Mumbai Court September 2005 Judgments

Texphos Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT492Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals filed by an assessee under the Central Excise Act, 1944, & partner of the firm, and Revenue, against the same order of CCE (A), The appeals are being disposed by this common order, after hearing both sides.2. A case of removal of inputs, on which credit was availed, was made out on the assessee, as on the date of the visit of the officers, the inputs could not be accounted satisfactorily to the officers, who noticed a shortage of the inputs. The notice issued on 10-4-2000, sought the assessee and the partner to show cause as to why - (i) Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,51,441.00 on inputs illicitly cleared and sold, without reversal of credit/payment of duty should not be recovered from the assessee. (ii) Penalty under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11AC be not imposed along with interest under Section 11AB on the assessee. (iii) and confiscation of plant, machinery, land & building of assessee, not be arrived at under ...

AshwIn S. Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Mumbai. In the impugned order, the Commissioner holds that the appellant Shri Manharlal Vora was the real importer of goods cleared under 12 bills of entry filed by Deep Corp. and Niki Traders, that the value declared in those bills of entry did not represent the transaction value; that the real value of the goods, i.e. spherical roller bearings, was indicated in the invoices issued by D.V.International (H.K) Ltd. to Deep Corp; that the real value of NSK Brand Bearings with housings was indicated in the invoices issued by D.V.International to Niki Traders; that Deep Corp. and Niki Traders were set up by Vora to import bearings and bearing housings grossly undervaluing them; that the differential duty is demandable from Vora and the grossly undervalued bearings and bearing housings were liable to confiscation. He imposed penalties on Shri Vora of Nippon Bearings, Ashwin Mehta, his manager, and Shalin Vo...

Dcit Vs. Ayesha Ashok Soni

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)103ITD81(Mum.)

1. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the CIT (A) on a solitary ground that CIT (A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to adopt yield method for the purpose of determining fair market value as on 1-4-1981 instead of correct method of valuation adopted by the Assessing Officer as per Rule 1D of the W.T. Rules.2. The brief facts borne out from the record are that during the accounting year on 13-9-94, the assessee have sold 89 unquoted equity shares of Duke & Sons on total consideration of Rs. 12,60,991/-. On the same day 89 bonus shares of same company issued against the equity shares was also sold for an identical consideration. These equity shares were inherited by the assessee from the estate of her uncle who expired in 1985. The assessee claimed through his letter dated 5-9-96 that these shares were held by her uncle since 1968 or even earlier.For the purpose of computation of long term capital gain, the cost of acquisition of original shares ...

Mr. Damodar Narcinva Naik, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR657; 2006(1)BomCR224; 2006(1)MhLj761

J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. Validity of the clarification issued by the Finance Ministry on 28/10/1998 under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme ('KVSS' for short) as well as the orders dated 26/2/1999 and 24/3/1999 passed by the Customs Authorities declining to grant the benefit of KVSS in respect of the warehoused raw materials by relying upon the aforesaid clarification dated 28/10/1998 are challenged in this petition. 2. The petitioners are all ex-partners of M/s.Zuari Stainless Steel Industries, a 100% export oriented unit (EOU). The firm was engaged in the manufacture and export of stainless steel utensils. For manufacture of stainless steel utensils the petitioners were entitled to import raw materials such as steel sheets in coils. The imported raw materials were cleared to the bonded warehouse without payment of duty for the manufacture of the final product, namely, stainless steel utensils and the said final product were to be exported directly from the warehouse. The quantity of imported...

Yerala Medical Trust and Research Centre, a Public Charitable Trust, D ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR993; 2006(1)BomCR701

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The Petitioners had decided to open a new college for management i.e. M.B.A. Course. Permission for opening an MBA Course requires permission of Respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 has framed infrastructure norms for starting new management colleges. Pursuant to the Petitioners submitting the necessary documents, the officers of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 visited the Petitioners' institution and submitted their report. Based on that report on 28th January, 2005 the State Government recommended the Petitioners' proposal for establishment of new technical institution to Respondent No. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that the State Government observed that the Petitioners are fulfilling all the necessary norms and conditions laid down by Respondent No. 3. On the hearing given to the Petitioners by Respondent No. 3, they appeared before the hearing committee of Respondent No. 3 on 29th January, 2005. Respondent No. 3 after considering the recommen...

