaram Onkar on 25-6-1963 for a period of 10 years by deceased Onkar in respect of the land S. No. 178/A/2 admeasuring 1 hectare 34 acres situate at village Nimbala, Taluka Raver, Dist. Jalgaon. The parties for the sake of convenience will be referred to as landlord and tenant. (The petitioners are the heirs of landlord and the respondents are heirs of tenant.)2. The fact giving rise to the controversy are to be noted in somewhat detail. The suit land was admittedly owned by the landlord. The alleged tenancy agreement was arrived at on 25-6-1963 i.e. after tillers day. R.C.S. No. 115/73 was filed by the landlord against the tenant for recovery of rent of the suit land. The landlord contended that tenant taken the suit land on the lease in the year 1963-64 for a period of 10 years on payment...