Mumbai Court October 2006 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Rajeev Chandrasekhar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. In this case the Order-in-Original was passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import) on 2-7-05. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue has filed an appeal on 20-2-06. The appeal was filed by Shri.S.B. Kamath, Dy. Commissioner of Customs. Subsequent the Revenue has filed another appeal on 21-2-06 against the same Order-in-Original. The appeal has now been filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import). The submission of the ld. DR is that both the appeals contain the same contention. The appeal was initially filed by the Dy. Commissioner which was well in time. Now in view of the provisions of Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 the appeal has been filed by the Commissioner.Therefore, the appeal filed by the Commissioner may be treated in time.He drew my attention to Sub-section (4) of Section 129D and submits that the Sub-section (4) clearly authorizes the Commissioner of Customs to file the appeal himself or authorize any other officer of the Customs. Since initially the...

Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Metal Moulding and Processing

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case the lower appellate authority, against whose order the Revenue is in appeal, accepted the claim of the Revenue that spares for pressure cookers manufactured and cleared by the respondent herein fall for classification under CETA subheading 7323.90 and not under CETA sub-heading 7323.10 which covers complete pressure cookers. However, in spite of the acceptance of the Revenue's stand on classification he dropped the demand of Rs. 23,448/- raised in the show cause notice for the period May to July, 1997 on the sole ground that the demand was made under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules which applies only to goods cleared clandestinely and not when the removal of the goods within the knowledge of the authority. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned SDR. the notice itself proceeds to invoke provisions of Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and therefore once the Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted that the product in dispute was not compl...

Litaka Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. We have heard both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 13,48,625/- and penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-.The demand has been confirmed on the product Oxytetracycline Hydrochloride Capsules - 500 mg under CETA sub-heading 3003.10 as P or P medicaments on the ground that it bears the logo "Pfizer". The period of demand is December, 1999 to February, 2000.2. We find that initially the appellants have described the product as 'Oxy 500' under CETA sub-heading 3003.20 while it was subsequently accepted that what was being manufactured was not Oxy 500 but Oxytetracycline Hydro-chloride Capsules - 500 mg. In May, 1998 the department wrote to the assessee clarifying that the product in question was not a patent and proprietory medicament but a generic medicine falling under Chapter sub-heading 3003.20 attracting nil rate of duty. In accordance with this clarification the assessee subsequently started clearing the product under Chapter sub-heading 3003.20 as a generic m...

Devidayal Rolling and Refineries Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), VI, Mumbai dated 19-12-2002 passed for assessment year 1999-2000. The grievance of assessee relates to determination of market value as on 1-4-1981 at Rs. 25 per sq. metre as against Rs. 155 per sq. metre claimed by the assessee on the basis of the valuers report for the purpose of computing the capital gain on sale of land. The second grievance, which is inter connected is disallowance of expenses of Rs. 14,25,840 incurred on the capital asset sold by the assessee while computing the capital gain.2. The brief facts on both the issues as noticed by the learned Assessing Officer in the assessment order read as under: During the relevant previous year, the assessee-company has sold freehold land admeasuring 19400.04 sq.mt. bearing Survey No. 189, Hissa No. 1/1 part, 190 part, 192(l) part, 194(5) of village Majiwade, Taluka & Distt. Thane, situated within the limits of Thane Municipal Corporat...

Mrs. Reshma Rafiq Desai Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the Princ ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR459; 2006(6)BomCR690

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. A few facts need to be set out for the purpose of considering the issue which arises in this petition: The petitioner was elected as the President of the Maharashtra Nursing Council pursuant to the notification issued in the month of April, 2003. A president is elected by the members from amongst themselves. The term of an elected member is four years. It appears that the petitioner has lost confidence of overwhelming majority of the elected members of the Maharashtra Nursing Council, Mumbai. The Council consists of both elected and non-elected members. At a meeting of the general body held on 13.04.2006 at which meeting and as per the minutes recorded, but disputed by the petitioner considering her endorsement on the said minutes, that she had agreed to resign from the post of the President. An extra-ordinary meeting thereafter came to be called on 10.05.2006 as the petitioner had not resigned wherein members of the council passed a motion ...

