Mumbai Court April 2006 Judgments

Gauri Plasticulture (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The lower appellate authority has allowed the refund but has held that the amount of Rs. 8,41,043/- cannot be refunded in cash to the appellants but has to be credited to their RG 23A account, since the amount was paid by debit from the RG 23A account in November, 2000 after surrendering the registration in September, 2000. The following decisions of the Tribunal have been cited in the course of the hearing of this case: It has been held in this case that since duty has been paid through Modvat credit account i.e. RG 23A Part-II account, the refund in respect of excess duty paid, if otherwise admissible, has to be given in RG 23A Part-II account and not to be paid in cash. (ii) Purvi Fabrics & Texturise (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur-II It has been held in this case that there is no legal provision existing for refund of Cenvat/Modvat credit either by cash or by cheque, the only exception is where inputs are used in exported goods and manufacturer is unable to use the credit, refund t...

Tata Sons Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)104ITD45(Mum.)

1. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 30th Aug., 1991 for asst. yr. 1985-86.2. First ground in the appeal is against the disallowance of Rs. 2,00,398 in respect of debts written off due from CBS Gramaphone & Tapes India Ltd. This ground was not pressed at the time of hearing and hence, the same is dismissed as such.3. Next ground relates to the disallowance of Rs. 19,53,000 being liability for expenses on behalf of Tata Mills Ltd. Similar ground had come up before the Tribunal in assessee's own case for asst. yr.1984-85 in ITA Nos. 3624 and 3845/Mum/1991, dt. 21st Jan., 2000. The said ground was allowed by the Tribunal in the aforementioned appellate order to which, one of us (the AM) is a party. Hence, following the earlier order of the Tribunal, this ground of the assessee is allowed.4. Next ground is against not treating the company as a financial company as per Section 40A(8) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act). This ground was also a ma...

Tata Sons Limited Vs. the Deputy Cit, Special Range-1

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. On a difference of opinion between the Members, the following point of difference has been referred by the President, ITAT under Section 255(4) of the IT Act, 1961, for my opinion as Third Member: Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the assessee company is a company in which the public are substantially interested as per Section 2(18) of the Act.2. The assessee, in its return of income as well as by its letter dated 15-7-87, had claimed itself to be a company in which the public are substantially interested and it was also stated that the company was covered Under Section 104(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short "the Act"].3 The AO noticing the finding of the CIT Under Section 263 for AY 1984-85, and stating that the facts relating to the issue being same as last year held that the company was not a company in which public are not substantially interested as it did not fulfill the conditions laid down Under Section 2(18) of the Act.4. The CIT in ...

Mayur M. Kothari Vs. Jt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) XXII dated 21-5-2001 at Mumbai and arises out of assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The relevant assessment year is 1997-98.2. We have heard both the sides and have also perused the materials placed on record and applicable legal provisions.3. The assessee has raised multiple grounds in this appeal which are independent in nature, therefore, we deal with them one by one.4. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 deal with common issue of disallowance of a sum of Rs. 53,073 out of ad hoc expenses and depreciation on motor car on account of personal use of the same.5. Briefly stated facts in this case are that the assessee claimed vehicle expenses at Rs. 1,62,957 and depreciation at Rs. 1,55,479. The assessing officer disallowance 1/6th of the same for the reason that no log book was maintained and the personal use of the motor car could not be ruled out. On appeal, the lea...

Phakt Overseas and Mr. Virendra Thakkar Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR170; 2007(207)ELT223(Bom)

R.M. Lodha, J.1. We are informed by Mr.P.B.Vaishnav, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Group VII, New Custom House, Mumbai that the petitioners have now revalidated the Bank Guarantee No. BG/0/148 dated 25th April, 2006 valid upto 15th April, 2007 for the sum of Rs.1,80,543/- issued by Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd., Fort Branch. The zerox copy of the Bank Guarantee dated 26th April, 2006 sent by the advocate for the petitioners is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification purposes. 2. In view thereof, we dispense with the personal presence of Mr.P.B.Vaishnav, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Group VII. 3. We heard Mr.S.N.Panda, advocate for the petitioners and Mr.Y.R.Mishra, advocate for the revenue. 4. The petitioners, by means of this writ petition, have principally prayed that the respondents 2 to 5 be directed to allow the petitioners to clear their goods imported vide Bill of Entry No. 1419/62 dated 3.6.1996 and issue detention certificate for the entire period of det...

