Mumbai Court February 2006 Judgments

Asb International P. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 8,78,488/- (Rupees eight lakhs seventy-eight thousand four hundred eighty-eight only) and penalty of equal amount under Section 78, Rs. 1000/- (Rupees thousand only) under Section 77, Rs. 100/-per day (Rupees hundred per day only) under Section 76 and Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) under Section 75A of the Finance Act, 1994 is allowed, as we see prima facie force in the submission of the applicants, based on Tribunal's order in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. v.Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad that during the period when the applicants received the service, there was no provision for recovery of service tax, we therefore waive pre-deposit of the tax amount and the penalties and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal....

Jay Arts Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Delay in filing the present appeal is of about 83 days. The impugned order was passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on 24.6.2005 and the normal limitation period would expire on 24.9.05. It is seen that the appellant received a letter from the Assistant Commissioner on 21.7.2005 directing them to deposit the amount in question as confirmed in terms of the impugned order. The appellant immediately wrote to the Commissioner as also to Commissioner (Appeals) vide their letter dt.6.8.05 that the impugned order has not been received by them, and as such a request was made to provide a certified copy of the order. The said letter was replied by the Assistant Commissioner on 22.11.05 intimating the appellant that the said order was dispatched to their address and was received by one Shri F.K. Gupta, an employee of the company. Copy of the acknowledgement was also enclosed. Thereafter the appellant made enquiries and found that the order was indeed received by Shri Gupta on 1.7.05. However as ...

Mahalaxmi Exports Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When the matter was called. None appear for the appellants. Heard Ld. DR. The appellants are an EOU who have been visited with Customs Duty demand on imported raw materials, used up for manufacture & in the clearance of rejected Texturised Yarn to be recovered from them under the provisions of Section 28 with penalty under Section 112 and interest. Prima facie we find that the duty on raw material, forgone, cannot be demanded when such imported raw material duty free is used up in the manufacture of final product or results in waste or by products which thereafter are cleared at the appropriate rate of duties as in this case i.e. final product, byproduct or waste on DTA quotas.2. At this prima facie stage following the case of Euro Cotspin Ltd. we would grant complete waiver of the pre-deposit required to meet the provisions of Section 129E of Customs Act, 1962 and stay of recovery thereof pending this appeal....

Mishapar Investments Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)8SOT532(Mum.)

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on various grounds which are as under : "1(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the assessing officer for loss of Rs. 11,40,72,556 on sale of 22,00,000 shares of NOCIL by the appellant treating the impugned transaction as sham.(b) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the loss incurred by the appellant on sale of shares of NOCIL was genuine and is supported by sufficient materials and evidences on record.(c) In reaching to the conclusion and confirming such addition, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) omitted to consider relevant factors, considerations, principles and evidences while he was overwhelmed, influenced and prejudiced by irrelevant considerations and factors.2.(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals...

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Adolf Patric Pinto

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)100ITD191(Mum.)

1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of Id. CIT (A)-VII, Mumbai dated 7-3-2001 for block period 1-4-1981 to 1-8-1998 and Cross Objection No. 236/Mum./2004 is filed by the assessee. The proceedings arise out of assessment completed under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The first cross objection deals with the legality of the block assessment and cross objections 2 to 5 deals with the merits of the case.3. The issue raised by the assessee in its first cross objection is that the block assessment order is time barred, therefore illegal and bad in law. Admittedly, the issue was not raised before the Id. CIT (A) and the same has been raised before us for the first time.4. The said first cross objection raised by the assessee is purely a question of law which arises from the determined facts. The cross objection is to be treated as an appeal for all practical purposes. The issue raised by the assessee is a legal question and goes to the root of the ...

Manilal N. Tanna Vs. Wealth-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)100ITD232(Mum.)

