Mumbai Court August 2005 Judgments

Electropneumatics and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. M/s Electropneumatics & Hydraulics (India) Pvt. Ltd., MIDC, Marol Industrial Area, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400 093, are engaged in the manufacture of machine tools. They have utilized the services of goods transport operators during the period from 16.11.1997 to 01.06.1998 in connection with their manufacturing activities. However, they failed to pay Service Tax in respect of the services used by them. They claimed exemption of the notification no. 43/97-ST, dated 05.11.97 on the ground that they are SSI unit. But the said contention was negated by the impugned Order-in-appeal. Show cause notice was adjudicated by the Dy.Commissioner confirming the demand of Rs. 48,860/- with interest and imposed penalty of Rs. 500/- under Section 75A, penalty of Rs. 48,860/- under Section 76 and penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 of the Act.3. On filing appeal, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai, rejected the same on the ground that the notification is applicable to tran...

Xpro India Limited Vs. Cc (import), Nch

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant have imported 11 consignments of Phenol and have used the same in the manufacture of moulding powder and phenolic resin. The issue raised in this appeal is whether phenol imported by the appellants are eligible to exemption from Additional Duty of customs under notification No. 55/75-CE dated 1.3.1975 (10 consignments) and notification No. 104/82-CE dated 28.2.1982 (1 consignment) and whether the appellants are consequently eligible for refund of such duty paid by them amounting to Rs. 3,75,098.92. The appellants have been denied the exemption and refund, hence this appeal.2. Notification No. 55/75 exempts "All drugs, medicines, Pharmaceuticals and drug intermediates not elsewhere specified" vide serial No. 19 to the schedule annexed to the notification. Notification No. 104/82 exempts "All drugs, medicines, Pharmaceuticals and drug intermediates not elsewhere specified" vide serial No. 21 to the Schedule annexed to the notification. The lower authorities have taken a...

Jai Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT218Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Both the appeals, arising out of two separate adjudication orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad, involve common issues and hence heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. In both these cases, "Cyclohexanone" was imported by the two importers, who are in appeal before us; the Commissioner, in these orders, which are challenged before this Tribunal, enhanced the value of the imported items from Singapore $ 515 per MT to US $ 770 per MT, In the case of Prakshal Exports, demand of Rs. 48,96,468/- was confirmed and in the case of Jai Industries, a demand of Rs. 45,37,917/- was confirmed under the provisions of proviso to Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 due to wilful suppression and misstatement with regard to the value and description of the goods. In both the cases, the goods were also ordered to be confiscated under the provisions of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 but since the goods were physically not available, a fine of Rs. 10...

Ramayan Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT446Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants are regular exporters of goods and had filed 2 Shipping Bills both dated 6-3-2003 for export of 120 packages of fabrics declared as 100% polyester filament yarn/texturised yarn with or without embroidery under DEPB Scheme. The fabrics were wrapped around cardboard sheets rolled in the length of more than 20 yards per roll. The total FOB value declared was Rs. 75,65,471.29.1.2 On 11-3-2003, through their Custom House Agent, they filed an application requesting the goods to be returned 'back to town'.1.3 However, on 2-3-2003 the goods were examined by the Customs authorities and it was alleged that the said goods were rags/chindis instead of fabrics as declared and they were grossly overvalued as per the FOB declaration. Enquiries were conducted and statements were recorded and a show cause notice dated 13-7-2004 was issued calling upon the exporters to show cause : (i) Why the goods covered under the two Shipping Bills should not be confiscated under Section 113(h)(ii...

Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. Mehta H.F. Plastic Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The original authority has taken US $ 15,000, paid by the respondents to their foreign collaborators, into account and has apportioned the same over the imports made during the impugned period hiking the value by 4.1%.2. The lower appellate authority has held that the payment of Technical know-how fees has no nexus with the impugned goods nor payment of the same was a pre-condition of sale. Accordingly, he has set aside the Order-in Original giving rise to this appeal filed by the Revenue.3. Revenue has not filed a copy of the agreement between respondents and the foreign collaborators. However, from the appeal petition, it is seen that the technical know-how was related to supply of Dimensional Drawings etc. apart from helping the appellants to set up and commission necessary machines and equipments for commercial production.It is not the case of the Department that the respondents have imported any machinery from the collaborators or that they have paid the tech...

Dcit Vs. Spark Electro Communication

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)98ITD237(Mum.)

