Mumbai Court July 2005 Judgments

General Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Inco ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Bom)391; [2006]284ITR613(Bom)

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In this appeal, the following substantial question of law has been sought to be raised :'Whether the Tribunal erred in law in holding that 'Reserve for bad and doubtful debts' fell within the permissible adjustments prescribed by Rule 5(a) of the First Schedule to the Act ?' 2. The appellant had filed a return of income for the year ended 31st March, 1991 relevant to the asst. yr 1991-92 declaring the income of Rs. 58,52,80,850 along with the audited report in Form 3CD and final accounts prepared in the manner prescribed under the Insurance Act, 1938, wherein a provision under the head 'Reserve for bad and doubtful debts' as per the regular and consistent practice, for Rs. 1,01,00,000 was debited to P&L; a/c. On 30th Aug., 1993 an assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, whereby the claim of 'Reserve for bad and doubtful debts' in the sum of Rs. 1,01,00,000 was disallowed on the ground that s...

Sukhdev Hargopal Puri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Bom)340; [2005]279ITR591(Bom)

1. In the above, the petitioner had filed a petition dated April 2, 1987, before the Commissioner of Income-tax seeking waiver of interest and penalties with regard to the assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-1987, as per the provisions of Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The Commissioner of Income-tax by his order dated March 21, 1990 granted relief only for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 and declined to grant relief for all other assessment years, by merely mentioning that the conditions for waiver are not satisfied for other assessment years.3. At the relevant time, the relevant Section 273A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read as under :'Section 273A(3) Where an order has been made under Sub-section (1) in favour of any person, whether such order relates to one or more assessment years, he shall not be entitled to any relief under this section in relation to any other assessment year a...

Sandu S/O Dayaram Patil Since Deceased Through His Lr. Gulab S/O Subha ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR811; 2006(2)BomCR799; 2006(1)MhLj396

A.B. Naik, J. 1. By this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner deceased Sandu through his heirs and legal representatives Gulab Challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik. Present proceeding arises out of the action taken by the Assistant Collector, Jalgaon, Division Jalgaon, under the provisions of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was noticed by the Assistant Collector that land Gat No. 71 admeasuring 2 hectares 11 Ares (hereinafter referred to as the land) was sold by the tribal to the non-tribal and therefore, in exercise of power conferred on him by Sub-section (3) of the Act issued a notice to non-tribal under Rule 3 Sub-rule (4) of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Rules, 1975 and accordingly, a notice in the prescribed form was issued on 3-12-1975 to the tribal and non-tribal, wherein it was st...

Amigo Brushes Pvt. Ltd., Jewel Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All the three appeals are being disposed of by a common order, as the issue involved in all the three is identical.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Tooth Brushes falling under Chapter 96. In terms of notificaiton no. 10/02-CE, dated 01.03.2002, the appellant was availing the concessional rate of duty of 8% adv. Subject to the condition that no credit of duty paid on the inputs and capital goods was being availed. However, the said condition was removed vide notification no. 10/2003-CE, dated 01.03.2003 and the appellants started availing the CENVAT credit of duty paid on the inputs and the capital goods. The dispute in the present appeals relate to the CENVAT credit in respect of inputs lying in stock as on 01.03.2003, either as such or in the shape of in process goods or finally manufactured goods, in terms of rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. The Revenue's contention is that the said Rule being a transitional provision, provide for availing CENVAT credit...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. KelvIn Plastics Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT418Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The adjudicating authority had confirmed the duty demands holding the proviso of Para 2(i) & (ii) of Notification 9/99-C.E. to be mandatory. Commissioner (Appeal) after perusal of the said provisions found that the conditions are not of an understanding which would not enable the assessee to withdraw his option once exercised in a financial year & observing that a claim under Rule 173B had been made to avail this notification benefit would suffice a declaration of intent & following the case law of this Tribunal allowed the appeal after setting aside the demands. Revenue is in appeal.2. We found, no proforma of an option has been prescribed, which is required to be filed. The declaration under Rule 173B would be sufficient compliance of intent to opt for the benefit of the notification. We find no reasons to disturb the CCE (A)s order in the facts of this case, following a catena of decision on this notification itself....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT484Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The present ROM application has been filed by the revenue on the ground that the Order No. A-1095/WZB/2004/C-IV dated 24-11-2004 rejected the appeal filed by the revenue on the ground that the dispute between the Central Excise authorities and M/s. Essar Steel Ltd., who had issued the invoices was held in favour of M/s. Essar Steel Ltd., and as such, Modvat credit cannot be denied to the assessee. The revenue has submitted that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in the case of Essar Steel Ltd., was not accepted and the appeal there against was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), who had set aside the Order-in-Original. As such, the invoice issued by M/s. Essar Steel Ltd., were held to be invalid invoice for the purpose of Modvat credit. The present order passed by the Tribunal laying down Modvat credit on the basis of such invoice should be set aside.2. However, I find that the above facts were not placed by the Ld. DR before the Court, at the time of passing of th...

