Mumbai Court December 2006 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Gange Pressing Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and M/s Pratibha Engineering Works are their job worker. During stock taking at the job worker's premises, it was noticed that goods valued at Rs. 4,56,049/- involving duty of Rs. 72,968/-were received in excess and goods valued at Rs. 6,96,197/- involving duty of Rs. 1,11,392/- were received short for job work. Show Cause Notice was issued proposing recovery of duty of seized goods, on excesses and shortages, and proposing imposition of penalty. The duty demand on excess and shortage was confirmed and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty under Rule 173Q but dropped the duty demand and set aside penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence this appeal by the Revenue.2. I have heard both sides. The Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the contention of the respondents that copies of documents on the basis of which duty was quantifie...

P.N. Chimote Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the instant appeal, assessee has failed to pay the service tax and to file Return for the period July 2001 to September 2003 on or before stipulated period. The Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax, Central Excise and Customs, Nashik-IV Division issued the Show Cause Notice and adjudicated the same confirming the service tax and interest amount thereon and appropriated the same since the assessee has paid said amount prior to issuance of show cause notice. Further he has imposed penalty of Rs. 2550/- under Section 76 and Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 of the service tax Act. The assessee had also paid these penalties.2. The aforesaid order has been passed under Section 84 of the Finance Act by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Nashik and enhanced the penalty amount imposed under Section 76 of the Act to the tune of Rs. 63,085/- under his revisional power. Hence this appeal filed by the assessee disputing the enhanced penalty amount.3. Main contention of the appeal is tha...

Digambar S. Govardhane Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)6STR125

1. In the instant appeal assessee has failed to pay the service tax and to file Return for the period 16.10.1998 to September 2003 on or before stipulated period. The Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax, Central Excise and Customs, Nashik-IV Division issued the Show Cause Notice dated 19.9.2003 and adjudicated the same confirming the service tax and interest amount thereon and appropriated the same since the assessee has paid said amount prior to issuance of show cause notice. Further he has imposed penalty of Rs. 2550/- under Section 76 and Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 of the service tax Act. The assessee had also paid these penalties.2. The aforesaid order has been passed under Section 84 of the Finance Act by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Nashik and enhanced the penalty amount imposed under Section 76 of the Act to the Tune of Rs. 25,275/- under his revisional power. Hence this appeal filed by the assessee disputing the enhanced penalty amount.3. Main contention of t...

Ar. Bhalchandra Chaware Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)9STT245

1. In the instant appeal, assessee has failed to pay the service tax and to file Return for the period October 1998 to March 2003 on or before stipulated period. The Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax, Central Excise and Customs, Nashik-IV Division issued the Show Cause Notice and adjudicated the same confirming the service tax and interest amount thereon and appropriated the same since the assessee has paid said amount prior to issuance of show cause notice. Further he has imposed penalty of Rs. 1500/- under Section 76 and Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 of the service tax Act. The assessee had also paid these penalties.2. The aforesaid order has been passed under Section 84 of the Finance Act by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Nashik and enhanced the penalty amount imposed under Section 76 of the Act to the tune of Rs. 18,438/- under his revisional power. Hence this appeal filed by the assessee disputing the enhanced penalty amount.3. Main contention of the appeal is that...

Vijaylaxmi Kittur, Jeevanlal K. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)9STJ97CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. In the instant appeal, assessee has failed to pay the service tax and to file Return for the period April 99 to March 2003 on or before stipulated period The Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax, Central Excise and Customs, Nashik-IV Division issued the Show Cause Notice and adjudicated the same confirming the service tax and interest amount thereon and appropriated the same since the assessee has paid said amount prior to issuance of show cause notice. Further he has imposed penalty of Rs. 3000/- to Vijay Laxmi Kittur, Rs. 500/- to Jivanlal K Ostwal and Rs 2500/- to M/s Om Marketing under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The assessee had also paid these penalties.2. The aforesaid order has been passed under Section 84 of the Finance Act by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Nashik and enhanced the penalty amount imposed under Section 76 of the Act to the tune of Rs. 22,954/- to Vijay Laxmi Kittur, Rs. 6430/- to Jivanlal K Ostwal and Rs. 161703/- to M/s Om Markeing un...

