Mumbai Court August 2005 Judgments

Shree Krishna Steel Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Nobody is present on behalf of the appellant accordingly I have heard the ld. JDR and have gone through the impugned order.2. The appellants were originally issued a show cause notice, which culminated into an order passed by Assistant Commissioner confirming demand of duty of Rs. 3,05,164/- and imposing personal penalty of Rs. 1000/-. The appellant filed an appeal there against before Commissioner (Appeals) and in compliance of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, also deposited a part of the duty. The appeal was allowed by Commissioner (Appeals) and as a consequence appellant became entitled to the duty deposited by them. Accordingly, they filed a refund claim, which was sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner by way of credit in their Modvat account. The appellant grievance is that instead of allowing refund in their Modvat credit amount, they should have been given cash refund, inasmuch as the duty was deposited by them in cash. They also contended before the authorities below t...

Maco Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants had imported Anti Rust Paper coated one side with chemicals which was rendered anti protection from rusting the components being manufactured and packed in this paper for further storage/transport before the components are used.2. The lower authorities have denied licence free import of these goods on the ground that the said paper is completely finished and can be directly consumed and would be in the nature of consumer goods and therefore, would need a specific licence for import and since no such license was produced by the importers, the goods were ordered to be confiscated under the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and a penalty liability under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 was invoked. Redemption fine of Rs. One lakh was offered along with a personal penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the importing firm.3. We have considered the submissions and have considered the fact that the import was in the form of continuous rolls of paper which was re...

Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. Urvashi International Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT1077Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondents The respondents herein filed Bills of Entry for clearance of 100% polyester knitted table cloth. Since the goods appeared to be classifiable as table as table linen under Customs Tariff Heading 6302.40 and were restricted for import except under a specific licence, confiscation of the goods was proposed and imposition of penalty on the importer was also proposed. Show cause notice was waived by the importers. Personal hearing was granted to them. The adjudicating Authority ie. The Dy. Commissioner of Customs found that the goods are table cloth covered under CTA 6302.40 and since no valid import licence was produced for covering the import thereof, he confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 40,000/-.However, the chose not to impose any penalty on the importer on the ground that the import was made under a bonafide belief that the goods are covered under SIL. The commissioner (Appeal...

L'oreal India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Henkel Marketing India Ltd. and A ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR773; 2005(6)BomCR77

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs in the suit claim a decree of permanent injunction against the Defendants restraining them from using or exposing for sale the goods bearing the impugned label/trade dress, which is at Exh.F to the plaint or any other label/trade dress which is a colourable imitation or substantial reproduction of the Plaintiffs' artistic works so as to infringe the Plaintiffs' copyright in the said label/trade dress, being Exh.B to the Petition. 2. The Plaintiffs claim that the Plaintiff No. 1 is manufacturing, marketing and selling cosmetic and beauty products including Hair colour. The registered office of the Plaintiff No. 1 is at Mumbai. The Plaintiff No. 1 is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Plaintiff No. 2, which according to the Plaintiffs is the pioneer and Market leader internationally in the manufacturing and marketing of Hair colour, skin care and cosmetic products. According to the Plaintiffs, L'Oreal ...

Kishore Textiles Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Owning and Representing Cen ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR177; 2006(1)BomCR443; (2005)107BOMLR35

S.A. Bobde, J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.06.1990 passed by the Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in Full Court Application No. 136/ 1987.2. The petitioners had sent some cloth to a party at Bhagalpur. The cloth was terrycotton. That party i.e. M/s. Birag Traders Company rejected the cloth and returned the same to the petitioners. They handed over the said consignment to the railway administration at Bhagalpur for carrying and timely delivery to the petitioners at V.T. Bombay. The petitioners were shown as consignee.3. The said consignment consists of 11 rolls of terrycotton cloth. Out of these, 7 rolls were short delivered at V.T. Bombay. The petitioners therefore, sued the railway administration for recovery of the loss suffered by them to the tune of Rs. 1516.20/-.4. The learned Judge of the Small Causes Court at Bombay, dismissed the petitioners suit being regular suit No. 529/656 of 1981. The learned trial court held that the pet...

