Mumbai Court July 2005 Judgments

Marshil Exports Vs. Cc (Appeals)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is preferred against the Order-in-Appeal dated 27.12.99 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai, wherein he has confirmed the Order-in-Original passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai, except setting aside the personal penalty imposed on the proprietor of the appellants. The Order-in-Original confirms confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 4,61,386/- under Section 111 (d) and (m) with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and also imposed personal penalty on the appellants. It also ordered absolute confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 51,839/- imported through the consignment.2. In the impugned Order-in-Appeal, it is found that the goods were imported with misdeclaration and under invoicing. In respect of the goods seized from the office premises the appellants failed to produce any legal Documents such as bills showing their pur...

Bajaj Auto Ltd., Ranjit Gupta, K. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT362Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant company is engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles ( 2 wheelers & 3 wheelers) falling under Chapter sub-heading 877 and 8703 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985. The company was availing modvat credit on inputs such as Aluminium ingots. It was clearing the Aluminium Ingots under rule 57F(4) to the job workers for manufacture of Aluminium castings. The goods removed under 57F(4) chalans were received back after the job work was completed. The weight of the castings thus received did not tally with the weight of the Aluminium ingots sent under rule 57F(4) because the appellant did not receive the waste and scrap from the job worker. The allegation of the department is that when inputs are sent under rule 57F(4) as manufacturer is supposed to receive back any waste and scrap which arises in the manufacture of goods in a job workers hands. Since no evidence has been put forth by the appellant company that such waste and scrap has suffered duty in the hands of the jo...

Garden Cotton Yarns Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT291Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue relates to valuation of central excise goods, namely MMF.Inclusion or otherwise of sales promotion expenses collected from dealers and also advertisement expenses incurred by firms who disposed off seconds/rejects in retail sale in the assessable value is at stake.2. M/s. Garden Silk Mills (GSM) process grey fabrics on job work basis as well as on their own. The suppliers of grey fabrics who get their processing done through GSM are listed in the show cause notice 2 to 17. These are termed as merchant-manufacturers who at the relevant time are exempted from licensing formalities under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules provided they give a declaration that the manufacturer (processor) undertakes to abide by all the formalities on their behalf insofar as assessment of goods. All firms (2 to 17) (later amalgamated into three firms) gave these declarations.3. The show cause notice alleges that these merchant-manufacturers collected sales promotion expenses from their deale...

Kohinoor Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals arising from the same order are being disposed by the common order.1.2 M/s. Virat Ispat Ltd, one of the appellants herein is an assessee engaged in the manufacture of Iron & Steel Products in an induction furnace, and avails inter alia Modvat credit on inputs M.S. Scrap. Such scrap is obtained from manufacturers as well as from first stage and second stage dealers in scrap.1.3 Consequent to certain enquiries made, a notice dtd 3.5.2001 was issued to the assessee as Notice No. 1 as to why- (a) Credit availed on inputs during the period 1996-97 should not be disallowed under Rule 57-I(ii). The notice had enclosed. (i) Annexure A which listed 17 invoices wherein the vehicle numbers mentioned in the excise invoice on which credit was availed were found to be relating to such vehicles which could not have transported the said quantities of scrap from the dealers to the assessees factory. They being non-existent or smaller vehicles i.e. other than trucks. (ii) Annexure ...

Madhusudan Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against an Order dated 17.03.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-III.2. M/s. Madhusudan Industries Ltd. are engaged in the business of manufacture of goods like vanaspati, refined edible oil, etc. and the factory is registered as Oil Mill and Solvent Extraction Industry under the Solvent Extracted Oil, De-oiled Meal and Edible Flour (Control) Order, 1967 and the licence under the above order has also been issued.It is a general practice for any solvent extraction industry to purchase oil from the open market and undertake processes like refining thereon, and also manufacture vanaspati from oils so purchased from open market. Economical factors also some time induce such an industry in not undertaking crushing and solvent extraction activities but to purchase oil from small time solvent extraction plants and then manufacture products like refined oil, vanaspati, etc. therefrom. In the appellants' case also, crushing an...

Vidarbha Irrigation Development Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)102ITD1(Mum.)

