Mumbai Court March 2006 Judgments

Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The short point involved in these appeals is that Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the refund claims filed by the appellants in respect of duty paid by them at the time of presentation of the Bill of Entry which was disputed and later on allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) with regard to dispute relating to classification. While the appellants claimed that since the assessment order was contested by them disputing the duty liability the payment of duty has to be treated as paid under protest and therefore the time-bar should not be applicable. The Commissioner (Appeals) on the other hand held that as per Supreme Court decision in Mafatlal Industries case reported at specially Paras 83, 84 & 86 it is obligatory that for payment of duty under protest the procedure under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 should be followed.3. The learned advocate for the appellants submitted that whenever an appeal is filed against the assessment order, the duty has to be treated as...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Permanent Magnets Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. In this case, the respondents cleared castings at the rate of Rs. 1034/- per kg and Rs. 525/- per kg to their Daman unit for manufacture of permanent magnet. A part of this castings was found to be defective and unsuitable for making magnets and such defective castings were detected during the course of manufacture and the same were transferred to their original unit for melting. The transfer of defective materials were done at the rate of Rs. 225/- per kg and Rs. 110/- per kg. The Id. advocate for the respondents states that the prices were adopted at par with the price of steel scraps prevailing at the market. The duty demands were raised on the respondents on the ground that the defective goods are excisable goods and have marketability but it may fetch a lower price than first quality good but not as low price as of waste and scrap. The Original authority has confirmed the demand taking the price of such rejected goods to be the same as that of first quality g...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. S.B. Reshellers Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The short point involved in this appeal is that the respondents have taken re-credit of wrongly paid 8% amount under Rule 57AD paid by them on sugar mill rollers repaired and cleared by them.2. The learned S.D.R. submits that the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order allowing such re-credit is not correct as in such cases the assessee was required to file a refund claim as there are no provision to take re-credit in Central Excise law. He cited Supreme Court decision in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. 1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC) wherein it was held that all refund claim ought to be filed under and in accordance with Section 11B and under no other provision. Tribunal decision in the case of Preena Cables Pvt. Ltd. 2004 (168) E.L.T. 120 was also referred to wherein credit availed earlier was reversed by the appellants under protest and Range Superintendent informed about such reversal it was held that appellants is not entitled to score off the reverse entries and refund claim ought to have...

Bhagat and Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)101TTJ(Mum.)553

1. These three appeals by the assessee for the asst. yrs. 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 are directed against the order of CIT(A)-XII.Since identical issues are involved in these appeals, these are being disposed of with this consolidated order. The only issue in these appeals is with regard to the validity of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961.2. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was clearing and forwarding agent, and that survey under Section 133A was conducted at its business premises on 19th Oct., 2000 during the course of which the assessee surrendered an amount of Rs. 60 lakhs on account of its expenses not being fully verifiable and being supported by only self-made vouchers. The amount of Rs. 60 lakhs was surrendered in four assessment years as under: The learned Counsel submitted that during the course of survey under Section 133A, the statement of Shri Ashok Bhagat, partner of the firm, was recorded and during the cours...

National Plastic Industries Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-1 dated 30-8-2002 at Mumbai for assessment year 1999-2000 in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. We have heard both the parties, perused the records and other applicable legal position.3. The assessee has raised various issues which are of independent nature, therefore, we shall deal with them one by one. "On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) legally erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in allowing depreciation of Rs. 3,19,79,068." 4. In ground No. 1, the issue is regarding optionality of claim of depreciation. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee was fair enough in stating that this issue was covered against the assessee by the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Vahid Paper Converters v. ITO (2006) 98 ITD 165 (Ahd)(SB) wherein ...