Commr. of Cus. (import) Vs. Unique Pharmaceuticals Labs.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT105Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The adjudicating authority has confiscated the impugned goods but has allowed redemption of the same on a fine of Rs. 1,10,000/- and has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. His findings are as under:- "What has been imported is a bottle with cap and nozzle. As such it would merit classification under the heading of bottles. However, if only caps and nozzles were imported separately they would merit classification in other heading. It has been admitted by the importers that they would fill the bottle with nasal drops and fix caps and nozzles on the bottle. It is a common trade practice that the bottles are always sold with caps and on nozzles and they are called bottles only. As such I hold the bottles, caps and nozzles imported in equal quantities as bottles classifiable ITC HS 392330.00 and would require a specific licence for its clearance. In the absence of any specific licence forthcoming I hold the goods liable for confiscation under Section 3 of Foreign ...

Nilon Machine Tools Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals are being disposed of by this common order as they arise from 'same common proceedings' on the issue of brand name affixed on the machinery resulting in denial of SSI Exemption.2.(a) Appellants in E/3110/01 are M/s. Nilon Machine Tools who had filed declaration to avail SSI benefit and exemption from Registration.They were manufacturers of machine tools. The officers visited the premises seized goods affixed with brand name 'Vijay' written in and a particular style within a pentagon. A case was made out resulting in demand of duty of Rs. 6,86,541/- by denial of SSI benefit on the case of another brand name. Confiscation of goods seized worth Rs. 1,49,000/- with a redemption fine offer of Rs. 40,000/- and penalty of Rs. 6,86,541/- under Section 11 AC and Rs. 3,50,000/- under Rule 173Q(1) and redemption fine of Rs. 2.50 lakhs under Rule 173Q(2). On inspection of the alleged Brand name, as per sample in the paper book and keeping in mind the decision of the Apex Court in...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Rocket Engineering Corporation

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. A common order is being passed in both the appeals, as the issue involved is identical.2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of I.C. Engines as also P.D. Pumps. Wherever the I.C. Engines are being cleared by them, they are paying duty on the same after availing the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of the said I.C. Engines. However, a part of the said engine is also being used by them captively in the manufacture of P.D. Pump, which are cleared without payment of duty inasmuch as the same are exempted. Such use of I.C. engines captively is exempted in terms of Notification No./97-CE., dated 1-3-1997. As such the respondents reversed 8% of the value of I.C Engines in respect of such captively consumed engines, in terms of the provision of Rule 57CC. The revenue's case is that the respondent should have reversed 8% of the value of the I.C. Engines fitted with P.D. Pumps, inasmuch as it is the pump, which is being cleared by them fin...

Himson Textiles Engineering Vs. the Commisioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The dispute between the appellant and the revenue was settled by the Tribunal in favour of the appellant vides its order no. 470/2000/B dated 29.03.2000 when their appeal was allowed with consequential relief. As such, appellant became entitled to refund of Rs. 3,20,473/- which was sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 08.04.2002. However, they were not given any interest on the said refunded amount. Being aggrieved with the said order on the point of interest appellant filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals).Appellate authority observed that the appellate did not make any request for grant of interest at the time of filing refund claim and as ht order of Deputy Commissioner did not discuss the issue of interest, appeal on the said point cannot be entertained.2. However, I feel that entitlement to interest is not dependent upon the appellant making a request to that effect. Interest is integrally associated with claim of refund, and in case of grant of re...