Mumbai Court March 2006 Judgments

Anil Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Nobody is present on behalf of the appellants. We have accordingly heard the Id. DR and have gone through the impugned orders.2. The original adjudicating authority, while passing the impugned order, in terms of CEGAT's order, vide which the matter was remanded, has held that the benefit of Notification No. 23/98-Cus., dated 1-3-1998 is available to the appellants, inasmuch as the imported material has been used in the leather industry. The adjudicating authority has referred to the Chartered Accountant's certificate, which was verified by him along with copies of the sales invoices and it was concluded that the goods have actually been sold to the actual users.The said certificate was found to be genuine.3. However, on appeal by the Revenue, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) set aside the said order of the adjudicating authority on the ground that the certificate given by the Chartered Accountant does not show that the goods were in fact used in the leather industry and as suc...

Sterlite Industries India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is a stay applications against demand of duty amounting to Rs. 4,16,748/-. When the matter was argued I found that the appellants have made out a prima facie case in their favour both on grounds of limitation as well as merit and I, therefore, took up the matter for final decision by waiving the pre-deposit of the entire amount of duty and penalty.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of polythene insulated jelly filled telephone cable falling under Chapter sub-heading 8544 of Central Excise Tariff Act. 1985. They availed Modvat credit on the inputs and capital goods used in the manufacture of its final product for which declarations under Rule 57T were duly filed. A show cause notice dated 18.8.1999 was issued seeking to disallow Modvat credit on twister with control panel, contractor, capacitor, cable test meter, testing for telecom cable, measuring systems availed during the period of August 1994 to December 1995, on the ground ...

Man Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Ep)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. M/s. Man Industries (I) Ltd. vide Shipping Bill No. 1000017585, 1000017579 1000017580 all dated 25-10-2002 exported "carbon steel submerged ARC welded pipes" under DEPB Scheme. Vide letter dated 23-12-2002 they requested Dy. Commissioner/Export Department for conversion of above mentioned three DEPB Shipping Bills under DEPB Scheme to DEEC Scheme. Exporter submitted that they have filed above mentioned Shipping Bill under DEPB Scheme by mistake. They also submitted a copy of Advance Licence No. 0310156546 dated 3-9-2000 and submitted that the company is a Registered Export House and have been accredited with ISO 9002 certification for the manufactures of quality products. They also submitted that they had already submitted the Chartered Engineer Certificate certifying the inputs used in the resultant export product which is mandatory for logging the DEEC.1.2 Exporters request was examined in the light of Standing Order No.7078 dated 20-1-1995, they were to declare the exempted mate...

Overseas Engineers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(107)ECC474

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is engaged in the manufacture of Diesel Oil Engine and Centrifugal Pump sets falling under Chapter 84 and had intended to avail the benefit of Notification No. 47/94 and had applied for necessary permission before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division I, Rajkot, Since the Assistant Commissioner did not act on their application the applicant procured the diesel oil engine on payment of central excise duty for use in manufacture of centrifugal pumps which were to be exported.Subsequently they filed a refund claim with the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. Division-1 for refund of duty paid by them. In view of the exemption provided under Notification No. 47/94 the refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the applicant is not eligible to work under Notification No. 47/94 and the provision of unjust enrichment was applicable. This order was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals)....

Charak Pharmaceutical India Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. First four appeals have been filed by the appellant M/s Charak Pharmaceuticals India Pvt. Ltd and the last appeal No. E-899/2005 has been filed by the applicant Commissioner. Both parties agree that the dispute in these appeals relates to classification of 'Honey'.2. It is not disputed that Honey is procured from apiaries and then subjected to minimal processing such as heating, cooling, staining, filtration only and then packed in the containers for marketing as recorded by the lower appellate authority in the impugned order at page-7 thereof. Both sides have taken us through the entries under Central Excise heading 0400 and heading 3000 including the subheadings there under. We have also perused heading 0409 of the Customs tariff which provides a separate heading for natural honey. The Explanatory Note to the HSN states that heading 0409 covers honey produced by bees or by other insects provided that neither sugar or any other substance has been added. It furthe...