Maimunabai Usman, Vs. Appropriate Authority and Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR488; (2007)208CTR(Bom)284; [2007]288ITR359(Bom)

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Ms.Khan for the Petitioners and Mr. Asokan for the Respondents. 2. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 were owners of a flat bearing No. 902 on the 9th floor of 'C' Wing in Kanti Apartment, Mount Mary Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400050. They were interested in selling the said flat. They entered into an agreement on 6th October 1992 to sell the same to Respondents No. 3 and 4. The flat was to be sold for Rs. 19 lakhs. Thereafter as per the requirement of Chapter XX-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, they filed the necessary Form 37-I for approval of the said transaction on 15th October 1992. 3. Petitioners No. 3 and 4 received a notice dated 15th December 1992 from the Appropriate Authority. This notice stated that they should show cause as to why an order should not be made in their case under Section 269UD(1) of the Income Tax Act. They were asked to attend before the Appropriate Authority on 22nd December 1992. 4. The Petitioners accordingly attended before the Appropriate ...

Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Vs. Assistant Directo ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Bom)409; [2006]287ITR5(Bom)

1. Heard Mr. Mistri in support of this petition.2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Mr. Sharma has appeared for the respondents.3. The petitioner herein is an authority constituted under the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974 (for short 'the said Act'). It has been granted a registration under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is the case of the petitioner that it is eligible to claim exemption from income-tax under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act.4. Now, what has happened is that Clause (20A) has been deleted from Section 10. This Clause (20A) deals with incomes which do not form part of total income and based thereon, now a demand has been raised for the claimed arrears of tax to the tune of Rs. 225,26,91,435 for the assessment year 2003-04. The petitioner has filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and that appeal is pending before the said authority.5. The petitioner is a local authority constituted under the afores...

Lalitabai W/O Ishwarprasad Chopra Vs. Pundlik Dayaram Rangari Through ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR690; 2007(1)MhLj782

A.H. Joshi, J.1. This is a revision application filed by the defendant who raised objection through Exh. 11 to the maintainability of the present respondent's suit in Regular Civil Suit No. 1749 of 1995.2. Petitioner herein had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 521 of 1979 for the relief of perpetual injunction, in which the present respondents were the defendants along with one Devidas Shivram Tambulkar.In the said old suit, suit property was described as Plot No. 5 in Kasturba Nagar Layout which was in part of Khasra No. 7 Mouza Jaripatka, Ph. No. 11, admeasuring 60' x 50' = 3000 sq. feet, more particularly described in the plaint therein.3. The defendants No. 1 and 2 therein (present respondents) filed Written Statement and claimed that they were in possession of the suit property on the basis of part performance based on agreement of sale dated 16-1-1971 executed by Devidas Shivram Tambulkar. They further pleaded that their title was perfected by two sale deeds executed by Devidas Shivr...

Praised Darius Gandhi and anr. Vs. B.A. Rane and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR411

Karnik D.G., J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. This revision petition is directed against judgment and decree dated 18th February, 2003 for eviction passed by the appellate bench of Small Causes Court, Mumbai in Appeal No. 737 of 2001.3. The respondents are the trustees of Shripant Bhavan Charity Trust (for short the trust) and are the owners and landlords of the building known as Shripant Bhavan. One Mr. Manek Mistry was a tenant occupying one room, bearing room No. 4, in Block No. 4-A (for short the suit premises') situated in the said building. Manek was a doctor and using the suit premises as a consulting room. He died on 15th November, 1980 leaving behind him a widow Mehroo and two minor daughters. Mehroo, who was a lawyer, used the suit premises as her office after the death of her husband. Mehroo also died on 26th March, 1993.4. During the life time of Mehroo the respondents filed a suit bearing R.A.E. Suit No. 924 of 1990 against Mehroo and her daughter Praised for possessi...

intezar Umar Daraj Khan Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)MhLj699

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition filed under Article 226 read with Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India challenges the order of detention dated 31st October, 2005 passed under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slum Lords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short 'MPDA Act') passed by the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. The said order was served on detenu on 2nd November, 2005 when he was already under arrest in connection with C. R. No. 67 of 2005 registered with the V.P. Road, Police Station at Mumbai and the detention period would therefore expired on 1st November, 2006.2. Though various grounds have been taken in the petition to challenge the said order, the following two grounds have been emphasized before us:a) The petitioner came to be arrested in connection with C. R. No. 67 of 2005 on 19th September, 2005 and the bail application submitted by him before the learned Sessions Judge (Court No. 18), cam...