Mumbai Court October 2006 Judgments

Vs Apte and Sons Vs. Acit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)108ITD501(Mum.)

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee on 28-02-2005 against the order of learned CIT(A)-XVIII, Mumbai dated 17-02-2004 in case of the assessee in relation to assessment order Under Section 143(3) for assessment year 2000-01.2. Facts of the case leading to this appeal briefly are that the assessee filed return of income on 31-10-2000 declaring total income at Rs. 2,90,069. According to the assessee in the return of income it claimed set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and business losses of earlier years. The learned assessing officer completed the assessment order Under Section 143(3) on 11-03-2003. There is not a single word in the assessment order in relation to assessee's claim of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years.The assessee thereupon filed an application for rectification Under Section 154 on 16-04-2003. Thereupon the learned assessing officer made an order Under Section 154 wherein he allowed the assessee set off of earli...

Cam Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appellants herein have been paid the sum of Rs. 4,08,202/-which has been sanctioned as refund claim by the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-IV. On filing appeal by the Department to the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai Zone-I has allowed the appeal while setting aside the Order-in-Original.3. In the instant appeal, the appellants have paid the duty on Ready made garments which in fact that the assessee is not liable to pay Excise Duty. As there was urgency, the assessee cleared the goods on payment of duty under protest. Subsequently, the Tribunal judgment has been made clear that the Ready made garments are not liable for payment of Excise Duty. Therefore, the assessee claimed refund of duty paid, on the ground that, there was no collection of the duty from their customers and as a matter of fact, they have received low price than the value fixed and also suffered loss in Sale Exhibition. The appellants have relied upon 13 documents as set out in the ...

Schenectady Herdillia Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These are two appeals arising out of common order-in-appeal as the issue involved is one and the same.2. The facts of the case are that the appellant imported Propylene Tetramer from July 2000 to August 2001 which was cleared on provisional basis. Subsequently a show cause notice was issued to them alleging that the goods imported by them were classifiable under Chapter Heading 2710.99 which is chargeable to a Special Excise Duty at the rate of 16% which was not paid by them and accordingly demanded duty. The show cause notices were confirmed by the lower authority and upheld in appeal.3. The learned advocate for the appellants Shri Shroff submits that for product to be classifiable under Chapter Heading 2710.19 the same has to be a motor spirit that is to say any hydrocarbon oil (excluding crude mineral oil) which has its flash point below 25 centigrade, and which either by itself or in admixture with any other substance, is suitable for use as fuel in spark ignition engines. It w...

Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)6STT400

1. The prayer in the application is for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 75,15,733/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- confirmed and imposed upon the applicant/appellants, vide the impugned order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune.2. The appellants is engaged in the manufacture of concentrate of non alcoholic Beverages. The said concentrate is being cleared by the appellants on payment of duty to various bottlers for manufacture of aerated water/beverages, the appellant is undertaking advertisement for the aerated waters, being manufactured by ex-bottlers, which according to them enhance the sale of the same, which in turn enhance the sale of the concentrates. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the appellant's entitlement, to take credit of the Service Tax paid on the advertisement expenses by the advertising agencies. The said credit has been disallowed by the Commissioner on the ground that the advertisement is on account of the final p...

Colgate Palmolive (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (i)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The dispute in the present appeal relates to valuation of liquid hand wash imported by the appellant from their affiliate company in Turkey. The authorities below have loaded the price by 40% of the invoice price on the ground that importer and the supplier are related companies and the price list submitted by them only shows inter-company price list without any evidence to show that the same price is also available to non-related buyers. From this, it has been concluded that as the price is only meant for group company transaction, it cannot be considered as arms length price. Further, Original adjudicating authority has also observed that since the importer is paying royalty and technical know-how fees to the holding company, which has common control over the importing as well as supplying company, this factor has to be taken into consideration for enhancing the assessable value.2. Assailing above reasons, learned Advocate Shri Nankani submits that (here is no denial of the fact ...

