Mumbai Court February 2006 Judgments

Sanghi Oxygen (Bombay) P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for sometime on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 69,500/- and penalty of Rs. 500/- under Section 75A, penalty equal to Service Tax under Section 76, Rs. 5000/- under Section 77 and penalty equal to Service Tax under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, we found that it was possible to decide the appeal itself at this stage and hence proceed to do so with the consent of both sides, after granting the prayer for waiver.2. The appellant herein provides service in relation to commissioning, installation and erection of gas plant and equipment etc. Service Tax has been levied on the ground that they were rendering services of Consulting Engineers. We find that by Circular No. 79/9/2004-S.T., dated 13-5-2004, the CBEC has clarified that the charges for erection, installation and commissioning will not be covered under the category of Consulting Engineer Services during the period in dispute viz. July, 1997 to October, 2001. The Circ...

Pepsico India Holdings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue in dispute in these appeals relates to eligibility of the appellants herein to deductions of trade discount (rebate on cash sales) of aerated water. The authorities below had initially dismissed the claim for deduction on the ground that it was not in the nature of discount but in the nature of incentive. The matter was taken up before the Bombay High Court which by the Order dated 8.6.93 in W.P.No.449/1981 (reported in 1993 (67) ELT 76 (Bom) remanded the case to the Asstt.Commissioner to determine afresh the claim of the assessees in respect of rebate on cash sales. After the remand by the Hon'ble High Court, the matter was adjudicated once again and the discount has been held to be not admissible deduction. Hence, these appeals.2. We have heard both sides. We find that the Hon'ble High Court has clearly set out in para 4 of its order, the submission of ld.Counsel for the assessee and its findings thereon. Para 4 is re-produced in its entirety below : Mrs. Mody then comp...

Asstt. Cit Vs. Mahalaxmi Chemical Works

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These are the appeals filed by assessee as well as revenue against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals).2. The revenue in its appeals in ITA Nos. 2258,2259 and 2260/Mum./2003 for assessment years 1995-96,1996-97 and 1998-99, has raised the following grounds: (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in directing the assessing officer to exclude amount of sales tax and L/C opening charges from the total turnover for computing the deduction under Section 80HHC. (ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in directing the assessing officer to reduce the net profit declared by the assessee by the net amount of excise duty paid (total amount paid less the amount of refund received) and to consider the profits so arrived to adopt as the 'profit of the business' for computing deduction under Section 80HHC}. (in) On the facts and in the circums...

ito Vs. Apurva P. Patel

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)7SOT755(Mum.)

In these three appeals filed by the assessce, the common issue involved is, as to whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee on higher studies on professional education is allowable or not. The disallowance of the claim of expenditure in three years is as under : The facts giving rise to these appeals are that the assessee is a Chartered Accountant (CA). He completed his C.A. in 1994 and article ship in 1995. He claims that he is an all India rank holder with certificate of merit. His profession is of consultancy in management, finance and investment Banking. The assessee, while carrying out his profession, proceeded to USA for doing MBA between August 1996 and May 1998. During August 1996 to May 1998, assessee did not get any employment in USA but from August 1998, he started earning salary income from employment in USA. The assessee visited India during this period. He had filed return of income showing income from profession as under: During the period of study, the assessee ...

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Member, Industrial ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR552; 2006(5)BomCR349; 2006(4)MhLj21

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this writ petition, employer Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation has challenged the order dated 17-9-1999 passed by respondent No. 1 Member, Industrial Court in Revision U.L.P. 397/1994 whereby the Member Industrial Court reversed the judgment delivered by Labour Court in U.L.P. complaint 39-1991. The Labour Court, Chandrapur dismissed complaint under Section 28 read with schedule IV(1) of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (referred to as U.L.P. Act hereafter) preferred by present respondent No. 2 Anant (Anand?) challenging his termination from 20-12-1990 by petitioners while Industrial Court directed petitioners to reinstate him with continuity and backwages. This Court has stayed said order of Industrial Court.2. Respondent No. 2 approached Labour Court on 18-2-1991 with grievance that he was employed by petitioners as Driver from 24-9-1988 and he worked upto 19-12-1990 regularly. On 20-1...

