Mumbai Court August 2005 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Zoeb Y. Topiwala

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Bom)656; [2006]284ITR379(Bom)

1. By this appeal filed under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, the Revenue has challenged the order dt. -- July, 2001, passed by the Tribunal, Mumbai, and. raised the following substantial question of law :Whether, oh the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Tribunal is correct in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue and confirming the order of the CIT(A) as regards the expenses claimed by the assessee for earning the incentive bonus, other than the standard deduction?2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant Revenue invited our attention to the instructions issued by the CBDT, New Delhi, dt. 27th March, 2000, wherein monetary limit for the Department for filing reference/appeal to the High Court earlier fixed for Rs. 50,000 came to be revised and fresh instructions are issued by the Board to file reference only in cases where tax effect exceeds Rs. 2,00,000. Learned Counsel for the appellant-Revenue fairly admits tha...

Quality Printing Press Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR138; 2006(3)MhLj117

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard advocates for the appellants and respondent. The appellant is the original plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed a suit against the respondent for a declaration and for consequential reliefs.2. The case of the appellant/plaintiff was that the plaintiff was carrying business of printing and packaging in the name of Quality Printing Press at Sunrise Estate, Halav Pool Road, Kurla West as described in the plaint in detail. The factory was being run by the appellant on the licence issued by the Municipal Corporation. The structure, where the factory was being run, was legal and lawful structure. The appellant had no objection for road widening and for demolition of the structure for that purpose, but his contention was that that he should have been given alternate accommodation. But the Municipal Corporation wanted to demolish the structure without following due process of law or without offering any alternate site and, therefore, the suit came to be filed being a L...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Akash Stones Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT225Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Revenue by this appeal wants enhancement of redemption fine and penalty on the consignment of Rough Marble Blocks imported on 26-10-1998 vide Bill of Entry 144, dated 11-1-1999 Customs House, Goa.2. The Commissioner vide the impugned order has relied upon and worked out and margins in the following term : The price of the Rough Marble Blocks inter alia depend upon various factors such as colour of the Marble, size, vein structure, availability of particular quantity, cracks, holes on the surface of the slabs manufactured out of such Blocks and other market conditions. Market Enquiries revealed that the price of the Iranian Rough Marble Blocks varies between Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- PMT. Enquiries have further revealed that Iranian White Marbles (generally called Dirty white) is at the lower end of the range while Beige colour, which is generally imported from Iran costs about 10% more than Iranian White Marble. Iranian coloured Marbles like Red carry a price of 20% to 25% more ...

Softesule Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The dispute is regarding valuation of physician samples partly manufactured on job work basis for others and partly manufactured by the appellants for themselves. The valuation adopted by the appellants is on pro-rata basis taking the price of regular packs as the basis. The department's contention is that the packing for the physician samples being costlier, the value for such samples should be determined higher.2. The appellants argue that physician samples are meant for advertising the product and the entire cost of advertising is included in the cost of regular packs and hence no further addition is required to be made for valuing samples as the same is done on pro-rata basis.As regards samples manufactured on job charges, they contend that the pro-rata value is higher than the value to be arrived at on the basis of material cost and job charges. They also rely on the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sun Pharmticeuticals Industries and Ors. v. C...

Silver Wing Investment and Vs. Cc (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellants had vide BE dated 5-10-98 sought clearance of 'Sheets of Nylon Tricot Flocking' and sought clearance under the provision of Notification 23/98, cus. dated 2-6-98 vide Serial No. 108 (1) read with Sr. No. 3 of list 3 (A) of the said notification cleared the said goods after assessment on payment of duty on 8-10-98. After clearance the goods were sold to one M/s. Tarun Enterprises on an estimated profit claimed to be about Rs. 50,000/-.1.2 DRI Officers recorded certain statements dated 26-10-98 & 27-10-98 & thereafter a notice dated 29-11-99 was issued, contending that the goods, as declared & imported, were not capable of use as insole in leather industry & since they were sold to a trader & not an actual user in leather industry the benefit of notification availed was not eligible. The notice issued vide para 11 states - (a) The importer has willfully mis-declared the subject goods as sheets for making Insole and wrongly claimed the benefits of conces...

