Mumbai Court February 2006 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pearl Engineering Polymers Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants in this case have filed an appeal against the order of Commissioner, Central Excise, Pune dropping the demand relating to un-accounted production and clearances by the respondents M/s Pearl Engineering Polymers Ltd. Before the learned S.D.R. could argue the case on merits, the learned advocate for respondents raised a plea on the ground of limitation stating that the appeal filed by the department was beyond the time limit permissible under Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. In his pleading the learned advocate of the respondent stated that a review order under Section 35E(1) was issued by the Central Board of Excise & Custom on 17/4/2000 by which the Board directed Commissioner, Central Excise, Pune-II to file an appeal with Custom Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal against the order of Commissioner, Central Excise, Pune. This order was received by Commissioner, Central Excise, Pune-I on 31st May, 2000. As per provision of Section 35E(4) an ap...

R.P.G. Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC19

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 4,89,65,321/- and penalty of equal amount imposed under Section 78, Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 and Rs. 200/- per day for every day of delay till the payment of service tax under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. Service tax has been levied on the applicants herein holding that they are rendering services of management consultant.2. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits inter alia that the services rendered by the applicants herein are not in the nature of services rendered by management consultant for the reason that the services are being rendered to their own group companies, who are only sharing expenses year after year and when there is a common platform, there is no supply of services, so as to render the applicant liable to service tax. In this connection, he refers to the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1957 SC 12...

Spire India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue for determination in these appeals is the classification of different types of nuts, springs, washers, lock rings, lock plate, lock clips, flywheel etc. manufactured by the appellants herein. They had claimed classification of different types of washers and nuts under CET sub-heading 8538.00 as parts suitable for use solely or principally with the apparatus of Heading Nos. 85.36, 85.37 and 85.38 and also under CET sub-heading 8409.00 as parts of engine, and classified locks etc. as automobile parts under CET sub-heading 8708.00 and 8714.00. The authorities below have classified nuts under CET sub-heading 7318.10, washers and lock clips etc. under CET sub-heading 7318.90 and springs under CET sub-heading 7320.00. Hence, these appeals.2. None appears for the appellants in spite of notice; hence we heard learned SDR and perused the records.3. We find that the lower authorities have rightly relied upon Section Note 1(9) to Section XVI, Note 2 to Section XVII and Note 2 to Sec...

All India Sc/St Association and Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)(1)SLJ184CAT

1. This O.A. has been filed by the applicants seeking following reliefs: (a) This Hon'ble Tribunal pleased to call for the records of the case and after going through the same, be pleased to order and direct the respondents to call only 5 General community candidates for selection to 1 Group 'B' post and their action of calling 11 persons for filling-up of 1 General post/ vacancy, may be declared as illegal and arbitrary. (b) This Hon'ble Tribunal will be pleased to declare that the Applicants are entitled and eligible to be called for selection for 1 post each for SC/ST and accordingly, they should be called for selection. (c) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to order and direct the respondents to call the applicant Nos. 2 along with other 4 senior ST candidates for selection to Group 'B' post reserved for ST community and applicant Nos. 3, 4 and other 3 senior SC candidates for selection to Group 'B' post reserved for SC community and afford them an opportunity to appear for the sel...

Smt. Madhu Gupta Vs. Dy Cit, Central Circle-3 Mumbai

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)8SOT691(Mum.)

The first ground of objection by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in confirming the addition on account of perquisite value of Rs. 12,30,149 being difference between written down value of Rs. 17,12,893 as per Companies Act and purchase price of machinery of Rs. 4,82,744 from M/s. G.G. Photo Ltd. The second ground of objection by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,01,161 as interest income of M/s. Shree Chitra (proprietary concern) from four parties.The third ground of objection by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,39,32,311 under section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The third ground was addressed before us first by the learned counsel for the assessee.The assessee filed the return on 31-10-2001, declaring income at Rs. 5,14,717. The case was selected for scrutiny. The assessee is carrying ...

