Mumbai Court March 2006 Judgments

Indian Plywood Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. P.S. Dave and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Bom)8; [2007]291ITR430(Bom)

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Both these criminal applications can be disposed of by a common judgment since the issue involved in both these matters is identical.2. The applicants in Criminal Application No. 43 of 2000 filed income-tax return for the assessment year 1992-93 on September 13, 1992. The order was passed under Section 193 dated March 8, 1995, by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Assessment Range V(B), whereby the total income was assessed at Rs. 1,29,74,262 including an amount of Rs. 27,17,994 which was the amount of refund of excise duty received in the year 1981. The addition made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was upheld in the appeal. The application made by the applicants for change in the accounting period was allowed.3. It was alleged that the excise duty was not credited to its profit and loss account and this was done to avoid income-tax. Accordingly, penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act and on March 27, 1987, the or...

Cellular Technologies Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time, the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty is arrived and the appeal is taken up for hearing. Considering the fact, that the service tax amounting to Rs. 1,10,721/- and interest amounting to Rs. 8,634/- have been paid and the appellant is a small service provider, the penalty is reduced to Rs. 11,000/-....

Khar Residents' Association Vs. Commissioner Of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Perused the written submissions filed by the appellants. Heard the learned JDR and the representative of the appellants.2. In view of the fact that the appellants were unable to pay the duty and surrendered the B/E and the goods have been auctioned by the Port Trust, there is no likelihood of the container being taken out of the port area by the appellants. Hence, it is unreasonable to demand duty from them for the container or ask them to pay fine and penalty for the container. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed....

Dy. Cit Vs. Smt. Rita A. Parekh

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on a solitary ground that Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in directing the assessing officer to compute the ALV of the flat in question on the basis of actual rent received/receivable under Section 23(l)(b) which is higher than the municipal ratable value and in further directing to recompute the statutory deductions admissible under Section 24 of the Act and thereby withdrawn the excess deduction granted.2. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and documents placed on record.3. The facts borne out from the record are that the assessee is a co-owner of Flat No. 9 B-1, Great Eastern Royale Co-op. Housing Society along with her mother Smt. Ashwinaben Choksey, having 50% shares each.During this year, the said flat was given on leave and license basis to a bank against monthly compensation of Rs. 20,000 p.m. from 25-12-1997 to March, 1998 and a...

Kishore Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ2618

Ranjana Desai, J.1. The appellant, original accused 2 (for short, 'A-2') was tried along with four others (for short 'A-l', 'A-3', 'A-4' and 'A-5' respectively) for offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the Code') in Sessions Case No. 359 of 1998, A-l, A-2, A-3 and A-4 were also charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, by the impugned judgment and order dated 9/4/1999 acquitted all the accused of the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Code. He acquitted A-l, A-3 and A-4 of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code. He convicted A-2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. Being aggrieved by this judgment and order, A-2 has preferred the instant appeal...

Prakash Chand Vs. Manik Bhagwat Tribhuwan and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ3707

ORDERS.P. Kukday, J.1. Leave to add.2. In this revision petition, the petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the proceeding in private complaint bearing RTC No. 293/1996 instituted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kopargaon, for the offence punishable under Section 420 and 464 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that respondent No. 1 purchased truck bearing registration No. MH-17/A-6670 by borrowing loan of Rs. 36,000/- from the petitioner and entering into hire-purchase agreement with the petitioner proprietary firm M/s. Chopra Auto Finance, Hyderabad. Respondent No. 1 committed default in payment of instalments, therefore, the petitioner took the vehicle in his possession. However, respondent No. 1 approached the petitioner with a request to review the agreement. In pursuance of his request, another hire-purchase agreement was entered into between the parties on 6-5-1993. Respondent No. 1 agreed to repay the outstanding amount o...

Goenka and Associates Educational Trust Vs. Addl. Director, D.G.S.T.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008[9]STR228

ORDER1. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the first-petitioner is not averse to get itself registered with the concerned authority without prejudice to its contention that it is not liable to pay service tax as it does not fall in the category of tour operators'.2. In the light of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, we are satisfied that diverse issues raised in the writ petition need not be examined by us on merits and that interest of justice shall be subserved by the following order:(i) The first petitioner shall apply for service tax registration to the concerned authority without prejudice to its contention that it is not amenable to the category of 'tour operators'.(ii) The concerned authority shall provisionally register the first petitioner and decide as to whether it is covered under the category of 'tour operators'.(iii) If it is found that the first petitioner is covered under the category of 'tour operators' and, therefore, lia...

D.M. Cements Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Industrial Development Bank of

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: III(2007)BC17

1. This appeal has been preferred by one of the bidders for purchase of the property belonging to the respondent No. 7 at the public auction held on 11th January, 2007, challenging the order dated 29th January, 2007 passed by the Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Pune confirming the sale in favour of the respondent No. 12 and forfeiting the sum of Rs. 50 lacs out of the amount deposited by the appellants. Facts leading to the present appeal are as follows: The respondent Banks and financial institutions forming a consortium have filed proceeding for recovery of the dues from the respondent No. 7 before the D.R.T. Pending the Original Application, the factory premises of the respondent No. 7 were sought to be sold by consent of the creditors as well as the borrowers after obtaining an order dated 6th December, 2006 from this Tribunal fixing sum of Rs. 8 crores as a reserve price.2. The notice dated 21st December, 2006 was published in the newspapers in Bombay and in Karnataka State on 26th ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Rajaram Solvex Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of refined edible oil falling under Chapter Heading 1503 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and availing CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods. During the course of manufacture of refined edible oil certain bye product like soap stock, acid oil arise which are exempted from payment of duty as per Notification No. 115/75 dated 30.04.1975. They were issued a Show Cause Notice stating that since the soap stock/acid oil were exempted from duty they were required to pay an amount equal to 8% of the value of exempted products under Rule 12 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 alongwith interest etc.The demand was confirmed by lower authorities who also imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- and also required them to pay interest. This order was set aside by Commissioner (appeals) on the grounds that soap stock/acid oil were only bye product and therefore Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rule, 2002 was not applic...

Allianz Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants had imported 198.41 M.Ts of Steel Metal Scrap and claimed clearance by classifying the same under Chapter Heading 7204.4900 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. On examination it was found that the cargo consisted of 35% of Re-Reliable Scrap and not heavy material scrap as declared by them.Since re-reliable scrap was chargeable to custom duty at the rate of 5% unlike the steel metal scrap which is exempted from duty, entire goods werer seized for mis-declaration and fine and penalty were imposed by the lower appellate authority who confiscated these goods. It is against this imposition of fine and penalty that the appellants have come up in appeal.2. None appeared for the appellants. I, therefore, heard the learned S.D.R. and perused the records.3. The learned S.D.R. submitted that the Commissioner in his order-in-original has given a clear finding that the steel metal scrap was used for concealment of re-rollable scrap and in view of...