Mohamed Ibrahim Khan Vs. Gajanan Rama Parab Gaonkar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom179; 2006(3)BomCR31

Britto N.A., J. 1. This is plaintiffs second appeal arising from R.C.S. No. 103/90. The dispute between the parties is regarding the removal of a stall/gada existing in Survey No. 213/11 of Piligao village in Bicholim Taluka in which the defendant carries on business in the name and style of 'Brahmo Centre Store'. This second appeal was admitted on 23-6-2000 on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the appellate Court, on the finding given by the trial Court that the plot on which the suit structure stands forms a part of Survey No. 213/11 could have reversed the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. (2) Whether the suit could have been dismissed by the Appellate Court on the ground that the plaintiff had no locus standi to maintain the suit. 2. To answer the said substantial questions of law a few facts are required to be set out. The plaintiff claiming to be an Association of the Muslim Community of Piligao and further claiming that the plaintiff is the...

NitIn S/O Manga Shirsat Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR296; 2006(5)BomCR698; 2006(3)MhLj601

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Both writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are clubbed together since common challenge and common question of law is raised by the two petitions. All three petitioners (one in Writ Petition No. 74/2006 and two in Writ Petition No. 540/2006) are elected councillors of the Municipal Corporation of Dhule. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 74/2006, in addition; was also elected as member of the Standing Committee of the said Corporation for two years. He along with 7 others retired as members of the Standing Committee on due completion of their tenure.2. The factual matrix in both the writ petitions is common and undisputed, which can be narrated in brief as follows:General elections of Dhule Municipal Corporation were held on 8th December, 2003. Total 67 Councillors were elected and 5 were co-opted. Thus, the strength of Municipal Corporation is 72. On 30-12-2003, in the first General Body Meeting of the Corporation, Mayor was elected, so als...

Mohammadi Steel Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)MhLj672

ORDERS.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Joydeep Chatterji for the applicants. Notice. Mr. Dilip Patil (Bankar), learned A.P.P. waives service for the respondent/State. 2. Few facts, necessary to understand the controversy between the parties, need to be summarised, as follows: (a) The petitioner Mohammadi Steel Private Ltd., is a company engaged in iron bar manufacturing at M.I.D.C., Dhule. It is alleged by the applicants that the Company is high tension consumer of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board. On 4th March, 1998 authorities of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board lodged a complaint against the petitioners for the alleged offence under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, alleging commission of theft of 3500 units per month of electricity for the period of eighteen months worth Rs. 25,54,798.44 Ps. The authorities concerned, after completion of the investigation, filed charge-sheet against the present applicants. Now, it is numbered as Regular Cri...

Shree Shankeshwar Parshwanath Swetamber Murtipujak Tapagaccha JaIn San ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)BomCR616; 2006(3)MhLj794

Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Heard both sides. This is a petition filed by a Public Charitable Trust, registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (BPT Act) and sought to challenge the orders dated 31st May, 2003 seeks by the Respondent, whereby petitioner's application for claiming exemption certificate from octroi, Bombay Municipal Corporation Exemption from Octroi (Free Gift, etc.) Rules 1966, (for short Octroi Rules) issued under Section 195-1A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 (for short MMC Act). Section 195-lA,and relevant Rule 3 are reproduced as under :-- Section 195-1A. Exemption of gifts, etc., from octroi. -- Subject to such rules as (the Commissioner, with the Approval of the Standing Committee), may from, time to time frame in this behalf, the Commissioner may by general or special order exempt any articles - (i) which are received as a free gift to relieve distress;(ii) which are imported by any charitable institution for a charitable purpose; (iii) --;(iv) --...

Reliance Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom213; 2007(3)BomCR881; 2006(3)MhLj739

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Since common questions of law and facts arise in both these petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The subject-matter of the Writ Petition No. 1956 of 1994 is the premises admeasuring 1478 sq. meters on the 3rd floor of the building 'Reliance Center' at 19, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Bombay. By order dated 23rd January, 1970 passed by the Controller of Accommodation under the provisions of Section 6(4)(a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, hereinafter called as 'the Requisition Act', it had requisitioned the said premises and allotted the same to Anti Corruption Bureau, Prohibition and intelligence Bureau of the Government of Maharashtra and was also partly occupied by Deputy Controller of Rationing, Region-A, Department of Civil Supplies. Writ Petition No. 1679 of 1991 came to be filed by the petitioner challenging the requisition order dated 23rd January, 1970 in view of the judgment of t...