Sharad Vinayak Bhave Vs. Manoj Tryambakrao Wankhede

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2007)BC165

A.S. Oka, J.1. Heard Advocate appearing for the applicant. The applicant is the complainant in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaint is based on a cheque dated 30th January, 1999 issued by the first respondent in favour of the complainant. The said cheque was dishonoured and, therefore, the said complaint came to be filed.2. The case of the applicant-complainant is that respondent agreed to sell a flat in his favour for consideration of Rs. 2,25,000/-. According to the case of the applicant, he paid a sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- to the respondent. According to the case of the applicant, the first respondent sold the same flat to a third party prior to the execution of agreement with the applicant. According to the case of the applicant, the first respondent agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,00,500/- to the applicant against payment of a sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- which is paid by the applicant. The first respondent issued a cheque in the sum of Rs. ...

Vijay Solvex Limited and Raghuvar Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(114)ECC60

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the applications for Waiver of pre-deposit of penalties of Rs. 50,000/- each imposed on the appellants herein in terms of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, we find that it was possible to dispose of the appeals themselves at this stage and hence proceed to do so after granting the prayer for waiver, and after allowing the applications for early hearing, with the consent of both sides.2. The appellants in appeal C/1074/2006, Vijay Solvex Limited, placed two separate orders on M/s. V. Com Advance Engineering Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Sri Lanka for supply of aggregate quantity of 390 MTs of bakery shortening for delivery during the period December, 2005-January, 2006. They also placed two separate orders on M/s. Data Foods Private Limited, Sri Lanka for 650 MTs of bakery shortening for delivery during the period April, 2006 - May, 2006. Four bills of entry dated 23/12/2005, 07/01/2006, 18/04/2006 and 08/05/2006 were filed for their clearan...

Sesa Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These applications are for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 80,11,883/- demanded from M/s. Sesa Industries Ltd. along with penalty of equivalent amount under Section 114 (A) of the Customs Act,1962 and personal penalties of Rs. 10,000/- each on M/s. Sesa Kembla, supplier of coke, Mr. Narendra Pai, Mr. Dominic and on Mr.Venkateshwaran, officers of the company imposed by the Commissioner, in his impugned order.2. The facts of the case are that the applicant M/s. Sesa Industries Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of pig iron. The main raw material for the same is metallurgical coke. They use metallurgical coke of the 3ize between 20 mm and 60 mm in their blast furnaces. The metallurgical coke below 20 mm is commonly referred to as nut coke. Nut coke arises during the handling of metallurgical coke, which is brittle in nature and liable to break into pieces. As per the applicants contention, such nut coke is not used as it lowers the efficiency of the blast furnace.3. In ...

Dresdner Bank Ag Vs. Additional Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)108ITD375(Mum.)

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order dt. 22nd May, 2001 passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the asst. yr. 1998-99.2. In the first ground of appeal, the assessee has raised the following grievance : Interest on foreign currency depositsGross interest of Rs. 2,47,92,503 The GIT(A) erred in holding that only net interest and not the gross interest is exempt under the provisions of Section 10(15)(iv)(fa) of the Act.3. So far as this grievance of the assessee is concerned, the material facts are like this. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed that interest received by the assessee on the foreign currency deposits with scheduled banks, amounting to Rs. 2,47,92,503, was exempt from tax under Section 10(15)(iv)(fa) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In response to AO's requisi...

High Court on Its Own Motion Vs. Shri Gopinath Mundhe and ors.

Court: Mumbai

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Criminal Writ Petition No. 622 of 1996 praying for directions to hand over the investigations in C.R. No. 69 of 1996 registered with the Police Station at Indapur, Dist. Pune, in respect of the attack on the police station, to the Central Bureau of Investigation was admitted on 12/8/1996 and the Minister of State for Agriculture, Maharashtra State was allowed to be impleaded as the respondent No. 5 in the said petition. It appears that when the petition came up for hearing, it was informed that by exercising powers under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. the prosecution came to be withdrawn in Sessions Case No. 37 of 1996 which had originated from C.R. No. 69 of 1996. The Division Bench, therefore, took a serious note of this action on the part of the State Government and called for the original record. On perusal of the original file called from the Home Ministry and after hearing all the parties concerned by a detailed order dated 2/12/2003 the Division Bench recorded ...