Mumbai Court March 2006 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Percision Components

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The issue relates to classification of Cement capsules manufactured by the respondents. The respondents have claimed classification under sub-heading 2502.29 whereas the department's claim is for classification under sub-heading 2502.90. The lower authorities (both original and appellate) have accepted the claim of the respondents and have classified the goods under sub-heading 2502.29.Shri S.S. Bhagat, learned S.D.R. appearing for the department states that the Board had issued a circular dated 31-12-1998 on a representation of M/s. Mine Aid Products classifying the impugned goods under sub-heading 2502.29. However, he points out that the said circular was withdrawn and a new circular has been issued on 18-10-2000 classifying the very same product under subheading 2502.90 based on a chemical examination report of the Chief Chemist which has been reproduced in the grounds of appeal filed by the department.2. Shri Prakash Shah, learned advocate appearing for the re...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Hewlett Packard India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(107)ECC49

1. The above appeals involve common issues and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The facts giving rise to appeal No. C/391/02 are that on 24.9.2001 M/s. Hewlett Packard India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "HP India") imported a consignment of multi-function machine namely, printer-cum-scanner-cum-fax machine - Model HP Officejet V40 Service and also "printer software" recorded on a compact disk, and sought classification of the printer under Customs Tariff Heading 8471.60 attracting basic customs duty @ 15% ad valorem and software under Chapter Heading 85.24 and claimed exemption from duty in terms of serial No. 285 of the table to notification 17/2001-Cus. The invoice under which both the items were imported did not indicate the value of the items separately and a composite price of US$ 150.27 was indicated therein. Hence the importers indicated the following value in the bill of entry filed for assessment of the imported goods: The department was of...

Kaushal Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC224

1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duties and penalties, we proceed to decide the appeal itself.2. As per facts on record the appellant is Independent Textile Processors. Based upon their declaration, Commissioner of Central Excise vide his order No. 1/98 dt. 27.12.1998 fixed annual capacity of production on provisional basis The said order was subsequently made final, vide order No. 32/99 dt. 14.7.1999 determining the number of chambers as 10.71 chambers including the length of gallery length. On receiving the said order, appellant filed a detailed representation there against vide their letter dt. 23.8.99. Vide para 2 of the said representation, the appellant contested the inclusion of length of galleries for fixing the number of chambers. However, they did not receive any response to the said representation. Subsequently, they were issued show cause notices raising demands for differential duties in terms of the final fixation of Annual Capacity of Production....

Hitendra Kumar Gadecha, Shrenik Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appellant acquired inter alia 22 Special Import Licences (hereinafter referred to as SILs) from/through one Miss Sunita Goel, who came in possession of the same through Ms Vidya Mahadik, Mr Shrenik Mehta. Mr Shrenik Mehta procured the said licences from Mr one Sanjay Rai, who, in tarn, claimed to have got the same from one Mr Rameshchandra. Before the licences were acquired by the appellants herein, they had verified the fact of the issuance of such licences by the office of the DGTF, who published a monthly bulletin in which the licence numbers were appeared. This was done to confirm that the said licences were issued by the competent jurisdictional authority. Along with the original licences, the appellants also received transfer letters and each such transfer letter bore bank attestation verifying the signature of the transferor. Ex facie from the record, it was submitted that none of the 22 SILs had any endorsement/remark/stamp of cancellation of any mark/sign of defacement...

Kedia Agglomerated Marbles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC17

1. The prayer in the application is for condoning the" delay of about 57 days in filing the appeal.2. After hearing both sides, we find that the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner on 31.3.2005 and was issued on 21.4.2005. As per the appellants, the same was received by them on 27.6.2005. As such, the normal period of limitation for filing the appeal expired on or around 27.9.2005, whereas the appeal has been filed on 30.11.2005.3. Explaining the delay, Shri Willingdon Christian, the Ld Advocate for the applicants, submits that their factory situated at GIDC. Halol Dist Panchmal, Gujarat State was completely closed down from 1993-94 onwards and there was not even a watchman left at the said premises to continue as a caretaker. He however agrees that after the department failed to serve a copy of the said letter to them at their factory, they delivered a copy of the same to the peon sitting in their office situated 21, Commerce House, 15, Ropewalk Street, Near Forbes Street, ...

