Mumbai Court March 2006 Judgments

Prachar Communications Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC321

1. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the refund of excess service tax paid by the appellant, which was originally sanctioned by the appropriate authority. Thereafter proceedings by way of issuance of show cause notice dt. 9.6.2002 were initiated on the ground that such refund was erroneous and as such proposing recovery of the same.2. As per facts on record appellant claimed refund of service tax paid on gross amount of bills before discount raised against M/s. Emami Ltd. on the ground that service tax was payable on the gross amount actually charged i.e. after discount. The said refund was sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner vide his order dt. 9.10.01 and 29.11.01 and was actually paid to the appellant on 13.12.2001. The Commissioner vide his impugned order has held such refunds to be erroneous on the ground that the same were recovered by the appellant from their customers and the subsequent adjustment by way of credit notes cannot be considered to conclude that the bur...

B.V. Star Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appellant/applicants have filed an application for Rectification of Mistakes against the CESTAT Order dated 22-11-2005 on the following grounds :- A. The Hon'ble Member (J) in Para 8 of the said order has held that the redemption fine of Rs. 15.00 lacs does not appear to have been confirmed in the above paras whereas the Hon'ble Member (J) though agrees with Hon'ble Member (J) but has added that the Redemption fine becomes payable only when the goods are redeemed. Thus, there is a contradiction in the findings recorded by the Hon'ble Members (J) and (T) as Redemption fine is not payable as per the order of Member (j) whereas the question of payment of redemption fine would arise when the goods are redeemed as per Hon'ble Member (T)'s order and as the Dept. may say that since the goods are confiscated in the order of Commissioner the Redemption fine would be payable while redeeming the goods. B. The Hon'ble Tribunal in Para 5 of the order has recorded in detail the arguments adv...

Alpic India and Shiv Textile Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants M/s Shiv Textiles are engaged in the processing of fabrics falling under chapter 54. The officers visited the factory and on verification noticed that part of the premises was in occupation of one M/s Alpic India who carried out the process of receiving gray fabrics, checking, dyeing, bleaching, mercerising and printing of the said fabrics without the aid of power. The appellants were carrying out the process with the aid of power along declarations under notification no 13/92 stating that they would process powerloom fabries falling under chapter heading 52&54 of CETA 1985 with the aid of power (i.e.stentering, calendering, folding and bale packing) and claiming duty exemptions under notification 4/97 and 9/96 respectively declarations were filed accordingly. Similarly M/s Alpic (India) had filed a declaration under the said notification 13/92(N.T) that they will process powerloom fabrics without the aid of power and steam. The verification of the stock was cond...

A.H. Baldota Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)103TTJ(Mum.)517

1. In all the four appeals a common question is involved as to whether assessee is entitled to claim interest payment on borrowed capital invested in a partnership firm,, in which he was the partner in the relevant period, even though share of profits from the partnership is exempt under Section 10(2A).2. The facts for the first three assessment years are identical. The return of income was filed late. They were regularised by issuing notice under Section 148(1). Relevant data is as under: 1994-95 1995-96 1996Date of return 13.11.1996 13.11.1996 23.40.1997Income/loss returned (-) 320570 (-) 13320 (+)176200Date of notice under Section 148(1) 17.2.2000 16.2.2000 16.2.2000Date of letter issued by assessee to 18.2.2000 18/2/2000 18.2.2000Income assessed (+) 217006 (+) 433520 (+)571710Interest payment disallowed 537771 479045395510 3. For the asst. yr. 1997-98, the return of income was filed on 30th Nov., 1998 on a total income of Rs. 2,84,075. It was processed under Section 143(1) on 28th...

Nck Sons Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)102ITD311(Mum.)

1. These appeals are preferred by the assessee against the respective orders of the CIT (A). Since these appeals were heard together, these are being disposed of by this single consolidated order. We, however, prefer to adjudicate them one by one.2. Appeal No. 1088/Mum/2002: In this appeal, the order of the CIT (A) has been assailed on the following grounds: A. "Assessment of Rs. 1,51,25,647/- being trade advance received from Standard Vishwas Marble Industries Pvt. Ltd. as deemed dividend income Under Section 2(22)(e) 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) erred in facts and in law in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer of assessing a sum of Rs. 1,51,25,647/- out of the receipt by way of a trade advance from M/s. Standard Vishwas Marble Industries Pvt. Ltd. for goods to be supplied and services to be rendered to them as dividend. 2. The addition of Rs. 1,51,25,647/- may please be deleted and/or substantially reduced. B. Addition of Rs. 1,7...

