Mumbai Court March 2006 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(107)ECC603

1. These are two appeals filed by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dropping the proceedings against the respondents M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd. in the first case and M/s Fetrofac International Ltd. in the second case. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is common, they are being decided through a common order.2. In the first case, the respondent M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd. were awarded a contract for setting up of (1) Solvent - Dewaxing/De-Oiling Uni 9SDU) and (2) Hydrotreater, Amine Treating Unit, Control Room pad Sub-station at Digboi Refinery vide contract No. (1) PROJ/SDU/DR/53 of 1999-2000 and (2) PROJ/HDT/DR/54 of 1999-2000 which includes the work of "Residual Process Design, Detailed Engineering, Procurement, Supply, Construction, Erection, Installation. Testing Commissioning and Mechanical Guarantee of the said Units. The Lump sum Price offered by the said assessee against the work of Turn Key Project for the said units of Digboi Refine...

Texport India Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Challenge in the present appeal is only to personal penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, on the finding that they had mis-declared the exported goods to draw more benefit under DEPB Scheme. The Id. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the penalty for contravention of the provisions of Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, is applicable only in cases of prohibited goods and inasmuch as, the goods in question were not prohibited for exports no penalty can be imposed for the above. Reliance has been placed upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs (EP), Mumbai v. Prayag Exporters Pvt. Ltd. . For better appreciation we reproduce Para 2 of the said order, which has upheld the Tribunal's order. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 18th August, 2000 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Western Zonal Bench at Mumbai in Appeal No. ...

Vardhman Acrylics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC360

2. The issue involves in this appeal is denial of Modvat credit on the basis of Bill of Entry produced by the appellants herein.3. The appellants have imported capital goods like PVC pipe fittings, Gaskets, CPVC and CPVC Pipes etc. during the year 1998. They mis-placed Triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry No. 2975 dated 23.07.1998 and No.1916 dated 15.07.1998 under which goods were imported. They also lodged Police complaint on 18.05.2000 and 26.05.2000 and simultaneously addressed letters to Custom Authorities. They ordered for re-construction of Bill of Entries. Meanwhile, appellants took credit on the strength of photocopy of the bill of entry duly certified by the bankers and Notary Public, vide Entry No. 124 and 125 dated 14.07.2001 and informed in writing to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Ankleshwar and Customs Authorities, vide, letter dt. 16.07.2001 whereas it is a contention of the Department that the appellants had wrongly availed the credit of Rs. 9,52,291/- (Ru...

Gayak Trading Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)102TTJ(Mum.)100

1. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of learned.CIT(A) dt. 2nd Dec, 2002 passed for asst. yr. 1997-98. The grievance of assessee relates to addition of Rs. 20 lakhs made under Section 68 of the Act.2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed its return of income declaring loss of Rs. 71,94,580 on 27th Nov., 1997. On scrutiny of the accounts it was found that assessee had received a sum of Rs. 2.70 crores as share application money from two parties. The assessee could not prove the genuineness of the share application money and therefore, in an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) on 30th March, 2000, an addition of Rs. 2.70 crores was made. The assessee carried the matter before learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) set aside the issue to the file of AO. Again the AO confirmed the addition while assessing the income under Section 143(3) on 11th March, 2002.3. Dissatisfied with the addition assessee carried the matter in appeal before learned CIT...

Gayak Trading Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Jt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)102TTJ(Mum.)110

The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) dated 2-12-2002 passed for assessment year 1997-98. The grievance of assessee relates to addition of Rs. 20 lakhs made under section 68 of the Act.The brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed its return of income declaring loss of Rs. 71,94,580 on 27-11-1997. On scrutiny of the accounts it was found that assessee had received a sum of Rs. 2.70 crores as share application money from two parties. The assessee could not prove the genuineness of the share application money and therefore, in an assessment order passed under section 143(3) on 30-3-2000, an addition of Rs. 2.70 crores was made. The assessee carried the matter before learned Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the issue to the file of assessing officer. Again the assessing officer confirmed the addition while assessing the income under section 143(3) on 11-3-2002.Dissatisfied with the addition as...

Sukumar M. Khot and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR302; 2006(4)BomCR337; 2006(4)MhLj328

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. A declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, published in the Gazette on 23rd June 2005 is challenged in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The acquisition is for the benefit of Sadashivrao Mandalik Kagal Taluka Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., a Cooperative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies' Act, 1960, the Fourth Respondent to these proceedings.The principal ground of challenge which was urged at the hearing is founded on the provisions of Section 5A, the challenge being that the Collector has neither prepared a report, nor submitted his recommendations as required by the mandate of the statute. After the records of the acquisition proceedings were produced before us by the Advocate General, we found that in the enquiry under Section 5A, the Fourth Respondent for whom the land is being acquired, submitted a chart containing its responses to the objections filed by the Petitioners. The principa...