Star Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The dispute in the present appeal is in respect of interest amount on the maturity value of the National Certificates furnished by the appellant as securities. Deputy Commissioner sanctioned the refund claim who held that appellants claim for interest and compensation is not valid and tenable inasmuch as, encashment of NSC cannot be considered to be and outstanding Government dues against the appellant.2. On appeal Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellant's claim on the ground that the matter does not relate to refund of Excise duty but relates to release of National Saving Certificates. Since release of security cannot be equated with refund of duty covered under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, the question of grant interest does not arise, he accordingly rejects the claim.3. On hearing the appellant and Id. DRI fully agree with the above reasoning of the appellate authority. The prime and the main issue was release of National Saving Certificates entered as a security in ...

Vinay Mohan Lal, Ias Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(3)SLJ116CAT

1. The present O.A. is filed for quashing and setting aside the charge memo dated 11.07.2005 with all consequential benefits.2. The applicant's case is that he is a Member of the Indian Administrative Service. He had a long and distinguished service career and held various important and sensitive postings. He had joined the CIDCO as Vice Chairman and Managing Director on 26.5.2003. It is contended that respondent No. 5 took over as Chief Minister of Maharashtra on 1.1.2004. Soon after he joined as Chief Minister, Shri Ashok Sinha was appointed as Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of CIDCO vide order dated 15.12.2004. It is contended that the applicant was given posting as Chairman, 3rd Maharashtra Finance Commission vide order dated 28.12.2004. The Third Maharashtra Finance Commission had not been constituted by the Governor and thus the applicant could not take over the charge as Chairman. The Third Maharashtra Finance Commission had been constituted by the Notification dated 15.1....

Alchemic Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109TTJ(Mum.)251

1. By this miscellaneous application, the assessee seeks rectification in the impugned order of the Tribunal dt. 10th May, 2005 (ITA Nos. 1520 to 1522/Mum/2002). The learned Counsel for the assessee Mr. Rajan R.Vora, has pointed out two mistakes namely-(i) no finding has been given as to whether business of hire purchase and bill discounting can be said to be business of granting loans and advances within the scope of Section 73, Expln. (ii) in para 14, a mistake has been committed in calculating the percentage of funds employed in the business of granting loans and advances. He drew our attention to para 14, where it has been mentioned that for asst. yr. 1998-99, the capital employed in the activity of granting of loans was Rs. 1.76 crores as against total funds available amounting to Rs. 3.26 crores but while calculating the percentage it has been stated that deployment of funds in the business of loans was less than 50 per cent though it was more than 50 per cent.Similar is the sit...

Regency Exports (P) Ltd. Vs. Joint Cit Spl. Range 32

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)8SOT116(Mum.)

1. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in rejecting the claim of deduction under section 80HHCas per the appellants working consistent with his decision for the assessment year 1996-97 against which the appellants is in appeal before your honour.2. The learned CIT (Appeals) did not appreciate that what could be excluded from computation of business profits for the purpose of deduction under section 80HHC is the amount included in such profits and not gross receipts.3. The learned CIT (Appeals) did not appreciate the facts with regard to deduction of freight and insurance from Export turnover.4. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that benefit of deduction under section 80-IA was not permissible to the appellant as the deduction was already allowed under section 80HHC.5. The learned CIT (Appeals) did not appreciate that his concluision as above was not warranted+y any provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as in force at the relevant time.6. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in holdin...

Arjun Sopan Gaikwad Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Through the Secretary ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR1; 2006(3)BomCR73; 2006(4)MhLj293

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. This petition is preferred against dismissal of Original Application No. 129 of 2000 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short `Tribunal') whereby the Petitioner's claim for placement of his name in the seniority list above the name of Respondent No. 4 was rejected.2. There is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioner was appointed on regular basis to the post of Lower Division Clerk w.e.f. 16th October, 1978 and was promoted as Upper Division Clerk w.e.f. 9th April, 1984. The next promotion available to him was in the post of Office Superintendent. The criteria for such promotion is ''Senioritycum- Fitness'' by non- selection method from amongst Upper Division Clerks / Stenographers Grade II employees with 5 years service in the grade and minimum 2 years experience of administrative work.3. One Shri R. Kailash was promoted as Administrative Officer and as such post of Office Superintendent in CGHS Office at Pune had fallen vacant. The Petitioner was a...