Mumbai Court October 2006 Judgments

Shoreline Infrastructure Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Brief facts of the case are that WBECSC has inter alia imported Electrolytic Copper Cathodes which were sold by them on the basis of a high-sea sale agreement dated 31-5-2004 to M/s. Nu-lite Business Machines Pvt. Ltd. The total quantity involved was 626.55 MT. Nu-lite Business Machines filed In-bond Bill of Entry under Section 59 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the goods were allowed clearance for warehousing and were deposited in a warehouse on execution of double duty bond.Subsequently, M/s. Nu-lite Business Machines wrote a letter to Customs dated 4-1-05 intimating that they have sold 53.335 MT of Electrolytic Copper Cathodes in three lots to M/s. Shoreline Infrastructure Developers Ltd. and clearance may be allowed to them after payment of all charges including Customs duty and Excise duty. Shoreline Infrastructure Developers Ltd., filed a Bill of Entry for 10.3 MT of Electrolytic Copper Cathodes for clearing the same on payment of duty.While the Bill of Entry was being processed...

Commissioner of Cus. (import) Vs. Haryana General Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(212)ELT36Tri(Mum.)bai

1.This is the revenue's appeal. The facts of the case are that the respondent M/s. Haryana General Industries imported a consignment of Electrolyte Tin Plate Sheets Waste/Waste, the import of which required pre-shipment inspection certificate from the specified agency as per the Import Export Policy. The appellants produced pre-shipment certificate from BSI Inspectorate America Corporation which was not specified and only BSI Inspectorate Limited Essex England was the certified agency. It was further observed that even this BSI Inspectorate Ltd. Essex England was black listed by the CBEC and therefore with option to release on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2,75,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the original authority on the ground that the appellants were not in the know that the agency has been black listed and the consignment was shipped prior to the black listing of the inspection agency. The revenue has...

Mahindra and Mahindra Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles. The present dispute is regarding their Model "Mahindra Armada" which was declared by them having seating capacity of 10 or more including driver for which classification was claimed under chapter heading No. 8702.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The dispute mainly centres round the issue whether the seating capacity was in fact 10 or less than 10.The Advocate for the applicants submits that the seating capacity of the motor vehicle has been certified by the Transport Commissioner as well as Automotive Research Association of India to be having seating capacity of 10. Attention has also been drawn to the clarification issued by CBEC at the time of presentation of Budget 1996-97 wherein para 63.2 it has been clarified that seating capacity of the motor vehicle can be ascertained from the registration certificate issued by the Transport Commissioner or from the certificate of compliance to Central Motor Vehicle Rul...

Laxmichand Dharshi Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)7STT79

1. The appellants in this case are engaged in the service of storage and handling of empty containers which is liable to service tax under the category storage and warehousing services. The appellants however failed to pay service tax for the period from 1-10-2002 to 30-4-2003 nor filed ST 3 return for this period which as per their understanding was not liable to service tax and there was some confusion about the same and therefore a clarification was issued by the Board Circular No.60/9/2003-S.T., dated 10-7-2003 under which it was clarified that storage and handling of empty containers are also covered within the scope of storage and warehouse services. Immediately after coming to know of the same they took registration under service tax in September 2003 and paid the entire tax along with interest on 10-2-2004. It was submitted that the delay in payment in service tax was clearly unintentional and therefore leniency is needed to be shown and penalty is not required to be imposed. ...

The Ito Vs. Janta Bazar and Stores Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110ITD331(Mum.)

1. These seven appeals by the revenue arise out of different orders of the CIT(A)-XXVI, Mumbai, for the A.Ys. 1989-90 to 1995-96. The issues involved in all these appeals are identical. They were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. The notice fixing the hearing of these appeals sent by RPAD was returned by the postal authorities with the remark "Left". It may also be mentioned that on earlier occasions also the notice of hearing was not responded to by the assessee. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeals exparte after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of the material available on record.3. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the findings of the Assessing Officer. According to him the assessee has used the facade of the company for escapement of the tax liabilities.In the interest of justice the...