Bharati Cellular Ltd. and anr. Vs. Jai Distillers P. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom33; 2006(4)BomCR280; 2006(33)PTC220(Bom)

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present notice of Motion has been taken out inter alia seeking relief of injunction of infringement of the plaintiffs artistic work being Exhibit-D to the plaint and also for an injunction from in any manner manufacturing, marketing, exhibiting and selling any goods bearing the trade mark 'Airtel' as mentioned in Exhibit-A and B to the plaint or any other deceptively similar mark on the ground of passing off. Prayer (c) and (d) of the motion are for appointment of the court Receiver with a power to take possession of the goods and destruct all the labels, cartons and advertising material. 2. Some of the material facts of the present case are as under : 3. The plaintiffs are a company inter-alia carrying on business in telecommunication services. The plaintiffs are also providing mobile services to various people in India and is a well known company in the name of 'Airtel'. The plaintiffs are carrying on business in various states of India and are having a large tu...

Rmc Readymix (i) P. Ltd. Vs. Kanayo Khubchand Motwani

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR437; 2006(4)MhLj299

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present suit is filed for the recovery of sum of Rs. 85,26,667/-comprising of the principal amount of Rs. 50 lacs towards the security deposit and the sum of Rs. 35,26,667/- towards interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on the said security deposit. Some of the material facts of the present case are as under:2. Pursuant to a leave and licence agreement executed on 23.11.98 the defendant granted to the plaintiffs a licence inrespect of a commercial premises admeasuring 7500 sq.ft being super built up area situated on the first floor of the building known as 'Dakshana' which is situated at Plot No. 2., CBD, Belapur, New Mumbai. The said area was given on licence alongwith 10 car parking space in the compound of the said building. Some of the relevant clause of the said leave and licence agreement are as under:14(a) The Licensee shall pay to the Licensor a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-(Rs. Fifty Lacs) as and by way of refundable security deposit. The said amount of deposit shall...

Archana Abhay Wani and ors. Vs. the Deputy Collector and Competent Aut ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR201; 2006(3)BomCR782; 2006(4)MhLj585

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Chandrakant Trimbakrao Rajebahadur Respondent No. 5 in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution held the following land in Nasik Urban Agglomeration : -------------------------------------------------Sr. Survey/CTS No. No. -------------------------------------------------1) 352/11 2) CTS 5233-A 3) 787 4) 788 5) CTS 58751-12 Area Class of Sq.M. land 276-44 Vacant 117.00 Vacant 4100.00 Vacant 5400.00 Vacant 192.35 Vacant 2 6) 1587-C 240.80 Built-up 7) 352/1 to 18 573.58 Built-up 8) 532/1 to 16 468.23 Built-up 9) CTS-1587-A 21.10 Built-up 10) CTS 1587-F 10.90 Built-up 11) 5232 193.70 Built-up 12) 5233 69.70 Built-up 13) 5301 5.60 Built-up 14) 668/4 (CTS No.724) 2309.89 Green Belt 15) 5575-5-i 1425.11 Vacant --------------------------------------------------Total 15,404.40 =================================================== 2. On the enforcement of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act for short) with effect from 17th February 197...

The Commissioner of Customs (General) Vs. La Grande Projects Limited

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(204)ELT207(Bom)

R.M. Lodha, J.1. We heard Mr. A.J. Rana, the learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shyam Mehta, the learned counsel for the respondent.2. The following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal:(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CESTAT was justified in reducing the redemption fine imposed under Section 111(d), (f) and (n) of the Customs Act, 1962 to 30% of the CIF value of the goods without giving reasons and ignoring its earlier Order No. C-II/2268-7/WZB/2002 dated 10.1.2002, but relying upon the Order No. 398/05-C, dated 2.5.2005, CESTAT, New Delhi(b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in restricting the penalty imposed upon the importer to 5% of CIF value of the goods without giving any reasons and ignoring its earlier Order No. C-II/2268-7/WZB/2002 dated 10.1.2002, but relying upon the Order No. 398/05-C, dated 2.5.2005, CESTAT New Delhi(c) Whether the order No. 398/05-C date...