Mumbai Court May 2006 Judgments

Indian Plywood Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)100ITD318(Mum.)

1. This Special Bench has been constituted to consider the following question: Whether in determining the profits and gains of business or profession for purposes of Section 32AB, 'any amount' withdrawn from reserves or provisions and credited to the profit and loss account is to be reduced from the profit computed in accordance with requirements of Parts II & III of Schedule-VI to the Companies Act (1) 1956 and whether ascertained liabilities referred to in Clause (v) of Section 32AB is relevant only for addition in the profits and not for reduction 2. The assessee in this case is a limited company engaged in the manufacture of plywood and particle boards, having factories at various places. The assessee was manufacturing concrete shuttering plywood with the help of specially treated chemical to make it extremely strong, durable and insect resistant. The plywood was specifically designed for use in construction work and the Central Excise department has treated the concrete shutt...

Indian Plywood Manufacturing Co. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)102TTJ(Mum.)362

1. This Special Bench has been constituted to consider the following question : Whether, in determining the profits and gains of business or profession for purposes of Section 32AB, 'any amount' withdrawn from reserves or provisions and credited to the P&L a/c is to be reduced from the profit computed in accordance with requirements of Parts II and III of Sechedule VI to the Companies Act (1 of 1956) and whether ascertained liabilities referred to in Clause (v) of Sub-section (3) of Section 32AB is relevant only for addition in the profits and not for reduction 2. The assessee in this case is a limited company engaged in the manufacture of plywood and particle boards, having factories at various places. The assessee was manufacturing concrete shuttering plywood with the help of specially treated chemical to make it extremely strong, durable and insect resistant. The plywood was specifically designed for use in construction work and the Central Excise Department has treated the con...

Rama Newsprints and Paper Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC541

1. This is a stay application against, the denial of credit amounting to Rs. 12,85,33,777/- and imposition of penalty of equal amount under Rule 571U(6) on the manufacturing unit namely M/s. Rama Newsprints & Paper Ltd, imposition of penalty of Rs. three crore each on Shri C.U.Mangtani, Vice President, Shri R.M. Pherwani, Deputy Manager, Shri Vasu Ramsinghani, Chairman cum Managing Director, Smt. R.M. Gwalani, Ex.General Manager and Shri P.K. Upadhyay, Consultant of M/s. Rama Newsprints & Paper Ltd, and penalty of Rs. 10 lacs each on Shri Jignesh Desai, Senior Assistant and Shri R.C. Bhardwaj, Senior Assistant of M/s. Rama Newsprints & Paper Ltd under Rule 209A, 210 and 226 of the Erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 represented by Shri V. Shridharan, advocate. Another penalty of Rs. 50 lacs has been imposed on Shri V.D.Sharma, the retired Superintendent under Rule 209A and 210 of the Erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944.who is being represented by Shri Suryanarayan, Advoc...

The Eternal and FakruddIn K. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC547

1. This is a stay application against the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 5,11,605/- (Rs. Five Lakhs Eleven Thousand Sox Hundred Five Only) and imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,56,000/- (Rs. Five Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand only) on the appellant M/s Eternal, Mumbai and a fine of Rs. 5,56,00/- (Rs. Five Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand only) on Shri Fakruddin K.Chitalawala upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Embroidery Thread which was classified by them under Chapter Heading 5403.41 and were availing small scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93 as there clearance were below the exemption limit. However, certain searches were conducted in their premises wherein some records were seized and it was considered by the department that what was manufactured by them was sewing thread classifiable under Chapter Heading 5401.20 and since the appellants were clearing the same under brand name belonging to other, the same was not entitled to exemption...

Century Rayon Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC293

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai holding that the benefit of exemption from payment of duty in terms of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not available to re-import of the goods in question namely Rayon Tyre Cord Yarn.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein exported 25.904 Mts of Rayon Tyre Yarn vide Shipping Bill dt. 18.3.1993 to a company in Germany, which was to process it into 'Single Ply Twisted Cord' for making Two Ply Twisted Cord'. However, during the course of processing, defects were noted in the form of discoloration of yarn, sticky filament, breakages of yarn etc. and consequently it was agreed between the exporter and the foreign buyer to send the goods back to India. The re-imported goods were subjected to first check examination which revealed that identity of goods remained intact in respect of 18 pallets of exported yarn but in respect of 61 pallets, the identity was not established ...