Cg International (P.) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee on 21-2-2005 against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-X, Mumbai dated 13-1-2005 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for assessment year 2001-02.2. The only ground of appeal taken by the assessee in this appeal is follows: The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the interest earned on funds retained in Exchange Earners Foreign Currency Account does not represent income derived from the business of exports and thereby earned in directing that the interest amounting to Rs. 1,01,894 be taxed under the head "Income from other sources".3. Facts of the case leading to this dispute briefly are that the assessee company was engaged in the business of manufacturing of plain and studded jewellery and export thereof. The assessee claimed that during the year it had earned total income of Rs. 2,15,28,067 and the entire income was exempt from tax under Section 10B because the a...

Shri Taherbhai Taiyebhai Poonawala, Vs. Shri G. Hamid Hasan Patel (Sin ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom80; 2007(1)ALLMR832; 2007(1)BomCR23

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioners-Landlords on being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order in an Appeal by the Learned IV Additional District Judge, Pune dated 7th April, 1990 whereby the Appeal was allowed and the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court was set aside.The Respondent No. 1 was inducted as a tenant in Block No. 6, on the ground floor in the building known as Pastakia Mansion, 906, Booty Street, Pune by the then Landlady, Mrs. B.J. Pastakia on terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement dated 1st February,1969. In the said agreement it was stated that a rent of Rs. 60/- per month was payable by the tenant exclusive of electricity charges and education cess and other recoverable taxes from the tenant. The Respondent No. 1 was also to pay a sum of Rs. 5/-separately by way of monthly water charges in addition to the above. On 27th December, 1979, the present Petitioners had purchased the suit building from the then owner Mrs. B.J. P...

Shri Rajesh Ratanlal Kale Vs. State of Maharashtra,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR518; 2007(1)BomCR27; 2007(1)MhLj487

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Shri. Anturkar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and, Shri.Kumbhakoni, learned Associate Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State.2. Petitioner was a Judicial Officer. He was working as a IIIrd Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division) and J.M.F.C., at Bhiwandi, District Thane from 3rd May 1999 till 6th March 2000. At that time one Shri R.A. Pawar was also working as a Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Bhiwandi. Both of them were residing in the neighbourhood. A departmental enquiry came to be held against both of them on the basis of charges framed at the instance of the High Court though the then Registrar, Appellate Side. The charges against (1) Shri R.A. Pawar, Jt.C.J.J.D. Bhiwandi and (2) Shri R.R.Kale, 3rd Jt.C.J.J.D., Bhiwandi the petitioner herein are as under:No. 1 of you are working as Jt. C.J.J.D. at Bhiwandi from 8th May 1998 till today. No. 2 of you were posted as 3rd Jt.C.J.J.D. at Bhiwandi from 3/5/1999 to 6/3/2000.On or...

Vishwanath Chandrikaprasad Gupta Vs. M. Karunanithi and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR652; 2007(4)BomCR226

Joshi A.H., J.1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner at length, and perused reply of respondents' Advocates.2. Petitioner herein is a proprietor of the Firm M/s. Shivraj Builders & Developers, Nagpur, and is a partner of two old establishments, namely 'Hotel Shivraj'and 'Shivraj Bhojnalaya', Nagpur.3. According to petitioner, present Contempt Petition is filed by him to report to this Court the act of willful disobedience and the contempt committed by the respondents of the orders passed by Employees' State Insurance Court in ESI Case No. 28 of 2004 passed on 19th November, 2004 and in ESI Case No. 30 of 2004 passed on 22nd December, 2004.Background:4. The background, in brief, as to the cases filed by the petitioner is as hereinafter:5. Provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, were made applicable to the establishments of the petitioner. He challenged those orders by filing a Dispute under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. Admittedly, those c...

Moores Rowland Consulting Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. In the present appeals there was a delay in filing the Tax returns for the half year ending September, 2001 and March 2002. Consequently there was delay in payment of Service Tax. It is submitted that the delay is unintentional one. The interest amount which has been demanded in these two appeals was remitted immediately.Except one time incidence, such delay never incurred again. I have gone through the Written Submissions filed by the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the provisions of Section 80 of the Service Tax Act and the ratio laid down in the case of M/s. Milan Tent Palace .2. I find the merits in appeals. Accordingly both the appeals are allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by both the authorities below....