A.M. Attar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR839; 2006(4)MhLj228

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner was working as a Guard in Central Railway. The petitioner was allotted quarters at Byculla, Mumbai. The petitioner retired from services on 28-2-1997 on superannuation. Whilst petitioner was in service, the petitioner's son was appointed as a turner in the Central Railway, Matunga Workshop, Mumbai in the year 1988. The son after his appointment was also residing with the petitioner with the permission of the Railway Authorities, without claiming house rent from respondents. Before retirement of the petitioner, petitioner along with his son had made an application for transferring the quarter allotted to him in the name of his son. Similar request was made by the petitioner before his retirement by application dated 24-2-1997. The request was not considered. The petitioner's son was however, allotted independent premises. The petitioner was however, allowed to retain the premises till 30-6-1997 on the basis of rent and thereafter from 1-7-1997 to 30-10-...

Gangaram M. Sawant and ors. Vs. Barkelo M. Sawant and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom240; 2006(5)BomCR734

ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the Parties. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.2. Only grievance which is sought to be made by the petitioners in relation to the impugned order is about the finding arrived at by the trial Court that the document which is stated to have been exhibited as Exhibit - 42 has been declared as the secondary evidence without any material being placed on record to establish that the document at Exhibit - 42 is the secondary evidence of the original document.3. Bare perusal of the impugned order discloses that merely because in the cross -examination of the witness, he admitted that the authority has passed an order in the nature reflected from exhibit - 42, the Court below has proceeded to classify the said Exhibit as the secondary evidence. No other material has been referred to, to arrive at the finding that Exhibit - 42 is a secondary evidence. Question of holding any document produced by the party to be a second...

Larsen and Tourbo Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(106)ECC238

1. Heard both sides. The appellants have constructed bridges for M/s Konkan Railway Corporation Limited (KRCL) and in the process manufactured Pre Stressed Concrete (PSC) Girders and removed such girders from the site of manufacture for construction of the bridges on the railway. As regards the merits of the case, the (Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Asian Techs Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II) has held that such PSC girders are excisable and it has further held that exemption under Notification No.59/90-CE applicable to goods manufactured at site for construction of buildings does not apply to PSC girders. The learned S.D.R. appearing for Revenue also brings to our notice the subsequent decision of another Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. C.C.E., Aurangabad, Chandigarh, Kanpur & Chennai which has extensively gone into the issue of manufacture, marketability and excisability of structural and has held that mark...

Gujarat Sidhee Cement Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(107)ECC268

1. The above four appeals arise out of the common order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and are hence heard together and disposed off vide this common order.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 25 of the schedule to the CETA, 1985 and availing benefit of modvat credit. Show cause notices proposing to recover credit wrongly availed were issued. By four separate orders, all dated 27/10/97, demands of Rs. 1,66,589/-, Rs. 1,76,402/-, Rs. 2,96,019/- and Rs. 3,45,146/- were confirmed and penalties of Rs. 17,000/-, Rs. 16,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 35,000/-, respectively were imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside certain portion of the adjudication orders, modified certain portion and remanded certain issues for denovo consideration.4. Appeal No. E/2012/2000 relates to denial of modvat credit of Rs. 1,66,589/- on parts of ATOX-40 Raw Mill falling under CETA, sub heading 8474.90, Blow Bar for APPM 1322 falling under ...

Sankeya Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit, Circle 4(2)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)8SOT50(Mum.)

This appeal by the assessee is against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-V, Mumbai dated 17-7-1996 relating to assessment year 1991-92.Shri Arvind Sonde, A.T. Jain, learned Counsels appeared for the assessee and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Departmental Representative appeared for the revenue.(1) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the taxability of profits arising on sale of undertaking as short-term capital gain.(2) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not holding that gain arising on the sale of industrial undertaking was not chargeable to tax since the undertaking had been sold as a going concern for a slump price and, therefore, no part of the sales consideration was attributable to any specific asset.(3) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not holding that since the cost of acquisition and/or cost of improvement of the industrial undertaking could not be ascertained, the machinery provisions for computation of capital gains were not applicable and, there...