Macintosh Finance Estates Ltd. Vs. Additional Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is an assessee's appeal directed against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Mumbai, dated 26-6-2002 for assessment year 1998-99. Ground No. I raised by the assessee is regarding disallowance of interest of Rs. 44,21,079 paid on various borrowings on the ground that the borrowed funds were used for acquiring Shares of group Companies.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee-company filed return of income on 27-11-1998 showing a net loss of Rs. 40,85,260. In course of assessment proceedings, it was found by the assessing officer that the funds available with the assessee-company are Rs. 24,10,200 on account of Paid-up Share Capital and Rs. 655,20,000 on account of Unsecured Loans; Total Rs. 679.30 lakhs. Out of this, the investment of the assesseecompany in shares amounted to Rs. 656.42 lakhs and investment in Government Securities amounted to Rs. 7.32 lakhs; total Rs. 663.74 lakhs.' On the borrowed funds, the assessee-company has paid interest of Rs...

Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)100ITD173(Mum.)

1. These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against the common order dated 1-3-2005 of CIT-XVII, Mumbai passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. Since the facts are identical, both the appeals are disposed of by this common order.2. The relevant facts are that assessments for the two assessment years were originally made under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessments were reopened under Section 147 and notice under Section 148 were issued on 10-5-2001 for both the years. Thereafter, the assessments were completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147. The question relating to determination of the income chargeable to tax under the head 'Capital gains' was examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of reassessment proceedings. On this issue, the Assessing Officer has recorded the following findings in the assessment order for the assessment year 1997-98: It is explained that the assessee had ...

Mahindra and Mahindra Limited Vs. Dwarkanath Babaji Dalvi and Mahindra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)BomCR805; [2006(109)FLR747]; (2006)IIILLJ177Bom; 2006(4)MhLj88

V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Industrial Court, Mumbai dated 25th October, 2005 dismissing the revision application preferred by the petitioner- employer challenging the order dated 25 October, 2005 passed below Exh.U-2 by the Sixth Labour Court, Mumbai allowing interim application with direction to withdraw the unfair labour practices complained of; pending hearing and disposal of the substantive complaint with further direction to reinstate the complainant within a period of one month with full wages till the date of disposal of the said complaint.Factual Matrix:2. The respondent No. 1- complainant has filed complaint under item 1(a)(b)(d) and (f) of Schedule-IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ('MRTU & PULP Act' for short) with material facts and particulars described in the complaint.3. The complainant has pleaded in the complai...

SaurIn T. Parikh, Proprietor of Shah Investment Vs. Stock Exchange and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR736; [2006]132CompCas910(Bom); 2006(3)MhLj480; [2006]70SCL31(Bom)

ORDERH.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Mr.Divan in support of this Petition. Mr.Mody appears for the Bombay Stock Exchange, which is respondent No.1 as well as Investor Protection Fund, which is respondent No.2. The Petition seeks an order to set aside the order dated 25th May 2005 passed by the 1st respondent and seeks an order directing the Stock Exchange to give further opportunity to the petitioner. 2. The facts leading to this Petition are as follows:-The petitioner is claiming the amounts on account of one Kantilal Mangaldas Securities (P) Ltd. becoming a defaulter. The petitioner obtained an Award before the Arbitrators of the Stock Exchange wherein this defaulter conceded the claim. The petitioner's case is that therefore the petitioner is entitled to the amounts held due and they be released from the Investor Protection Fund. The Stock Exchange declined to accept this request by its letter dated 22nd February 2005 on the ground that the client code mentioned on the contract notes issue...

Maruti Anandrao Dhekane Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR406; 2006(4)MhLj829

S.B. Mhase, J.1. The petitioner has approached to this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari and thereby requesting this Court to quash and set aside the order passed by the respondent No. 2 on 10-3-1995 dismissing the petitioner from the service which was confirmed by the respondent No. 1 in appeal on 14-10-1997. The petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter, in short referred to as 'the MAT'.) on 7-5-1999 passed in Original Application No. 632 of 1997 wherein both the orders were challenged by the petitioner.2. On 1-9-1966 the petitioner was appointed as a police constable. In due course of time, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Police Head Constable in the year 1975. In or about 1981 the petitioner passed departmental examination and was selected to undergo the training for the post of PSI. In the year 1982 he was appointed as a PSI by th...