1. This appeal by the revenue is for the block period 1.4.88 to 23.2.99.2. The only grievance of the revenue is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) in deleting the penalty of Rs. 596,200/- levied Under Section 158BFA(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. There was a search Under Section 132(1) on 23,2.99 in the case of the assessee and group concerns. In response to notice Under Section 158BC, the assessee filed the return in Form No. 2B on 11.2.2000 declaring undisclosed income at Rs. 14,00,000/-. Subsequently, the block assessment was completed at Rs. 23,93,610/-. This undisclosed income was arrived at after giving credit for the buffer declared by the assessee amounting to Rs. 155.257/-. Subsequently, penalty was imposed Under Section 158BFA(2). On appeal, learned CIT(A) cancelled the penalty by holding that means rea was absent as far as the assessee is concerned. Now, the revenue is in appeal before us.4. Learned DR of the revenue supported the penalty order, whereas, learned AR of ...

Realty Finance and Leasing (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)5SOT348(Mum.)

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-XXXII, Mumbai dated 3-3-2004 for assessment year 1999-2000. The proceedings are initiated under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Ground No. 2 is with regard to the claim of depreciation of Rs. 1,60,000 in respect of Nariman Bhavan property.The assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs. 1,60,000 on the Nariman Bhavan property which was let out upto assessment year 1998-99 and the rental income was being assessed under the head "Income from other sources". The case of the assessee is that, during the year the said property was not let out and it has been occupied by the assessee for its own use. The assessing officer did not allow the claim on the basis that merely because the property did not let out during the year the assessee cannot change the head of income and claim the depreciation in respect of said property. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the assessing offic...

In Re: Appointment of Guardian of Person of a Female Minor Rita Pierre ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR765; 2006(2)BomCR669; 2005(4)MhLj848

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. While dealing with the present petition, which is instituted under the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, it was noted that generally the procedure for ascertaining the genuineness of biological parents/unwed mother, authenticity of relinquishment, authenticity and child's birth and to prevent F. A. Petition No. 26 of 2005 decided on 31-8-2005. (O.O.C.J., Bombay) malpractices in relinquishment was required to be clearly spelt out. Accordingly, notices were issued to institutions such as Nirmala Niketan and Tata Institute of Social Sciences to evoke their response on related matters. Pursuant to the notices issued to the said institutions, they appeared in the proceedings through their representatives Dr. Mehta for Nirmala Niketan and Mrs. Asha Vajpayee for Tata Institute of Social Science. Besides them, Mr. Hariharan with Ms. Pranjali Ahire addressed the issue on behalf of I.C.S.W. Ms. Madhavi Diwan, Advocate also assisted the Court in formulating the Sc...

State of Goa and anr. Vs. Murlidhar Nadkarni

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom12; 2006(2)ALLMR209; 2006(1)MhLj664

R.M. Lodha, J. 1. This first appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is at the instance of the State of Goa, through the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Executive Engineer, Works Division X. Irrigation Department, Panimol, Sanguern, Goa.2. The Additional District Judge, South Goa, at Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.264/93 which was a reference under Section 28-A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 redetermined the compensation awarded to the respondent by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.3. The facts, in nutshell, are :(i) On 2-12-1971, the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Government Gazette pro posing acquisition of the land admeasuring 9,70.525.00 sq. metres from Xelpem Village for Salaulim Irrigation Project dam and submergence area.(ii) Plot No. 107 of Xelpem Village belonging to the present respondent (hereinafter, referred to as the 'expropriated owner') was part of the acquisition of the aforesaid la...

Harish S/O Gajanan Agrawal Vs. Bank of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR382; 2006(3)BomCR491; 2006(2)MhLj110

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Mr. Rohit Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. S. Ghate, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the respondent No. 2 issued charge-sheet dated 30-8-1990 and in para 5 of the charge-sheet the Disciplinary Authority has observed that it has been decided to institute Disciplinary action against the petitioner under Regulation 8(1) of Bank of Maharashtra Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 for the lapses on the part of the petitioner mentioned in para 1 to 4 of the charge-sheet. Learned counsel contended that Regulation 8(1) deals with minor penalty. It is contended that the Disciplinary Authority imposed the following penalty for breach of conduct regulations:(1) No. 13(1) ... proved fully.Penalty : Withholding of one increment with cumulative effect.(2) No. 13(2)... proved fully.Penalty : Withholding of one increment with cumulative effect.(3) No. 3(1) ... proved partl...