Novacare Drug Specialities P. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 9,03,760/- and penalty of Rs. 8,04,988/- arises out of an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has upheld the levy of Service Tax and penalty by upholding that the appellant herein are Clearing and Forwarding Agent liable lo pay Service Tax. We heard both sides and finding prima facie force in the submission of the applicant that they are not Clearing and Forwarding Agent, although they are referred to as C & F Agent in the agreement with M/s. Cipla for the reason that they only receive product manufactured or purchased or otherwise acquired by Cipla and store and dispatch (the products under the direction of Cipla or their authorized representative. In the light of Tribunal's order in the case of Kulcip Medicines Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Delhi Final Order No.752/2005-Cus. 2006(1) S.T.R. 36 (Tri.) dated 29-6-2005 [2006 (1) S.T.R.36 (Tribunal)], we waive the pre-deposit of the Service Tax and penalty and stay recover...

Noble Asset Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These applications seeking stay of operation of Order dt. 23-3-2005 of CC(Prev), Mumbai and waiver of pre-deposit required under the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 were heard together and after hearing Id. Senior Counsels and other advocates for the Appellants and the Department, all these applications are being disposed of by this common order.1.2. These proceedings were initiated by the Preventive Officers of Customs on receipt of specific information to the effect that a Rig named "Glomar Main Pass-II" was imported into India by M/s. Essar Constructions Ltd., (herein after referred to as "Essar" for short) in the year 1987 and was cleared from Customs by claiming full exemption of duty for goods imported in connection with off shore oil exploration or exploitation granted vide Notification No. 516/86-Cus. dt.30-12-1986 as amended. The clearance was effected on 28-5-1987 vide B/E No. 1571, dt. 28-5-1987. The name of the said Rig was changed to "Essar Explorer...

Cc (import) Vs. Surya Roshni Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Deputy Commissioner in this case has held that the Royalty paid by the respondent to the foreign suppliers was required to be added to the assessable value to the extent of 20%. He rejected the invoice value as declared by them and enhanced the same by 20% for the purpose of assessment to duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of adjudication only on the ground of denial of the principles of natural justice, as the Deputy Commissioner had passed the order in adjudication without giving any hearing to the importers. Hence this appeal by Revenue which contends that the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have ordered a remand of the case to the adjudicating authority for a decision on merits or decided the merits himself, instead of setting aside the order and allowing the appeal only on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.2. There is a request for adjournment on behalf of the respondent; however, we find that it is possible to decide the appeal...

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Anil M. Gehi

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Bom)172; [2006]284ITR338(Bom)

A.S. Aguiar, J.1. The following question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 5118/Bom/1985 dated 11th August, 1986, for the assessment year 1982-83 has been referred to this Court for its opinion, at the instance of the Revenue.'Whether, the foreign currency of Rs. 4,56,980/- confiscated from the assessee was allowable as a loss to the assessee.'2. The matrix of facts giving rise to substantial question of law is as follows :The assessee is an individual whose relevant account year ended on 31st March, 1982. He was proceeding to Hong Kong on 8th August, 1981. He was apprehended by the customs authorities at Bombay Airport and foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 4,56,980/-was seized from his custody. The customs authorities questioned the assessee and his companion Aboobackar. The Additional Collector of Customs by order dated 16th August, 1982 confiscated the foreign currency seized from the assessee and further imposed fine of Rs. 1,50,000/-on the assessee for co...

Chitralekha Builders and Smt. Nina Anil Shah Vs. G.i.C. Employees Sona ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR584; 2005(5)BomCR764; 2005(4)MhLj360

V.C. Daga, J.1. Admit.2. Heard finally by consent of parties at the stage of admission, dispensing with the record and proceedings since the parties agreed that all the relevant documents for deciding appeal are available on record.3. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26th October, 2004 passed by learned single Judge to the extent it rejects Chamber Summons No. 1334/2004 in Suit No. 1335/1988.4. The chamber summons was moved by the appellants to become co-plaintiffs in the suit filed by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 55 against respondent Nos. 2 to 54 (original defendant Nos. 1 to 53). According to the appellants, they were and are interested in the suit property. Without their presence all the questions involved in the suit cannot be effectually and completely decided.Outline Chronology:5. The outline chronology leading to the present appeal is as under:6. The property in question bears Survey No. 281, C.T.S.No. 727; admeasuring 5082 sq.yrds. or thereabout equivalen...