Mumbai Court July 2005 Judgments

Mercantile and Indus. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT246Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants manufacture Petrol Bunk Pumps. Valuation of the products supplied as per purchase orders placed by Petroleum Distributing Companies on prices settled and duty paid therein without claim of any deductions is questioned.2. (a) Rejecting the Transaction Price, the department went into invoke Rule 5 of Valuation Rules, 1975 for the period 1-4-2000 to 30-6-2000 & Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 for the period 1-7-2000 to 31-3-2001 without any material on record to bring out additional consideration for the sales effected.(b) The department, pursuant to certain Audit conducted obtained figures of Warranty allocation break up and questioned the tender prices approved by Petroleum Companies. The job of providing warranty was out sourced to one M/s. Oilco Service (India) Ltd. after April, 2000 & up to that date the assessee was providing the service. The' allocation for such service cost? was effected on a rational basis between the three plants from the common expens...

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...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Cable Corporation of (i) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue is aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeal), setting aside the order-in-original of the Assistant Commissioner who had held that "Insulated Wires & Cables" cleared as declared to be parts of "Fly Ash Handling System" were not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 5/98, dated 2.6.98 as amended.2. After hearing both sides and considering the material & the decisions relied by the ld. DR, we find no reason to find any fault with the orders of the Assistant Commissioner. Wires & Cables in whatever length, as what is presented for levy is wires & cables falling under Heading 85.44 and vide Notes to Section XVI, Wires & Cables falling under 85.44 cannot be parts and have to be always classified under 85.44 (by Section XVI Note 2a) as held by this Tribunal. We find therefore no reason to classify the same as parts of "Fly Ash Handling System".3. Appeal of Revenue is to be allowed after setting aside the CCE(A)s order & restore the Assistant Co...

Charak Pharmaceuticals Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Mum.)1217

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the C1T(A) on the ground that he has erred in setting aside the order passed by Jt. GIT under Section 143(3) of the IT Act and questioned the allowability of deferred revenue expenditure to the extent of Rs. 90,82,297.2. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and documents placed on record.3. Briefly stated, on examination of the case records, we find that it was noticed by the GIT, that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs. 90,82,297 being deferred revenue expenditure. Out of Rs. 90,82,297 a sum of Rs. 62,81,806 were spent for commission and incentive. Having observed that commission/ incentive is normally paid after the sales and not paid in advance, the GIT observed that the AO has wrongly allowed the entire claim of Rs. 90,82,297 which were claimed to be deferred revenue expenses without proper investigation. He, accordingly issued a show cause notice under Sectio...

ito Vs. Novel Consumer Products (P.) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)7SOT615(Mum.)

The revenue is in appeal and the assessee is also in cross appeal before us, against the same order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dated 16-10-2003, for the assessment year 1997-98.For the sake of convenience and brevity, we are dealing with the above appeals separately as under, When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that he is under instruction from his client not to press Ground Nos. 1 and 3 which are as under: "1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in upholding the re-opening of the assessment made by the assessing officer without appreciating the fact that the assessment was re-opened without fulfilling the conditions laid down under the Income Tax Act, 1961, for re-opening of the assessment.The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the assessing officer in excluding the interest income of Rs. 13,09,782 from the profits of undertaking of the appellant for the purpose of de...

Lotus Learning (P.) Ltd. Vs. Dy Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)7SOT540(Mum.)

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment for an addition of Rs. 1,73,126 in the total income. In the assessment order, the assessing officer had made the following additions : Training expenses of (in respect of payment to M/s. Surekha Decorators andM/s. Grumore Caterers) The first addition was about claim of deduction on account of debiting the PF amount twice. The facts were that a sum of Rs. 3.56 lakhs was claimed as payment towards Family Pension Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'FPS'). The assessing officer called for the details, the assessee submitted to the assessing officer that by inadvertent mistake, the claim has been made twice. Actual claim is only Rs. 1,73,126 to which he accepted the addition. The second issue was about the addition out of training expenses debited in respect of M/s.Surekha Decorators and M/s. Grumore Caterers. The assessee could not prove the expenditure, it was claimed befor...

Jotiba Malappa Tarwal , Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Tulsabai Gang ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR20

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This appeal by three appellants convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadhinglaj, District Kolhapur, seeks to challenge their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the of the Indian Penal code and the resultant sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each inflicted upon them.2. A petty quarrel arising out of possibly a drunken brawl led to death of Gangaram Laxman Naik at village Turkewadi, Tal. Chandgad, District Kolhapur on 23/10/1994 at about 7.00 p.m. On that day, accused No. 2 - Kenchappa came from his house and was abusing, possibly, deceased Gangaram. Gangaram asked the accused to go home and sleep, whereupon the accused Kenchappa said that he would come with his brothers and returned with accused Nos. 1 and 3, all armed with sticks. They abused Gangaram and accused No. 1 Jotiba hit on his head with stick. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 also gave stick blows. Gangaram fell on ground with bleeding injury t...

Shri Veershaiv Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Arvind Daulu Patil

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR937; 2006(1)BomCR873; (2005)107BOMLR157

ORDERS.A. Bobde, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith.Mr. Dani, learned Advocate waives service of rule for the respondent in both the petitions.Heard by consent.2. The parties in both the petitions are the same. The petitioners have challenged the orders of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court in these two writ petitions, which are being disposed of by this common order.3. Writ petition No. 4383/2005 is directed against the order of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court dated 15th January, 2005 by which the learned Co-operative Court has struck off the preliminary issue framed by the trial court in the dispute filed by the respondent. The respondent has instituted the dispute C.S.S. No. 1773/2001 in the Co-operative Court, Belapur. By the said dispute the respondent has challenged the resolution, terminating his services and the termination. He has also questioned the legality and propriety of the enquiry proceedings. Before the trial court, the petitioner made a...

B.K. Kotru Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Bom)388; [2006]282ITR1(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. By this reference under Section 256 of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 95,000 is liable to be taxed in accordance with the provisions of Section 17(3)(i) r/w Section 17(1)(iv) of the Act for the asst. yr. 1980-81 2. It is not in dispute that the assessee was in service with M/s Sandvik Asia Ltd. as an industrial officer. He expressed his desire to leave the service and sought waiver of six months' notice period by accepting his resignation w.e.f. 25th May, 1979 allowing him to avail earned leave due to him from 2nd March, 1979 to 24th May, 1979. It appears that the request of the assessee was accepted by his employer M/s Sandvik Asia Ltd. and on the same day, i.e., on 7th Feb., 1979, his resignation was accepted permitting him to avail earned leave from 2nd March, 1979 to 24th May, 1979. In the result, resignation became ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Narmada Forge Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The revenue is in appeal aggrieved by the order dated 18-4-2001/10-5-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs and Central Excise, Rajkot. The issue involved in this appeal is availing the benefit of the Notification No. 9/99-C.E., in circumstances when the conditions envisaged in the Para 2 of the notification have not been fulfilled up to its desired level. The Commissioner of Appeals found conditions I & II of Para 2 of the said Notification is a sort of undertaking for an assessee underscoring that once the assessee has exercised his option during the particular financial year, he can not withdraw their willingness within the ambit of the said Notification for the remaining part of the financial year.2. Further, it is observed that the lapse on the part of assessee in exercising the option in writing is nothing but procedural lapse, as it was in the knowledge of the Department, in so much as, by way of the declaration under Rule 173B, that they were about to embark ...