Mustan Taherbhai Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC561

1. The appellants herein who are inter-alia engaged in the business of ship breaking, purchased a vessel named "Vishva Yash" in 1997 under a tender floated by M/s Shipping Corporation of India (herein after referred to as "SCI") The jurisdictional Superintendent of Customs at Jamnagar assessed the bill of entry dated 20-5-1997 filed by the appellants (after the Bill of Sale of April 1997) duty of Rs. 78,73,005/-. Against the order of assessment, the appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) who allowed the appeal by holding that the customs duty liability had been discharged at the relevant time when the ship built by Hindustan Shipyard Limited in their licensed bonded warehouse in 1973 was sold to SCI and imported by them, and there exists no authority under the Customs Act to re-assess the duty already paid, at the time of breaking-up of the vessel. He also held that there was no need for filing a fresh bill of entry at the time of breaking-up. The Reve...

Brijmohan Laxminaryan Ruia Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for condonation of delay of 26 days filing the above appeal is allowed as, we are satisfied with the reason given in the application for condonation of delay.2. Now we take up the stay application. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) plus Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) imposed upon the appellant school, we found that it was possibleto hear and decide the appeal itself at this stage, and hence proceed to do so with the consent of both sides after granting prayer for waiver.3. The authorities below have held that appellant herein was leviable to service tax as they were providing services of "Mandap Keeper" by letting out a open land for social and other functions, for consideration. It is the contention of the appellants that the open space belongs to trust and is in the possession of B.L Ruia Trust, who is also running the school. Thus the permission is req...

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Oman International Bank Saog

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)100ITD285(Mum.)

The Hon'ble President, ITAT, vide his order dated 19-11-2004, has constituted this Bench for considering the following issues: Whether as per existing provisions even after the amendment with effect from 1-4-1989, it is obligatory on the part of the assessee to prove that the debt written off by him is indeed a Bad Debt for the purpose of allowance under Section 36(1)(vii)? This Bench has been constituted because of cleavage of opinion among the Benches of the Tribunal. The Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Anil H.Rastogi [2003] 86 ITD 193 (Mum.) (TM) has taken the view that the deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) can be allowed if the assessee writes off the debt as irrecoverable in his books of account. According to this decision, it is not necessary for the assessee to demonstrate that the debt has become bad and it is left to the prudence and judgment of the businessman to consider it as bad and irrecoverable debt and writing off the same in the books...

Spacetech Cryo Equipments Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit arise out of the common Order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Duty confirmed against M/s.Spacetech Cryo Equipments Pvt. Ltd. is Rs. 1,80,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Eighty Thousand Only) together with equal amount of penalty and the duty confirmed against M/s. Spacetech Equipments and Structural Pvt.Ltd. is Rs. 36,000/- (Rs. Thirty Six Thousand only) together with equal amount of penalty. M/s. Specetech Equipments and Structural Pvt. Ltd. have paid the entire duty of Rs. 36,000/- (Rs. Thirty Six Thousand only).2. The issue relates to valuation covering the period November, 2003 to May, 2004 and further, the issue is the eligibility of the Motor vehicle for transport of goods other than petrol driven, to the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002.3. We have heard both sides. The issue before us does not relate to classification of goods. As regards the claim of the applicant that they are eligible to benefit of exemption under the N...

ito Vs. Sherawali Majur Kamghar Sahakari

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. Both these appeals are revenues appeals for assessment years 1995-96 and 1997-98 directed against orders of learned Commissioner (Appeals), Thane dated 17-5-1999 and 7-1-2003 respectively and since common issues are involved, both these appeals are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. In both the years, the revenue has raised various grounds but the only grievance of the revenue in both the years is that the assessee is not entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi).3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is a labour co-operative society which is registered under Maharashtra Co-op.Societies Act. In both these years, the assessee filed returns of income showing Nil income after claiming deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi). The assessee has also filed copies of trial balance, profit and loss account and audit report as required under the Maharashtra Co-op. Societies Act in both years along with return of income. However, the asses...