Mandvi Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom50; 2007(1)ALLMR16; 2007(1)BomCR120; 2007(1)MhLj651

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Insolvency Petition was filed by the Mandvi Co-operative Bank Ltd., on the basis of an award of the Co-operative Court dated 7th August, 2000. Based thereon, an Insolvency Notice was taken out on 9th May, 2003 under which the amount that was due and payable was quantified at Rs. 94.07 lakhs with future interest on the principal sum of Rs. 69.21 lakhs from 1st July, 2002. The Insolvency Notice was served on the Debtor on 24th December, 2003. The Debtor took out a Notice of Motion (Notice of Motion 17 of 2004) for setting aside the Insolvency Notice. The Motion was dismissed in default on 20th July, 2004. Subsequently, in Notice of Motion 174 of 2004, the earlier Motion was restored to file. In Notice of Motion 17 of 2004 which was for setting aside the Insolvency Notice, Consent Terms were arrived at between the Bank and the Judgment Debtor under which the Debtor admitted the claim of the Bank in the amount of Rs. 1.07 crores together with interest at the rate...

Radheshyam Vs. Tuljaprasad and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom83; 2007(4)ALLMR278

ORDERV.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties.2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 14th October, 2005 rendered by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, (J.D.) Hingoli purported to have been passed under Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge directed the petitioner to deposit amount of Rs. 36,000/- towards arrears of rent and to further deposit an amount of Rs. 1000/- per month towards damages for occupying the suit premises.3. It is not necessary to elaborately set out the rival pleadings. It suffices to mention that the respondents filed suit (RCS No. 52/2004) for recovery of Rs. 36,000/- alleging that they are purchasers of house property bearing Municipal Nos. 243 and 244 situated in ward No. 22, Hingoli and that defendant/petitioner was in occupation of a part of the constructed portion oral consent of the previous owner. They further alleged t...

Commissioner, Sangli Miraj Kupwad Cities Municipal Corporation Vs. Bhi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR395; 2007(3)BomCR732

Karnik D.G., J.1. Heard both sides.2. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 12th February 2004 passed by the 3rd Addl. District Judge, Sangli allowing the appeal filed by the respondent and thereby passing a money decree in the sum of Rs. 1,630/-against the petitioner.3. The petitioner is a municipal council governed by the provisions of Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short the Act').4. The respondent filed a suit against the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 1,489/- which he alleged were wrongly charged to him as an octroi duty. The respondent purchased a diesel power generating set on 22nd March 1983 and paid the octroi duty on its import. The engine of the said generator did not work satisfactorily. He therefore made a complaint to the manufacturer who agreed to replace the defective engine. Accordingly, the manufacturer replaced the defective engine which was received by the respondent on...

St. Francis Industrial Training Institute and ors. Vs. P.J. Jose and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR19; 2007(1)BomCR675; 2007(1)MhLj570

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the Respondents waive service. By consent and at the request of the learned Counsel taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The issue which arises before the Court in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether an employee of an Industrial Training Institute can prefer an appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 to the Tribunal constituted thereunder. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 9 an appeal can be filed before the Tribunal by 'any employee in a private school'. An appeal lies against an order of dismissal, removal or termination, a reduction in rank or supersession while granting promotions. Therefore, unless a person is an employee of a private school, an appeal cannot be maintained before the Tribunal. 3. The expression 'Private School' is defined by Section 2(20) of the Act as follows:2(20) 'Private S...

Suresh Sunderrao Nayak, a Trustee of the Sree Taram Trust, a Trust Reg ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)BomCR143; (2007)207CTR(Bom)533; [2007]288ITR79(Bom); 2007(1)MhLj459

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This petition is filed by trustees of a charitable Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act. The trust is shortly known as Sree Tarama Trust. Apart from propagation of one Sree Ramdevi's teachings and philosophy, the Trust has been providing for the medical facilities, maintenance and feeding of the poor, etc. Amongst other activities, the Trust is supposed to be working for the benefits of its devotees and Sree Rama Devi, having a temple at Ahmednagar. 2. The Trust is also registered under Section 11 read with 12A of the Income Tax Act, as a result, the income from property held by this Trust is not included in the total income when it comes to assessment of its income. It is the case of the Trust that it is set up for a charitable purpose within the purview of Section 2(15) of the Act so as to provide relief to the poor, education and medical reliefs and other object of general public utility. The Trust was initially granted exemption under Section 80G of...