Mumbai Court September 2005 Judgments

Vissanji Sons and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Bom)345; [2006]287ITR307(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, is at the instance of the Revenue (sic-assessee), arising out of the order in ITA No. 423/Bom/1983, dt. 30th Nov., 1984 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ('the Tribunal' for short) for the asst. yr. 1978-79; whereby the following substantial question of law has been referred for the opinion of this Court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that only the cumulative preference dividends relating to the previous year amounting to Rs. 65,000 could be deducted in working out the undistributed income, which was liable to additional income-tax under Section 104 of the IT Act, 1961 ?Facts:2. The facts giving rise to the present reference in nutshell are that the assessee is a company in which the public are not substantially interested. The ITO during the course of assessment found that the statutory requirement of distribution of dividend as laid d...

Shree Ranisati Processors Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-III, Surat, has adjudicated the matter in original by an Order dated 29.10.2004, confirming the demand of Rs. 1,16,803/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixteen Thousand Eight Hundred Three only) under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) under Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The order has been communicated to the appellants on 01.12.2004. Thereupon, the appellants had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 08.02.2005. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal on the point of limitation. It is the submission of the ld. counsel for the appellants that the cover note to the Order-in-Original prescribes the period of three (3) months for filing an appeal and accordingly, they had filed the appeal within the period of three (3) months (i.e. 2 months and 10 days) and as such the Commissioner (Appeals) ought not to have dismissed the same.3. As seen from th...

Sheela Dyeing and Printing Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appellants are manufacturers of man-made processed fabrics and receive grey fabrics manufactured from other suppliers as raw material and also avail Cenvat credit on them.3. The Department's contention is that the invoice found by them shows the sale of the material, including payment of duty thereon by a fictitious company, which does not exist (M/s. Muskan Prints).Therefore, the Cenvat credit availed is sought to be recovered.4. The contention of the appellants is that they actually receive the goods, for which there exists no dispute, but the Department is simply doubting the invoices issued by the suppliers, which has been registered with the Department. A declaration was also filed by the appellants showing the supply of stock and mentioning other particulars and the same was not considered. In this context, he rely upon the decision in the case of Bajrang Wire Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur, wherein in the similar circumstances, the pre-deposit was waived and t...

Cce Vs. Chaturbhai Bakorbhai Patel and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue in this appeal pertains to whether chewing tobacco put in small packs falling under Chapter Heading 2401 manufactured with a name "Pandharpuri Tobacco" attracts duty. The Revenue contends that inscription on the packages namely 'Pandharpuri Tobacco' with the name and address of the manufacturer establishes a connection in the course of trade between the products and some person using such name and therefore is a trade mark. The respondents contention is that "Pandharpuri Tobacco is not a brand name but is a name of tobacco grown in a particular area. The Commissioner in the impugned order held that 'Pandharpuri Tobacco' is not a brand name and hence Notification No.118/86-CE 1.3.1986 which exempts unbranded tobacco is applicable to the impugned goods.2. None appeared for the appellants. Heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. I have gone through the facts of the case and the submissions and I find that- (a) Printing the name of the packer of chewing tobacco is a statuto...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pfizer Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the department's appeal before him as unsustainable. The Revenue is in appeal against this order.2. Briefly the facts are that the respondents claimed exemption in respect of their products (a) Terramycin Opth ointment (3.5 gms), (b) Terra Cortril E/E ointment (3.00 gms) and (c) Nebacortril eye ointment (3.00 gms) under notification 29/88 dated 1.3.1988. The three products mentioned above are used for treatment of eye diseases including trachoma. Under notification 29/88 dated 1.3.1988 all formulations based on the list of bulk drugs specified in the Ist schedule to DPCO 1987 either individually or in combination of other bulk drugs specified in the said schedule attract 'Nil' rate of duty provided such formulations have therapeutic value in ophthalmological uses.3. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the department's contention that th...

