Mumbai Court December 2006 Judgments

Harman Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (i)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicants in this case have initially claimed the benefit of Notification 6/2002 but before clearance they requested for re-examination of the goods and on re-examination, it was found that the goods were without in-built motors and, therefore, bill of entry was reassessed and instead of the earlier duty paid by them, the re-assessed duty came to Rs. 46,639/-. The Assistant Commissioner granted refund of this differential amount holding that since the bill of entry was re-assessed before clearance of the goods, the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply. However, in appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner to examine the aspect of unjust enrichment and only then to sanction the refund.2. It is the applicants' case that since in this case the bill of entry was reassessed before clearance of the goods, there was no case for the applicant to demand duty at enhanced rate and, therefore, the question of unjust enrichment or...

Udan Research and Flying Vs. Joint Cit, Special Range-2

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The short issue that we are required to adjudicate in this appeal is whether or not the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in upholding penalty of Rs. 13,56,000 on the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 1993-94 and the impugned penalty was imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The quantum additions, on the basis of which impugned penalty is imposed, consist of (a) disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 23,24,544; and(&) disallowance of deduction of Rs. 34,771 under Section 35D of the Act, for amortization of preliminary expenses.3. As regards the main quantum addition, the Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation on aircraft on the ground that the lease agreement under which the aircraft was acquired was for operations lease and not financial lease. It was emphasized that as per the lease terms aircraft always belonged to the lessor. This arrangement did not therefore lead to any rights being created in the hands of the lessee i.e., the a...

Chaitram Chindhuji Wasnik Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR194; 2007(3)MhLj264

V.C. Daga, J.1. The petitioner, the document-Bond writer has filed this petition challenging the direction contained in circular dated 21-6-2001 issued by the Inspector General and Stamp Controller, Maharashtra State, Pune; wherein the directions are issued not to grant or renew licence to the document-Bond writer, who has completed sixty years of his age. Factual Aspects:2. Undisputed factual matrix is that the petitioner was granted licence to practice as a document-Bond writer in the year 1982 for the area of Tahsil Sakoli, District : Bhandara. The said licence was renewed from time to time right up to the year 2002.3. The petitioner on 11-12-2002 applied for renewal of his licence as document writer for the year 2003-04. While accepting the application for renewal, the District Registrar, Bhandara called upon the petitioner to submit certificate showing his date of birth. Accordingly, the birth certificate was produced by the petitioner which revealed that the petitioner had alread...

Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd Vs. Respondent: C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: 2008[11]STR4312006

ORDERJyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President1. We have heard both sides on the issue referred, viz. eligibility of low sulphur heavy stock (LSHS) used by the assessees herein who are engaged in the manufacturer of fertilizers, to input duty credit. According to the Revenue, Cenvat credit is not admissible, in terms of Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, which states that Cenvat credit shall not be allowed on such quantity of inputs which is used in the manufacture of exempted goods, except in the circumstances mentioned in Sub-rule (2) which provides for the procedure to be followed of maintenance of separate accounts by a manufacturer of dutiable and exempted goods, who avails of Cenvat credit in respect of any inputs, except inputs intended to be used as fuel and restricts the eligibility to credit only to that quantity of inputs intended for use in the manufacture of dutiable goods (Sub-rule (3) provides for alternate procedure to be followed by a manufacturer who does not opt fo...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ruby Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondent herein is a composite mill comprising various units such as spinning plant, weaving plant and processing plant, located at Dadar, Mumbai. In the spinning plant, yarn was manufactured out of fibre, and either cleared on payment of duty or further used for captive consumption in the manufacture of grey fabric at the weaving plant and the grey fabric was either cleared on payment of duty or further used for processing in the processing plant. They were availing the benefit of cenvat credit on fibre/yarn and paying appropriate duty on the yarn cleared outside the factory. They shifted the spinning unit from Dadar to Dhamni, their new factory in Raigad District, Maharashtra, and intimated that they stopped spinning activity at Dadar vide letter dated 18.5.2002. They also sought permission to transfer unutilised balance of additional duty of excise paid under the provisions of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act to their Dhamni unit under co...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Dhirendrasinh C. Zala

