Mumbai Court March 2006 Judgments

Excel Control Linkages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. This application is filed in an appeal against order in Appeal No. SVS/66/NGP/1/2005, dated 24-2-2005 by the said orders. Revenue had demanded duty of Rs. 43,41,250/- under Section 11A(1) and penalty of Rs. 37,11,894/- under Section 11AC and Rs. 6,29,356/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise (2) Rules 2001 along with interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The dispute is regarding denial of SSI benefit of goods manufactured out of components bearing marking "CABLE KRAFT" no brand name is affixed by this manufacturer and the applicants claim the benefit & reply on various decisions of this Tribunal & clarification by CBEC Circular No. 509/5/2000/CX, dated 18-1-2000 and claim that the issue is covered in their favour.3. They also plead financially stringency and circumstances and the pre-deposit required under Section 35F would cause undue hardship.4. There is no doubt with the brand name "CABLE KRAFT" is of M/s.Tuthill Controls Ltd. U...

Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. (Cs) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 1,11,77,500/- (Rs. One Crore Eleven Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand and Five Hundred Only) and penalty of Rs. 500/-(Rs. Five Hundred Only) per day under Section 75, and Rs. 200/-(Rs. Two Hundred only) per day under Section 76 and penalty of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) under Section 77 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1944 arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur who has upheld the levy of taxes and imposition of penalty on the ground that the applicant herein was providing services of clearing and forwarding agents and were therefore rendering or providing taxable services as clearing and forwarding agents.2. We have heard both sides. We find that the applicants were engaged in providing services related to the moving of coal from the Collieries to different destinations of their customers and services provided by them including movement of coal, laisoning with Government aut...

Seema Silks and Sarees Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)103TTJ(Mum.)704

2. The effective ground urged by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the order of the AO, vide which he restricted the deduction under Section 80HHC to Rs. 47,08,796 instead of accepting the claim at Rs. 83,00,505.3. The case of the assessee is that the Revenue authorities erred in not appreciating firstly, that the assessee being engaged wholly in the business of export; the whole of income earned under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" therefore should have been exempted under Section 80HHC(3)(a), and secondly, the margin money earned by the assessee by way of importing the goods on the authority of advance licence and reselling the same in the local market in fact constituted recoupment of cost of purchase and the margin money, constituting encashment of export incentive, therefore, should have been exempted as export incentive receipt under Section 28 r/w Sections 2(24) and 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee filed the re...

Smt. Vidhya Shankar Iyer Vs. Shri Shankar Nagraj Iyer

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR735; 2006(4)BomCR335

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings. The affidavit which is tendered across the bar on behalf of the respondent be filed in the registry in the course of the day.2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks transfer of M.J.Petition No. A-502/2005 from the Family Court, Nagpur to the Family Court No. 3 at Mumbai, where the application moved by the applicant for relief of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is pending. The ground stated in the application is that the applicant is jobless and has no source of income to maintain herself. The applicant is solely dependant on her brother who is presently looking after her needs including the education of her daughter. The applicant has no financial support nor in a position to travel alone all the way to Nagpur to contest divorce petition filed by the respondent husband. Besides, it is stated that the daughter of the applicant Swati is presently aged 3 years and studying in Juni...

Union of India (Uoi), Through the General Manager, Central Railway and ... Overruled

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR9; 2006(4)BomCR768; [2006(110)FLR653]; 2006(4)MhLj119

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. By this petition, Petitioners impugn order dated 6th January, 2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal') in Original Application No. 283 of 2002.2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the present petition are that Respondent No. 1 was initially appointed as a Trains Clerk on 27th May, 1975 and was promoted from time to time. He was last promoted as Booking Supervisor somewhere in January, 1997 and was transferred to Chatrapati Shivaji Terminus, Mumbai, somewhere in December, 1997. The railway administration had received certain information that Respondent No. 1 was indulging in malpractice of overcharging passengers while issuing tickets. In order to verify such information, on 17th April, 1998 decoy check was laid. In the course of such decoy check, it was found that he had overcharged amount of Rs. 5/-for ticket issued to the decoy passenger. Consequently, a Memorandum of events was drawn then and there by the concerned Vigilance ...