The Commissioner of Customs (i) Vs. Krishna Filament Ltd., Om Prakash

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. At the outset, we may point out that although 4 appeals have been listed for hearing, Appeal No. 166 & 167/95 filed by the Commissioner of Customs against Shri S. Agarwal and Shri Vishwas Rao have already been disposed of by the Tribunal's order No. C.II/2179-82 WZB/2002 dated 08.07.2002, wherein the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the Collector of Customs and rejected the Revenue prayer for enhancement of the penalty. The order in respect of these 2 respondents have not been recalled and therefore the earlier order dated 08.07.2002 stands. Hence, no further orders are required on these two appeals.2. We also note that Appeal No. 165/95, which has been recalled by Order No. C.II/1125-27/WZB/2003 dated 22.05.2003 is to be dismissed as abated for the reason that the respondent in this appeal Shri Om Prakash Agarwal has obtained full and final satisfaction under KVS scheme. Hence the appeal No. 165/95 abates and is dismissed as such.3. The oNly appeal remaining for us to co...

Shri Denish Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 1,88,041 /- and penalty of equivalent amount under Section 73, Rs. 1000/- under Section 77, Rs. 500 under Section 75A and Rs.100/- per day until the payment of tax determined arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the order of the adjudicating authority, that technical know-how fee paid by the applicants to M/s.Albany International was in the nature of service given as Consulting Engineers and therefore required to be paid.2. We have heard both sides. We find that, prima facie, a strong case has been made out by the applicants for waiver of service tax and penalty, in the light of Tribunal's decision in the case of Navinon Limited v. CCE holding that the transfer of technical know-how involved in transfer of intellectual property during the period in dispute, which is the same period in the present case i.e. prior to 2002, cannot be equated with service tax and also there is a Board Circular ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Uniflex Cable Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(212)ELT393Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue has challenged the same. As per facts on record, the respondents prepared one invoice dated 30-9-1994 for clearance of their goods to M/s. Orissa State Electricity Board. However, the order was cancelled by the said customer and as such the invoice was also cancelled. The said facts were incorporated in the monthly return filed with the Superintendent for the month of September 1994. The respondents recredited the duty already debited under the said invoice.The Revenue's objection is to such recredit is on the ground that proper intimation was not given to the Assistant Commissioner and there is no evidence on record to show that the order was ultimately cancelled by the customer. Accordingly, the original authority disallowed the recredit entry made by the respondents.2. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that there is no doubt or allegation about clearance of the goods under the said invo...

Christi Sahitya Prasarak, Through Its Dirctor Shri Anil Ramesh Dahiwad ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR916; [2006(108)FLR598]; 2006(1)MhLj83

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition arises from the Award-Part I passed by the Labour Court at Mumbai on 23.7.1995 in Reference (IDA) No.225/1986. By the said Award, it has been held by the learned Judge of the Labour Court that the reference was maintainable and the issue raised by the management that the respondent was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'), has been answered against it. 2. The petitioner is a public Charitable Trust as well as a Society registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is running and managing a number of book shops for promoting Christian Literature in particular but the Literatures at large in general. The respondent came to be appointed in the month of February 1964 by the petitioner as a clerk-cum-salesman. After about 19 years of service, he came to be promoted to the post of Acting Manager by an order dated 13.9.1983 and was give...

Shrikant Dhondiram Katake Vs. Union of India (Uoi),

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR716; 2006(1)BomCR306; 2006(1)MhLj171

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. The Petitioner belongs to a backward community and is carrying on business as a transport contractor and owns and possesses a tanker. The Petitioner at times also hires a number of trucks as per the requirement of other dealers and /or hirers for the purpose of carrying on his business as transport contractor and is in this field for the last about 5-7 years. It is the case of the Petitioner that various oil companies, who are Respondents 2, 3 and 4 which are Government of India undertakings, had in 2002, invited tenders for bulk LPG transport contract, of which the closing date was 11th June, 2002. There was a reservation provided upto 15% for SC and 7.5% for STs and exemption from having a ready made tanker at the time the bid was made. Taking that into consideration, candidates belonging to SC had bid for the contract. 3. Taking into consideration the present state of affairs and entrepreneurhsip, candidates belonging to SC category thoug...