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)7STR168

2. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed on 21-10-2005 following the provisions as contained in 2nd proviso to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The provisions therein clearly provide that where the duty involved or the penalty determined do not exceed Rs. 50,000/-, the Tribunal may in its discretion refuse to admit an appeal. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed on 21-10-2005 in exercise of the powers as contained in the above provisions. It appears that on an application for restoration of appeal filed by the Revenue, the appeal was restored by the Tribunal on 5-4-2006 2006 (4) S.T.R. 377 (Tri.) on the ground that the Notification No. 25/05 dated 13-5-2005 came into effect from 13-5-2005 whereas the appeal was filed before 13-5-05. The said Notification provides for Committees of two Commissioner of Central Excise for the purpose of Sub-section 2 of Section 35B to the said Act of appealability of the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and th...

Mrs. Priya S. Pangaonkar Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)7STR180

2. In the instant appeal, the service tax has been paid along with interest amount prior to issue of show cause notice. The applicant is a Company Secretary who comes under the network of service tax from December, 2001. It is her submission that there was a benefit of doubt in her case as to the applicability of service tax and as such she could not file return in time and paid the tax after getting registered under Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994. But she has paid the service tax and the interest amount there on prior to the issue of show cause notice. On adjudication of the show cause notice, the service tax was confirmed along with interest amount and further penalty was also imposed to the tune of Rs. 35,434/- in total.5. In the present appeal, the penalty amount is being challenged by relying upon the following case laws.Auto Transport Services v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur IICommissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Top Detective & Security Services Pvt. Ltd...

The I.T.O., Ward 22(10) Vs. Smt. Paru D. Dave

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110ITD410(Mum.)

1. Both the appeals filed by the revenue in the case of two partners of same partnership firm are against separate orders of CIT (A) relating to the same Assessment Year 1994-95 against the order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessees in both the appeals have independently filed cross-objections against the reopening of the assessment under the provisions of Section 147 of the IT. Act. Both the appeals by the revenue and the cross-objections raised by the assessee though relating to separate assessees are on same issue, were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2 Shri R.N. Parbat/Dilip Sharma, Departmental Representatives appeared for the revenue and Shri Vijay Patil/Vishwas Mahindale, learned Counsel appeared for the assessee and put forward their rival submissions. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,65....

Babu Maruti Dukare and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR690; (2007)109BOMLR125

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. All these writ petitions may be disposed off by All these writ petitions may be disposed off by All these writ petitions may be disposed off by the common judgment as they arise out of the same facts and circumstances.2. To state in brief, Saswad Mali Sugarin brief, Saswad Mali Sugarin brief, Saswad Mali Sugar Factory Limited, Malinagar, Taluka: Malshiras, District Solapur was registered under the Companies Act sometimes in 1932-33. All the shares of the company were held by its founders, namely, Narayanrao Sopanrao Borawake, Bhagwan Maruti Jadhav and Haribhau Balwantrao Girme and their close relatives. Haribhau Balwantrao Girme was the Managing Director of the company from 1958 onwards. The company was registered with an object to start a factory for the manufacture of sugar. The company purchased about 1500 to 1600 acres of perennially irrigated land at Akluj, Bijwadi, Tambave and Mahalung villages in Malshiras Taluka. During the period from 1932 to 1940, the compan...

Ravi Prakash Khemka and anr. Vs. Bank of India and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR631; 2007(5)BomCR876; 2007(3)MhLj8

R.M. Lodha, J.1. The defendants are in Appeal, aggrieved by the order dated 5th September, 2005 whereby the learned single Judge directed the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs. 80 lacs in the Court within a period of 8 weeks therefrom; failing which it was directed that the plaintiffs will be entitled to a decree. The said order came to be passed in Summons for judgment No. 242 of 1999 in summary suit filed by the plaintiffs (respondents herein).2. The controversy arises in the circumstances, that may be briefly indicated by us immediately.3. The defendants (appellants herein) offered to purchase from the shareholders of Skyline NEPC Limited (for short 'the Company') upto 64,66,800 fully paid up equity shares of Rs. 10/- each at the rate of Rs. 35.25 per share. The said offer was to remain open on all working days from 1st February 1996 to 29th February, 1996. The plaintiffs, being the registered owners of 3,84,500 equity shares of the Company, accepted the offer made by the defendants...