Mangaldas N. Verma Charitable Trust by It Managing Trustee, Mrs. Sarla ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR405; 2006(5)BomCR342; 2006(3)MhLj662

K.J. Rohee, J.1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the dismissal of Municipal Appeal No.186 of 1986 under section 2(1)(ix) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 by the Additional Chief Judge, Bombay by order dated 30th July, 1988. 2. The facts which are not disputed for the purposes of the present appeal are that the appellant is a public charitable trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 having its office at Mumbai. Respondent no.1 is the Corporation established under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and respondent no.2 is the Chief Executive Officer of respondent no.1. 3. The appellant is the owner of a godown situated at Mumbai. It has been let out to M/s. I.T.C. And M/s. Chika Limited on lease for store purposes. The said godown was let out for the first time in 1978 under the agreement dated 7.4.1978 at the rent of Re. 1.30 ps. Per sq. ft. per month inclusive of municipal taxes. By agreement dated 3.1.1984 the rent was enhanced to R...

Smt. Shalini Laxman Wadnerkar Vs. Bank of Baroda Employees Co-operativ ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR410; 2006(5)BomCR292; 2006(3)MhLj828

K.J. Rohee, J.1. The appellant is the only surviving legal representative of the deceased plaintiff as his daughter. She has preferred appeal against the common judgment delivered by the Additional Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay in Special Civil Suit No.7708 of 1967 and Special Civil Suit No.1665 of 1979 on 21st September, 1987. 2. The facts which are not disputed for the purposes of the present appeal are that one Shri J.R. Gharpure owned land in Survey No.6 situated at Bamanwada village, Vile Parle (East) Bombay. On 21.10.1958 Shri G.G. Suvarnapathak (the original plaintiff) agreed to purchase Plot No.5, area 557 sq. yards out of the said land. He paid Rs.1,000/- as earnest money to Shri J.R. Gharpure. Shri V.J. Gharpure (the son of Shri J.R. Gharpure) issued a receipt (Exhibit 'A') on behalf of his father in favour of the original plaintiff. On the next day i.e. On 22.10.1958 the possession of the land was also delivered to the original plaintiff. Earlier to the said agre...

D.G.P. Windsor (India) Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Shivram Thakurdesai and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR291; 2006(4)BomCR327; [2006(110)FLR1050]; 2006(3)MhLj620

ORDERV.C. Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 22nd September, 2005 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane in Complaint (ULP) No. 414/2001 directing the petitioner- Company to pay full back wages, retrenchment allowance, compensation and other legal dues to the respondents- workmen.Factual Matrix : 2. The factual matrix reveals that the factories of the said Company are located at Thane, Vatwa and Chhatral whereas various sales and service outlets are spread all over India. According to the petitioner, the market cap of the petitioner's product went on deteriorating during the period 1990 to 1997; due to the economic policy of the Government. The petitioner- Company, thus, could not compete in a domestic as well as international markets. Consequently, the petitioner-company suffered huge loses resulting in severe financial crunch. It could not gainfully employ even 100 to 125 employees. That it had taken several measures for its revival but could not succeed. Aft...

Mr. F.A. Ahmedababi Vs. Dharam Estates and Investments Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR598; 2006(3)BomCR618; [2006(110)FLR327]; 2006(5)MhLj58

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1.The petitioner has challenged an Award dated 21st March, 1998, passed by the First Labour Court at Mumbai in Reference (IDA) No.919 of 1988 and also the order of Review dated 16th April, 2003 in Misc. (Review) Application (IDA) No.72 of 1998 by which a Reference sent by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Mumbai, under Section 10(1) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'ID Act') for adjudication of a dispute between the petitioner and the respondents over the demand of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service with effect from 25th November, 1987, was rejected. It has been held that the termination of the service of the petitioner was legal. 2. On 19th November, 2003, while admitting the present Writ Petition, this Court observed that 'The Petition involves arguable question of law as to whether the provisions of Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act had been complied with and whether the termination of th...

Tata Memorial Centre and anr. Vs. Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)BomCR680; [2006(111)FLR145]; 2006(4)MhLj658

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present petition is filed inter-alia challenging the order dated 31.8.2005 passed by the 2nd Respondent under complaint (ULP) No. 919 of 2001. Some of the material facts of the present case are as under : 2. The petitioner is one Tata Memorial Centre and is inter-alia running a Tata Memorial Hospital and Cancer Research Centre. The Respondent no.1 is a recognised union of the petitioner herein. Since 1985 the respondent no.1. was recognised union under the provisions of The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MRTU and PULP Act'). Sometime in or about 1994 Tata Memorial Hospital Kamgar Sanghatana filed an application being application MRTU No. 15 of 1994 and application MRTU 16 of 1994 for cancellation of the recognition of the respondent no.1. The said recognisation of respondent no.1 was consequently cancelled. On 29.6.2001 the registration of the respondent no.1 union was rest...