Shri Parshuram Prabhakar Uparkar Vs. Shri Tukaram Bhagwan Barde and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)BomCR501; 2006(5)MhLj598

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Rule2. Learned Counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable and heard forthwith so as to decide both the petitions at the stage of admission. 3. By these petitions, the Petitioners, who are the District Party President and elected member of Shivsena Party, seek to challenge the order dated 28th March, 2006 passed by Respondent No. 29 -Collector giving recognition to group of Respondent Nos.1 to 28 as an independent group called 'Swabhimani Sindhudurg Vikas Gat' in Zilla Parishad, Sindhudurg. 4. A brief resume of the facts leading to the present controversy may be stated. Sindhudurg Zilla Parishad Elections were held in January / February, 2002. It appears that Shivsena and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had formed Pre-Poll alliance and contested the said election on symbols of respective parties and as per nomination of their candidates. Respondent Nos.1 to were nominated as candidates of Shivsena Party and were elected. In all, 30 can...

Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. Wockhardt Hospital and Heart Inst ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(200)ELT15(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. These two appeals are filed by the revenue under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the issue involved in these appeals are common, both these appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment.2. These appeals are filed against the orders passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Branch at Mumbai ('the Tribunal' for short) on 13/2/04 and 13/8/04 respectively. The question before the Tribunal was, where the imported goods cleared without payment of duty under a conditional exemption notification are confiscated with an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation and if the option is not exercised by the owner, whether the revenue is entitled to recover customs duty payable on such goods The Tribunal held that on confiscation, the goods vest in the government and the liability to pay duty under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 would arise only if the owner opts to redeem the goods by paying the redempti...

Tata Memorial Centre Vs. Tata Memorial Hospital Kamgar Sanghatana and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR464; 2006(6)BomCR887; 2006(4)MhLj461

V.C. Daga, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the rival parties. Perused petition and counter affidavit. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 12th October, 2001 passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 1272 of 1993 by the Industrial Court, Mumbai holding that the petitioner- hospital has resorted to unfair labour practice prescribed under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ('MRTU & PULP Act' for short) with further direction to treat the date of birth of respondent No. 2 (the original complainant No. 2) as 31st August, 1937 and to treat him retired on completion of 60 years i.e. on 31st August, 1997 with further direction to make payment of wages and monetary benefits to respondent No. 2 for the period during which he was not allowed to work. The Facts : 3. The facts giving rise to the present petition, in nutshell, are that the petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act ...

Swam Mills Ltd., a Company Incorporated Under the Companies Act, 1956 ...

Court: Mumbai

R.M. Lodha,J.1. The petitioners are a composite Textile Mill engaged in manufacture of cotton yarn, man-made yarn, cotton fabrics and man-made fabrics as well as the processing amongst other activities. For the period from October, 1994 to February, 1997, the petitioners were served with 14 Show Cause Notices for recovery of differential duty of approximately Rs. 50 lakhs. The said show cause notices were adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II vide Order-in-original No. 781/398/97 to 794/411/97 dated 12th November, 1997, confirming the demands covered thereunder along with interest. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise also imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. There being incorrect computation, he directed the Range Superintendent to verify figures and work out the fresh demand. The Range Superintendent re-worked the duty amount of Rs. 9,40,753/-and issued a demand notice on 18th May, 1998 requiring the petitioners to pay the said amount along with pe...

Gangadhar Balaji Tappe Vs. Government of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR899; 2006(4)MhLj394

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. As affidavit is already filed and there are no reasons to postpone final disposal particularly when the question involved can be summarily decided.2. Heard Mr. P.V. Kaslikar, learned Advocate for petitioner; Mr. A. Parihar, learned AGP for respondent No. 1 and Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 4.3. Petitioner is in employment of respondent No. 2. He was appointed as Primary Teacher on 12-7-1971 and is in continuous employment of the respondent No. 2, without any break in service.4. Petitioner had acquired qualification of B.A. and B.Ed. in 1985. On the basis of existing policy of the State and qualification acquired by the petitioner, he was awarded pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2600 with effect from 1-7-1995, by order dated 10-11-1995 by posting of the petitioner in the said pay-scale in the category of teachers who can be awarded higher grade scale to the extent of 25% stre...