Mumbai Court August 2006 Judgments

Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR85; 2007(2)BomCR729; [2007(112)FLR716]; 2006(6)MhLj497

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Petitioner, by the present petition, seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to appoint the petitioner as a class IV employee in the vocational school run by the said respondents either in place of her deceased husband or any other class IV post.2. The facts, in brief, relevant for decision, are that the petitioner's husband was appointed as a peon in the vocational school run by the respondent No. 3. He expired, while in service, on 16th September, 1996. The petitioner thereupon filed an application for employment on compassionate ground. As there was no favourable response from the respondents, the petitioner also approached the respondent No. 2, whereupon by his letter dated 1st January, 1997 called upon respondent No. 3 to submit its remarks on the grievance made by the petitioner. The request for employment on compassionate ground was again reiterated by the petitioner under her application dated 2nd January, 1997 and, in tha...

Lloyds Metal and Engineers Ltd. Vs. Ccex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides at length. The issue in these two appeals is whether welding electrodes used for repairing and maintenance of machinery items and parts can be allowed Cenvat credit as inputs. In an earlier Single Bench decision in the appellants' own case reported at , such welding electrodes were allowed duty credit as capital goods. However, in these cases, the appellants are seeking duty credit on welding electrodes as inputs. In the Larger Bench's decision in the case of Jaypee Rewa Plant v. CCE , it has been held that welding electrodes used for maintenance and repairing cannot be considered as inputs. In the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. v.CCE, Calcutta-I 1996 (86) 613, the Larger Bench has allowed input duty credit on copper wire used in welding process in the manufacture of metal containers. In the case of Vikram Cement v. CCE, Indore , duty credit on explosives, lubricating oils etc. as well as on welding electrodes used outside the factory and in the mines were allowe...

Jobelle Vs. Ccex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC185

1. Heard both sides. The appellants have taken Cenvat credit on the inputs and packing materials for manufacture of finished goods, namely Tassels and Trimmings falling under Tariff sub-heading 5808.01, which are exempted goods manufactured by the appellants, and which have been exported. The original authority has accepted the "Letter of Undertaking" (LUT) in lieu of bond for export even though the finished goods were exempted. The appellants claim for refund of the Cenvat credit on the inputs and packing materials, has been rejected on the ground that Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 does not allow credit on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods. The claim of the appellants under Clause (v) of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 has also been rejected on the ground that they have exported the goods under LUT and not under Bond.2. Heard the learned DR, who supports the order of the lower authorities. The purpose of the Sub-rule (1) of the Rule...

P.S.L. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The issue involved is the request for amendment of the Shipping Bill filed at Kandla Port and Mudra Port, as a duty free shipping bill as prescribed under the Regulations. The applications were made to the proper officer to amend the declarations on the said shipping bills due to ministerial errors & to add the word "under the claim of 'DFRC'.These amendments, as requested for, could have been granted by the proper officer under the provisions of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the lower authorities following Board's instructions No.6/03-Cus. dated 28-1-2003 did not grant this request as made. Hence the present appeals before me.3. The regulations prescribing the proforma, to be filed, of the Shipping Bill, has been laid down by the Board. These regulations did not prescribe any separate identifiable proforma for exports under DFRC Scheme. Therefore, this is not a case of conversion of a kind of Shipping Bill as provided for under the Regulations into another kin...

Consumer Packaging Services (i) Vs. Ccex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC595

1. Heard both sides. The appellants have taken 50% of the duty credit on the impugned capital goods in the year of receipt of the same and have cleared the capital goods subsequently on payment of the fall duty. They have availed of the remaining 50% of the duty credit in the subsequent year, denial of which has given rise to the present appeal.I find that in a similar case, full duty credit has been allowed by another Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v.CCE, Pondicherry 4. Rule 4(2)(a) & (h) of Cenvat Rules, 2001, as it existed at the relevant time, is reproduced below: (a) The Cenvat credit in respect of capital goods received in a factory at any point of time in a given financial year shall be taken only for an amount not exceeding 50% of the duty paid on such capital goods in the said financial year. (b) The balance Cenvat credit may be taken in any financial year subsequent to the financial year in which the capital goods were received in the factory o...

