Mumbai Court April 2006 Judgments

ibi Kellogg India (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Income Tax Officer of allowing depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the same was not claimed in the return of income filed by the appellants.2. The only grievance of the assessee is that the assessing officer has computed depreciation and allowed it from the total income and the Commissioner (Appeals) had confirmed the same even enough the assessee has not claimed it. Assessee had filed return of loss on Rs. 13,62,69,110. No depreciation was claimed. It was submitted before the assessing officer that the claim of depreciation is optional and cannot be thrust upon the assessee. The assessee has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Mahendra Mills .According to the Income Tax Officer, the reasons for not claiming the depreciation was that unabsorbed depreciation could not have been carried forward for set off for more than 8 years. The assessee wanted to avail depreciation allo...

Ashwini Anil Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR106; 2006(4)BomCR743; 2006(4)MhLj415

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waives service. By consent of Counsel and at the request of Counsel taken up for hearing. 2. A caste certificate was issued to the Petitioner on 25th March 2003 certifying that she belongs to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe. The Second Respondent was moved for verification. The Police Inspector attached to the Vigilance Cell submitted a report dated 16th April 2005. The claim of the Petitioner to belong to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe came to be rejected by the Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 15th October 2005 which is impugned in these proceedings. The Scrutiny Committee has adverted to the fact that the Research Officer attached to the Vigilance Cell has formed an opinion that the traits and characteristics of the Petitioner did not match with the Thakur Scheduled Tribe. The claim of the Petitioner was consequently rejected on the ground that the affinity test was no...

The Commissioner of Customs (imports) Vs. Pride Foramer

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR737; 2006(204)ELT381(Bom); 2006[4]STR401

R.M. Lodha, J.1. M/s.Pride Foramer-the respondent imported the rig 'pride Pennsylavania' into India in the month of March, 1999 to carry out a contract obtained from M/s.Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited (for short, 'ONGC'). M/s.J.M.Baxi-a clearing house agent filed the Bill of Entry on behalf of m/s.Pride Foramer for the clearance of the said rig for home consumption subject to re-export. The value of the rig 'Pride Pennsylvania' was declared as US $ 17,682,690 in the Bill of Entry. The assessing officer accepted the invoice value on the basis of valuation certificate issued by M/s.Bureau Veritas. Rs.34,48,94,785/-was paid as customs duty. On the basis of intelligence gathered by the officer of Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (Import), the investigation commenced and based on the preliminary investigation, the rig 'pride Pennsylvania' was placed under Seizure on 26.09.2001. M/s.Pride Foramer on 27th September, 2001 requested the Commissioner to allow them to continue...

Tata Ssl Ltd., a Company Incorporated Under the Companies Act, 1956 an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR722; 2006(204)ELT225(Bom)

R.M. Lodha, J.1. Tata SSL Limited-the first petitioner (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Company') exported consignments of Cold Rolled Sheets and Coils (for short, 'the goods') to Nepal by road. The company got the said goods cleared and removed on payment of excise duty. It is the case of the company that all the subject exports are against free foreign exchange. After the said goods were removed from the factory by the company, it is the case of the company that it realised that instead of clearance on payment of duty, the company ought to have removed the said goods under bond in terms of Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The company endeavoured to retrieve the said goods and export the same under the bond but the said goods had already crossed the Nepal border. The company made representation to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise as well as the jurisdictional of Assistant Commissioner for rebate claims. However, by the letter dated 26th July, the Superinten...

Sudhir Narayan Sawant Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR485; 2007(3)BomCR452; 2006(44)MhLj96

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The petitioner is in the employment of the Fourth respondent as a lecturer and has been allotted to work in an educational institution conducted by the Fourth respondent at Nagthane in the Taluka and District of Satara. The service details regarding the petitioner are as follows:i) Between 20th July, 1992 to 17th October, 1992; 11th July, 1993 to 4th June, 1994; 29th August, 1994 to 24th August, 1995; 2nd September, 1996 to 15th October, 1996 the petitioner was appointed in leave vacancies;ii) From 20th July, 1998 to 30th April, 1999 the petitioner was appointed on clock hour basis;(iii) Between 12th October, 1999 till 19th June, 2000 the petitioner was appointed during the period of study leave of an existing teacher by a local selection committee;iv) Between 12th September, 2000 to 30th April, 2001, the appointment of t...