Tanna Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. Smt. Neela Krishnan and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)198CTR(Bom)541; [2006]283ITR448(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J. 1. This petition is directed against the validity of the notice dt. 4th Nov., 1991 issued by the respondent No. 1 under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short).Factual Matrix2. The factual matrix reveal that the petitioner had filed its return for the asst. yr. 1985-86 on 28th June, 1985, of which the relevant previous year ended on 31st Dec., 1984.3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the respondent No. 1 was noticed by the ITO and after full satisfaction with the explanation furnished by the petitioner, the order of assessment came to be passed on 28th Jan., 1988. The assessment was thus completed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 143(3) of the Act. The petitioner's negative income for the asst. yr. 1985-86 was assessed at Rs. 91,157.4. In order to reopen the aforesaid assessment, impugned notice dt. 4th Nov., 1991, under Section 148 of the Act came to be issued.5. The respondent No. 1 in the impugned notice has stated that she had reason...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Bom)588; [2006]282ITR581(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. This is application under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). The year relevant is 1992-93. The returns filed by the respondent were processed under Section 143(1)(a) and the claim of the respondent in respect of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) was allowed.2. The AO, subsequent to the above decision, having noticed the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Addl. CIT : [1996]218ITR438(SC) , issued a notice under Section 148 to the respondent-assessee which was served on the respondent-assessee on 16th Jan., 1997.3. The reassessment pursuant to above notice was completed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 148 on 21st Feb., 1997. The deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) claimed by the assessee with respect to interest received on Government securities earmarked against statutory reserve fund came to be disallowed.4. The respondent-assessee had impugned the above ord...

Shriram Ramphal Patel Vs. Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR171; 2006(2)BomCR631; 2006(1)MhLj33

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard. By the present petition, the petitioner is seeking direction by way of writ of mandamus against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 requiring them to re-erect the shed of the petitioner to the extent of an area occupying 2000 sq. ft. on the ground that the demolition of the shed was not in accordance with the provisions of law and was without following the due process of law.2. It is the contention of the petitioner that he had been residing on the ground floor of the building known as 'Sharma Building' and carrying on his business of purchase and sale of iron scrap and other miscellaneous business in his own shed situated towards the Northern end of the property known as 'Sharma Building' and the said shed was extending from the East to the West on the rear side of the said building. It is his further contention that the shed has been duly surveyed in the survey records and has been in existence since prior to 1962. By way of amendment, it was clarified by th...

Ajay Oxycholoride Floorings Vs. Iyer, Assistant Commissioner of Income ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Bom)232; [2006]283ITR169(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the two notices dated February 20, 1990 (exhibits E and E-l) and notice dated June 3, 1991 (exhibit G), whereby the power to reopen the completed assessment has been invoked.The facts:2. The petitioner after the receipt of the above notices requested the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 24(2), Piramal Chambers, Bombay, to provide or disclose reasons recorded by him prior to issuance of the notices for reopening the assessment. No reasons were disclosed or supplied by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax in spite of request letter dated June 8, 1991. Consequently, the petitioner was left with no option but to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the action of reopening and the notices issued by the respondent-Income-tax Department to the petitioner-assessee.3. This Court was pleased to issue rule in the above petition on July 15, 1991 with interim relief in...

Tanna Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. Smt. Neela Krishnan and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)198CTR(Bom)541

V.C. DAGA, J.This petition is directed against the validity of the notice dated 4-11-1991 issued by the respondent No. 1 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter referred to as ).Factual Matrix2. The factual matrix reveal that the petitioner had filed its return for the assessment year 1985-86 on 28-6-1985, of which the relevant previous year ended on 31-12-1984.3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the respondent No. 1 was noticed by the Income Tax Officer and after full satisfaction with the explanation furnished by the petitioner, the order of assessment came to be passed on 28-1-1988. The assessment was thus completed by the respondent No. 1 under section 143(3) of the Act. The petitioner's negative income for the assessment year 1985-86 was assessed at Rs. 91,157.4. In order to reopen the aforesaid assessment, impugned notice dated 4-11-1991, under section 148 of the Act came to be issued,5. The respondent No. 1 in the impugned notice has ...