Jai Plastics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for condonation of delay of three days in preferring the above appeals pre allowed, as we are satisfied with the explanation that the appeals could not be filed either on 4th or 5th July, 2006 due to torrential rains in Mumbai.2. Now we take up the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty confirmed against all three applicants and penalty on M/s. Jyoti Plastic Works Pvt. Ltd. On hearing both sides, we find prima facie force in the submission of the applicants that while the case of the Revenue is that M/s. N.D. Patel and M/s. Jai Plastics are dummy units and that M/s. Jyoti Plastic Works Pvt. Ltd. is the real unit and that the clearances of N.D. Patel and Jai Plastics and required to be clubbed along with the clearances of Jyoti Plastic Works for the purpose of determining eligibility to SSI exemption and consequent duty demand, the Commissioner has confirmed demand against each of the three applicants, viz. Rs. 6,15,017/- against Jyoti Plastic Works, Rs. 10,...

Dwarikesh Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Asst. Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)104ITD295(Mum.)

1. A difference of opinion has arisen between the Members over Miscellaneous Applications by the assessee seeking reconsideration of the common order of the Tribunal dated 30^thAugust, 2001 and therefore a reference was made to the Third Member, stated to be on the following points: (i) Whether Under Section 254(2), the Tribunal can enlarge the scope of the controversy by itself examining the correctness of the findings of fact already given by the first appellate authority. (ii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed an error in not correctly understanding the factual findings which tantamount to an error rectifiable Under Section 254(2) of the I.T. Act. (iii) Whether facts and circumstances of the case revealed that the assessee has adopted a method of accounting of interest on cash basis applicable to both interest earned as well as interest paid and if so, Tribunal has committed an error in not understanding the correct facts. (iv) Whethe...

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Roxon Oy

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)291ITR275(Mum.)

1. The neatly identified legal issue that we are required to adjudicate in this Revenue's appeal is whether or not the profits on sale of equipment supplied by the assessee-company for a consideration of Rs. 25,61,29,696 on the facts of this case, are liable to be taxed in India.2. This grievance has been raised by the Revenue by way of the following grounds of appeal: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the receipt of Rs. 25,61,29,696 by the assessee formed part of execution of turnkey project with Nava Seva Port Trust and that being one integrated contract, it could not be split up as constituting separate activities and thereby erred in holding that profits arising to the assessee from such activities performed outside India are not chargeable to tax in India. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in a...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Roxon Oy

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)106ITD489(Mum.)

1. The neatly identified legal issue that we are required to adjudicate in this Revenue's appeal is whether or not the profits on sale of equipments supplied by the assessee-company for a consideration of Rs. 25,61,29,696, on the facts of this case, are liable to be taxed in India.2. This grievance has been raised by the Revenue by way of following grounds of appeal: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the receipt of Rs. 25,61,29,696 by the assessee formed part of execution of turnkey project with Nava Sheva Port Trust and that being one integrated contract, it could not be split up as constituting separate activities and thereby erred in holding that profits arising to the assessee from such activities performed outside India are not chargeable to tax in India. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee's claim in respect of receipts of Rs. 25...

Land Acquisition Officer and ors. Vs. Narcinva S.V. Sinai Velingkar an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR731

Kakade P.V., J.1. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the record.2. It appears that by order dated 11/8/2006, Civil Revision Application No. 26 of 2003 Narcinva S.V. Sinai Velingkar v. Land Acquisition Officer reported in : 2006(5)BomCR707 came to be allowed, wherein the question was determined as to when the possession of the acquired property was taken by authorities under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.3. The issue already decided in the Civil Revision Application No. 26 of 2003 would have bearing over the issue involved in the present revision application, so as to determine the quantum of interest amount to be payable. No doubt that the question of liability to pay interest after deposit is made, also is raised in this application which should be, in my considered view, left open for agitation.4. Hence, in view of earlier judgment in (Civil Revision Application No. 26 of 2003), the order dated 17/2/2004 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to ...