2. The assessee is a Statutory Corporation set up under the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Ordinance, 1997 dated 12-3-1997, which was subsequently replaced by Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Act, 1997 (Maharashtra Act No. XXVI of 1997) [for short 'VIDC Act'], which came into effect from 12-3-1997. Assessee being aggrieved by the orders of the revenue authorities, approached the Tribunal and vide its order dated 28th February, 2003, Tribunal allowed assessee's appeal partly.3. Before the Assessing Officer, assessee claimed the status as "Local Authority". It was rejected by the Assessing Officer. Assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A).4. Assessee's second plea that the assessee's income is exempted under Section 10(20A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was also rejected.5. The next objection of the assessee was against the order of the CIT(A) in holding that assessee-Corporation is not an instrumentality of the State and is not a State within the meaning of A...

Shree Rajasthan Texchem Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)97TTJ(Mum.)91

1. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of learned CIT(A)-IV, Mumbai, dt. 31st Dec., 2001 passed for asst. yr. 1998-99.The first grievance of assessee relates to grant of depreciation under Section 32 before computing the deduction allowable under Section 80-IA of the Act even though assessee has not claimed such depreciation in the computation of income.2. At the very outset, learned Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Tribunal in ITA No. 4542/Mum/1999 in the case of Plastiblends India Ltd. v. ITO [reported at (2005) 95 TTJ (Mumbai) 1062-Ed.]. He further submitted that assessee has not claimed depreciation and therefore, while allowing the deduction under Section 80-IA, the claim of depreciation should not be thrust upon the assessee. On the other hand learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order of AO and submitted that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of In...

Smt. Subhadrabai Shankar Raut, Vs. Shri Manohar Baliram Bhavsar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR339; 2006(2)BomCR288

Annop V. Mohta, J.1. The Petitioners are landlords. The respondent is tenant. Pursuant to their relationship of landlord and tenant, petitioners filed suit No. 710 of 1982 in the Small Causes Court, Pune (for short 'Trial Court') on 5th April, 1982, for possession of the suit premises on the grounds of arrears of rent and acquisition of suitable accommodation. It was resisted. The evidence was led by the parties. The Trial Court, after considering the material on the record, by its judgment and order dated 23rd August, 1985, dismissed the Suit. The Additional District Judge, Pune (for short 'Appellate Court'), by judgment and order dated 14th October, 1991, in the Appeal filed by the petitioner, confirmed the said order of dismissal of the suit. An application Exhibit-25 dated 4th October, 1991, which was moved by the petitioners-landlords to bring additional material on the record, was also dismissed before the impugned judgment came to be passed. Petitioners, therefore, have preferre...

Chandrayya Lingayya Upalwar Vs. Narayan Eknath Nawale

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR1; 2005(6)BomCR143

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner is landlord and respondent is tenant. The premises in question consist of one room admeasuring 9' X 10'. The monthly tenancy was @ Rs. 25/-. On 27/8/1984, petitioner-landlord filed Regular Civil Suit No. 653 of 1984 for possession of the suit premises on the ground of arrears of rent, as well as, bonafide need. The same was resisted by the respondent-tenant by Written Statement. The parties led evidence. The Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Solapur (for short 'Trial Court'), after considering the evidence and the material on the record, decreed the suit only on the ground of default. The grounds of bonafide need and comparative hardship were not considered at all. The other ground of acquisition of suitable alternative accommodation was also rejected. Respondent-tenant, therefore, preferred Appeal No. 305 of 1990 before the Additional District Judge, Solapur (for short 'Appellate Court'). Cross-objections were also filed. By the impugned judgment ...

Anandrao Yashwantrao Nalawade and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR202; 2005(6)BomCR174; (2005)107BOMLR9; 2005(4)MhLj497

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus against the State of Maharashtra and its officers (and particulars against Commissioner for Sugar) to either appoint an Administrator or a Board of Administrators to respondent No. 5-Sugar Co-operative factory situated at Sangli, of which respondent Nos. 6 to 20 are its Directors. The prayer is made since elections to respondent No. 5-Sugar Co-operative factory are not being held although the statutory period of 5 years is over long back. The petitioners are the members of respondent No. 5-Sugar Co-operative factory. The interim prayer is also to the same affect. The Co-operative factory situated at Sangli, of which respondent Nos. 6 to 20 are its Directors. The prayer is made since elections to respondent No. 5-Sugar Co-operative factory are not being held although the statutory period of 5 years is over long back. The petitioners are the members of respondent No. 5-Sugar Co-operative factory. The interim prayer is a...