Shrikant S/O Shamrao Deo Vs. High Court of Judicature of Bombay and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR743; 2006(2)BomCR124; 2006(1)MhLj74

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith. Perused the records.2. The petitioner by this petition seeks writ of mandamus for direction to the respondents to allow his application dated 7th June, 2002 and thereby for direction to give credit of 150 days earned leave in leave account of the petitioner as on 30th June, 2002 and to pay cash equivalent to leave salary of the earned leave (basic Pay + Dearness Allowance as on 30th June, 2002) while setting aside the orders passed by the respondents rejecting such claim of the petitioner. Essentially the petitioner seeks declaration that in view of the legal fiction created under Rule 66-A(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, hereinafter called as 'the said Rules' to the effect of 'deemed' increase of 5 years in the total qualifying service of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner would be entitled to get credit of 150 days earned leave and payment of cash equivalent...

Nikhil M. Adiecha Vs. Nikhil M. Adiecha and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)MhLj140

Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. A notice of motion has been taken out by the plaintiff in a suit for dissolution of accounts of partnership firm viz. C. Manjibhai and Company. The applicant-plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are partners of the firm. Their father Manjibhai was also a partner of the firm till his death on 21-6-1992. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are their sisters. Defendant No. 4 is the wife of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 5 is the son of defendant Nos. 1 to 4. An order dated 5th November, 2003 came to be passed by the learned Judge in the notice of motion taken out by the applicant, after hearing the parties and also after taking into consideration all the affidavits and the counter affidavits the rejoinder filed by the parties and granted the ad-interim relief in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and (b). However, the order in terms of prayer Clause (a) was stayed for a period of 8 weeks.2. Defendant No. 1, against the said ad interim order had preferred appeal No. 1072/2003. A Division Bench ...

Malhari Automobiles Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR654; [2006(110)FLR714]; (2006)IILLJ600Bom

ORDERB.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Heard Jagtap and Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Sundaram, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.3. The grievance made by the petitioners in these writ petitions is that though in a notice inviting petitioners for hearing the respondent specifically mentioned that hearing would be only in relation to issue of applicability of the Act but the said respondent has started making enquiry also with a view to find out the amount of provident fund due. It is the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that issue of applicability is required to be decided first and after such issue is decided and it is held that the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is applicable, then only the amount of provident fund contribution can be worked out. He has relied upon the provisions of Section 7-A. Clause (1) S...

Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs. Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. and a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)IILLJ683Bom

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Mr. Ganguli in support of this appeal. Mr. Rele appears for the respondents. This appeal seeks to challenge the order of the single Judge dated March 16, 1992 in Writ Petition No. 676 of 1987 whereby the learned single Judge had confirmed the order passed by the Sixth Labour Court at Mumbai in Reference (IDA) No. 428 of 1983 between the Appellant Trade Union and the First respondent-Management.2. The dispute raised by the appellant Trade Union was on behalf of the 9 workmen, to begin with which was with respect to their discontinuation from employment. A reference was taken to the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act seeking reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. The case of the workmen was that they had joined the Appellant Trade Union and therefore, they came to be terminated by orders of discharge simplicitor. This amounted to victimisation. It was their further case that they were in fact permanent workmen but were treated a...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Deccan Diesal Components Mfg. Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue is in appeal against the grant of Modvat Credit on rejected diesel engine parts supplied to Railways vide two invoices dtd 14/1/99 received back and after removals and credit taken on 19/8/99, on finding that there was no time limit of six months to avail credit. The limit is not applicable to return of one's own goods relying on Lakshmi Automatic Works 2002 (103) ECR 630 (T). Therefore credit of Rs. 244296/- was allowed & penalty of Rs. 40000/- set aside. (i) Rule 57G (2) does not permit credit after six months & rely upon Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd 2000 (120) ELT 214 & Osram Surya 1998 (29) RLT 684 & other decision. (ii) The facts herein are different from the facts relied upon by the Ld. CCE(A) 3. When the matter was called, none appeared for the respondents. The findings of the CCE (A) on the counting of the period of six months from the date of receipt of the inputs & not issue of the in voices is to be upheld in this case of returned goods from ...