Municipal Corporation Vs. the United Western Co-operative Housing Soci ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR734; 2006(3)BomCR683; 2006(4)MhLj412

S.B. Mhase, J.1. This petition is directed as against the judgment and order dated 12.4.1988 passed by the Small Causes Court, Pune in Municipal Appeal No. 70 of 1987 and also against the judgment and order dated 16.4.1990 passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 490 of 1988. Respondent, a co-operative housing society, had constructed a community hall on plot no. 3 in Survey No. 42/43, Maharshi Karvenagar, Pune. The said hall is being constructed for the specific purposes for fostering and encouraging the indoor games and alike community activities for the benefit of the members of the society. The nominal fees are being charged for the use of said hall. On the ground floor the respondent society has constructed five shops and they are let at the monthly rent of Rs.250/-. Since the rateable value of the said property was fixed at Rs.80,000/-and tax was imposed retrospectively from 1.4.1984, even though the actual assessment order was passed on 16th Septembe...

Commissioner of Customs (General) Vs. S.S. Clearing and Forwarding Age ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(198)ELT332(Bom)

ORDER1. The learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.N. Kantawala, the learned Counsel for the Respondent.2. The following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal:(a) Whether for initiating inquiry proceedings under the provisions of the Customs House Agents, Licensing Regulations, 1984 against Customs House Agent, is it necessary or precondition to initiate action against the custom house agent under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962?(b) Whether the inquiry proceedings under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 are independent and distinct from any other penal action or any other proceedings under the provisions of Customs Act, 1961?3. Admit....

Jawahar P. Kanungo Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(199)ELT772(Bom)

1. Heard Mr. Anil Balani, the learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was not right in imposing penalty for the first time without considering written submissions/defense of the appellant. He would also contend that by invoking Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, the penalty could not have been imposed upon the appellant.3. The arguments have no merit. The Tribunal has given solid reasons for imposing penalty of Rs. 25 lacs on the appellant besides confirming the duty demand against the importer firm-USL and confiscation of the goods.4. In Paragraph 16, the Tribunal considered the statement of the appellant and also the statement of Shri N.J. D'costa who happened to be the appellant's employee. The statement of the proprietor of other firm M/s. Jabee & Co. was also considered. Paragraph 16 of the Tribunal's order reads thus:16. Shri Jawahar Kanungo is also liable to penalty, as his i...

Vijaykumar F. Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ129

S.P. Kukday, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent of parties.2. In this revision, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 30-9-2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Jalna, rejecting the application for transfer of R.C.C. No. 494/2002 to the Court of Session for being tried along with Sessions Case No. 56/2003.3. In nutshell, relevant facts are that on 30-8-2002 at 10.30 a.m. there was a quarrel in open plot in front of house of the petitioner in respect of digging. During the quarrel, the parties inflicted Injuries on their rivals. Therefore, two reports in respect of the same incident came to be filed. On the basis of a report filed by the petitioner, offence has been registered under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed in the Court of JMFC, Ambad being Reg. Cri. Case No. 494/ 2002. From rival party, Sanjay Uttamrao Salve filed a report in respect of the same incident. In the repor...

The Oriental Construction Co. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC400

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, confirming duty demand of Rs. 21.22.271/- on 33 numbers of Prestressed concrete girders (hereinafter referred to as PSCG) launched and fixed on the bridge constructed across the river Vashishthi near Chiplun in Ratnagiri District during the period 1.1.92 to 31.3.94, on the ground that the girders were (SIC) goods falling for classification under CET sub-heading 6807.90 , together with interest under Section 11AB, invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, confiscating the girders under Rule 173Q read with Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 3 lakhs, and imposing penalty equal to duty under Section 11AC.2. We have heard both sides. We find that the girders were cast in separate yards, transported from the casting yards to stacking yards and thereafter shifted to the site at piers...