Dr. Rajesh M. Parikh Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These cross appeals arising out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XI, Mumbai dated 4-8-2004 for assessment year 2001-02, were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XI, Mumbai has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,18,24,002 made by the assessing officer by disallowing the loss claimed to be arising out of the transactions in units of Kothari Pioneer Prima Plus Mutual Fund. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XI, Mumbai has erred in holding that incentive received by the assessee on acquiring capital asset could not be deducted to arrive at the cost of acquisition of the capital asset. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XI, Mumbai has erred in not accepting the contention of the assessi...

Shah Diagnostic Institute Private Limited, a Company Incorporated Unde ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)BomCR54; 2008(222)ELT12(Bom); 2006(3)MhLj395

R.M. Lodha, J.1. These two writ petitions raise identical issues; these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In Writ Petition No. 2476 of 1994, the petitioner challenges the order dated 28th August, 1994 passed by the Collector of Customs -II, Mumbai whereby he ordered recovery of the amount of duty of Rs. 3,82,47,105/- from the petitioner and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/-.3. The facts obtaining in Writ Petition No. 2476 of 1994 may be briefly summarised thus:i) The first petitioner M/s. Shah Diagnostic Institute Private Limited applied and was granted import licence bearing No. P/G/2099659 dated 17th December, 1985 for import of MRI Machine.ii) Prior to the grant of import licence dated 17th December, 1985 for import of MRI machine, the first petitioner applied for recommendation certificate to the Director of Health Services, Maharashtra. The said application was processed at various levels and ultimately on 7th September, 1989 the Dire...

Prabhakar S. Thakur Vs. Mahrashtra Housing and Area Development Author ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR305; (2006)IIILLJ187Bom; 2006(4)MhLj685

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By this Appeal, the Appellant is challenging the judgment and order dated 17.12.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing the Writ Petition filed by Respondent No. 1 State of Maharashtra and Respondent No. 2 MHADA. 2. The brief facts are that the Petitioner, who is a retired employee of MHADA, had a grievance that the Appellant is entitled to pensionary benefits and had filed the petition before the Lok Nyayalaya, which is constituted under Section 19 of The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for brevity sake. The said Lok Nyayalaya by its order dated 7.8.2004 had directed the State Government and MHADA to take a decision with regard to implementation of the pension scheme with regard to the Petitioner and also the other persons who are similarly situated. The State Government and MHADA were directed to communicate their decision before the next date. 3. Ultimately, when the matter finally came up before the sa...

Atlas Copco (India) Ltd. Vs. V.S. Samuel, Assistant Commissioner of In ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Bom)361; [2006]283ITR56(Bom)

R.M. Lodha, J.1. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petn. No. 1314 of 2004, Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 6(3), Mumbai and Ors. on 27th July, 2004 and submitted that since the said writ petition has been admitted wherein the issue is involved whether before passing the order under Section 142(2A) an opportunity of hearing needs to be given to the assessee or not and as in the present writ petition the said issue is also raised, this writ petition be also admitted.2. We thought that it would be better if we consider this aspect finally at the admission stage. Hence, we heard the matter accordingly.3. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dt. 11th Nov., 2005, passed by the Asstt. CIT, Range 4(1), Mumbai, whereby he issued direction to the petitioner for a special audit under Section 142(2A) for the asst. yr. 2003-04. The order is challenged on the following grounds :(i) The Asstt. CIT, Ran...

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. Bombay Environmental Actio ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR268

Sinha S.B., J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been preferred by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) whereby the conduct of MCGM had been criticised under the caption 'Certain Disturbing Aspects'.3. The High Court commented that the appellant had admitted that the developers are not providing for any public amenities. The submission of Mr. K.K. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the information sought for had been supplied by the appellant by way of affidavits affirmed by the Chief Engineer (DP) on 14-9-2005 and 15-9-2005 wherein it was pointed out that in terms of Development Control Regulation (DCR) 27, only 5% of the total area was to be designated as 'Amenities' only when the plot area exceeds 2 hectares. In view of the fact that the said DCR 27 was required to be read with DCR 58, as the share of the owner was less than 2 hectares, the lands were permitted to be developed as there was no requirement to provide additional ...