Vijay Balbhim Pawar Vs. Secretary, Home Department and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR108; 2006(6)BomCR336; 2006(44)MhLj129

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. By this petition, the order dated 29th August, 2002 passed in Original Application No. 298 of 2001 by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is impugned by the petitioner. He seeks writ of mandamus directing respondents to consider his claim for the post of police constable.2. Father of the petitioner was a police constable and retired from service on 1st October, 1987. Being duly qualified, the petitioner submitted his application. In the course of recruitment of constables in 1992, along with certificate regarding his participation in National Karate Championship event held at Kareem Nagar, Andhra Pradesh. He was found suitable in written test and was called for interview. He secured only 16 marks and as such was not considered eligible for the appointment.3. According to the petitioner, he was deliberately allotted one mark less than the passing marks (17 out of 50). In fact he has acquired gold medal in Judo-Karate and as such was entitled to get grace marks....

G.M. Breweries Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR110; 2006(6)BomCR382; 2006(44)MhLj43

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. By these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, a declaration has been sought to the effect that the expression 'Maximum Retail Price' as defined in Rule 2(d) of the Maharashtra Potable Liquor (Fixation of Maximum Retail Prices) Rules, 1996 excludes octroi duty. An appropriate writ has been sought for quashing and setting aside a circular dated 23rd January, 2005 issued by the Commissioner of State Excise in the State Government. By that circular, an earlier direction dated 8th October, 2001 came to be rescinded and it was clarified that the maximum retail price shall be declared so as to include octroi duty.2. In our view, the answer to the petition lies in the plain language of Rule 2(d). Rule 2(d) defines the expression 'Maximum Retail Price' as follows:2(d) 'Maximum Retail Price' means maximum price at which Potable Liquor on pack form may be sold to ultimate consumer and there shall be printed on each pack the words 'maximum or Max. Retail Price_...

Novus Pharmaceutical Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR112; 2006(6)BomCR393; 2006(5)MhLj569

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. By consent of Counsel and at the request of Counsel taken up for hearing.2. All the petitioners who are, or as the case may be, were licensed pharmaceutical units within the jurisdiction of the principal Bench of this Court at Mumbai, moved these proceedings initially before the Aurangabad Bench seeking a postponement of a notification dated 30th June, 2005 by which the Drugs and Cosmetics (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2005 were notified. The Petition was transferred before the Principal Seat of the Court at Mumbai. The grievance of the petitioners is that as a result of the amendments that have been brought to the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules by the amended provisions, several changes were required to be made by manufacturers in respect of plant, equipment, machinery and maintenance of records. The submission was that this would involve a high cost for which funds were required to be raised. The petitioners received noti...

Subhash Vithal Khaire and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR88; 2006(6)BomCR418

Marlapalle B.H., J.1. The petitioners, who are the residents of Pune City, have moved this public interest petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and challenged the order dated 6.2.1991, which is stated to be a compromise order in terms of the Minutes of the meeting dated 6.2.2001 and the order dated 24.4.1991 passed by the Minister for Urban Development, Government of Maharashtra. The petitioners have also challenged the subsequent orders/directions flowing from the order dated 24.4.1991, namely, the order dated 20.12.1994 passed by the Additional Collector and Competent Authority and the order dated 15.6.1995 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 14. In short, the petitioners claim that the land in Final Plot Nos. 477 and 477-A of Parvati under the Municipal Corporation area of Pune city which was entirely reserved for the Pune Telephones (Department of Telecommunication-Government of India) in the Development Plan sanctioned by the State Government, and admeasur...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. I.G. Petrochemicals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC270

1. The respondents are registered as a 100% E.O.U. and engaged in the manufacture and clearance of phthalic anhydride falling under Chapter 29 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. After getting permission from the Development Commissioner for clearance of the excisable goods into Domestic Tariff Area, they approached the Customs authorities at J.N.P.T. from time to time for fixation of the value of the goods to be cleared into DTA on the basis of prices of imported consignments of phthalic anhydride during the relevant period. Accordingly the appellants were paying duty on such value fixed by the Customs department in respect of DTA clearances. Show cause notices were issued asking the respondents to show cause why the local invoice value which was higher than the value fixed by the Customs department should not be considered for charging duty in respect of DTA clearances. However, the Assistant Commissioner dropped the proceedings holding that the duty has been correctly paid on the b...