1. This appeal by the assessee is against the order of CIT(A)-XXV, Mumbai, dated 7-1-2005. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer ('the A.O') erred in making an assessment of net wealth of Rs. 34,43,419 in the hands of the appellant as on the valuation date of 31-3-1998 : The learned CWT (Appeals)-XXV, ought to have considered the following: b. That the legal heirs are/were not aware of the alleged declaration nor are they given copies of the documents relied upon. c. The appellant was in appeal against the income-tax assessment which has already been decided in favour of the assessee by the learned CIT(A)-XXV who has accepted the contention that the legal heirs have not been shown to have received the estate of the deceased. d. That the liability of the legal representatives is confined only to the extent of the estate of the deceased in her hands. The Learned CWT(A)-XXV has failed to consider above clauses except the Clause (d) me...

Sarvajanik Shri Ganeshotsav Mandal and Sanjay Sawant, President of Sar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR707; 2006(2)BomCR757; 2006(4)MhLj207

R.M. Lodha, J. 1. The appellants were unsuccessful in challenging the entrustment of the subject land on caretaker basis or construction, management and maintenance of 'playground' to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Smarak Samiti (Respondent No. 3) before the learned Single Judge as their writ came to be dismissed by order dated 9th October 1996. Hence this Appeal. 2. The subject piece of land admeasuring 2 acres (8261.90 sq.mts.) comprises of the land bearing C.T.S.Nos.256 (part), 257, 258, 260 (part), 261, 262, (part), 269 (part), 270, 271(part) and 272 (part) and is situate at Vile Parle (East), Mumbai. In the revised final development plan sanctioned by the Government of Maharashtra of the K(East) Ward, Mumbai which came into effect from 29th December, 1992, the subject plot was reserved for 'playground'. However, in the notification dated 12th November, 1992, the subject land was shown as reserved for 'park' but by the Corrigendum notified on 1st January, 1993, the error was corrected...

Arun Nathuram Gaikwad Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR363; 2006(6)BomCR219; 2006(3)MhLj500

ORDERH.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The Petition is filed pointing out that respondent Nos.3 to 17 are in the process of constructing a temple in an extremely crowded area. It is their case that this has been so going on without any permission of the Municipal Corporation. It is also pointed out through the Exhibits annexed to the Petition that the atmosphere in the locality has been disturbed on account of this construction and there have been disputes. 3. It is not disputed that no permission whatsoever is obtained for the purposes of this construction. It is no where stated in the reply of respondent No.14 that there is any such permission in support of this construction. A reply has been filed by one Shri R.S.Kurnur, Assistant Engineer of the Municipal Corporation. It has been stated therein that the construction proposal was given way back in the year 1999 and the then Assistant Engineer of the concerned Ward had informed these respondents by lett...

Special Land Acquisition Officer and anr. Vs. Jose Prazeres De Piedade ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR579; 2006(2)BomCR773; 2006(4)MhLj318

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the applicants and the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 7 and 8. None present for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, though served.2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 281 days in filing the first appeal against the award passed by the Reference Court in a land acquisition case under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called as 'the said Act'. The Reference Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs. 65/- to Rs. 85 per sq.mtr., which was acquired pursuant to issuance of Notification under Section 4, dated 4-8-1987. The area acquired is from village Curchorem, admeasuring about 2740 sq. mtrs. of survey No. 154/1 and the same has been acquired for the purpose of construction of a market complex at Curchorem.3. When the application came up for hearing on 10-1-2006, since the application referred to the movement of the file concerning the appeal from one office to another, without giving the necessary pa...

Tumsar Sahakari Shetki Kharedi Vikri Samiti Ltd. Vs. Collector and anr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR583; 2006(5)BomCR346; 2006(3)MhLj659

D.D. Sinha, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 2. Heard Mr. S. Paliwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dhote, learned AGP, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 3. In the present writ petition, direction is sought against the Collector to render the account of expenses of the election of Managing Committee held in the month of February, 2004, and the result was declared on 6th February, 2004, as per the scheme of Section 144-D(3) of Chapter XI-A of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The another direction is sought against the respondent No. 1 Collector for performance of statutory duty stipulated under Section 144-Y(2) of the Act. 4. Mr. Paliwal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the election of the Managing Committee of the petitioner-Society was held in the month of February, 2004 and the result was declared on 6-2-2004. However, in spite of lapse of six months from the date of election, the Collector failed to...