Mumbai Court August 2006 Judgments

Uasc/Csl Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

2. Though the assessee has urged as many as four grounds, in effect it is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), holding that article 8 of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation between India and Mauritius did not apply in the instant case of the assessee. It is the case of the assessee that the Commissioner (Appeals) went wrong in holding that the place of effective management is not Mauritius. Further, according to the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have held that no part of assessees profit from the operation of ships was taxable in India in view of article 8(1) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.3. Without prejudice to the above, it is the case of the assessee that the assessee had no permanent establishment in India, as such no part of assessees income was taxable in India, in view of the provisions of article 7(1) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Assessee-company filed the return on 7-8-1998 declaring income at Rs. 1,25,...

Aadam Kasam Shaikh and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ4585

S.P. Kukday, J.1. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar convicted appellants of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). Appellants were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 each, in default, to suffer SI for one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. They were further sentenced to suffer RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default to suffer SI for one year for the offence punishable under Section 201. In addition, the learned Trial Judge convicted appellant No. 1 for offence punishable under Section 407 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer RI for one year. Appellants have impugned this order dated 22nd August, 1997, in the present appeal.2. Prosecution case stated in brief is that Prakash Bankar (PW 10) purchased truck bearing No. MH 09 A-9905...

Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Trioka Textile Industries and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom24; 2006(6)BomCR85

ORDERS.J. Vazifdar, J.1. Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff states that Chamber Summons No. 1014 of 2006 has been taken out to lead secondary evidence.2. A Chamber Summons seeking leave to lead secondary evidence is not necessary. The proceeding is in fact misconceived. A party desiring to lead secondary evidence must do so before the Judge recording the evidence. It is the Judge recording evidence who must decide, if any objection as raised, whether or not to admit the secondary evidence in evidence. If evidence is led before a Commissioner the objection to secondary evidence naturally can only be recorded and not decided by the Commissioner. It is then the Judge hearing the suit who decides the objection.3. An independent application by way of a Chamber Summons or Notice of Motion is neither required nor desirable. It is always open for the party to lead secondary evidence before the Judge recording the evidence/hearing the matter without taking out s...

Shimnit Machine Tools and Vs. Commr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC274

1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva, enhancing assessable value of Button Cells and Battery Cells imported by M/s. Shimnit Machine Tools and Equipment Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Importer) under 4 Bills of Entry and confirmed differential duty demands as a result thereof, confiscating of the imported goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, and since the goods were not available for confiscation, imposing a penalty of Rs. 36,72,659/- under Section 114A in respect of goods covered by 3 Bs/E and penalty of Rs. 28,66,741/- under Section 112(a) in respect of the 4th consignment and imposing penalties of Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs respectively on the Director of the importer company and Shri Sandeep G. Singhvi under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. He has enhanced assessable value of goods covered by Bills of Entry No. 003784, dated 20-8-97 to Rs. 32,65,071 as against the declared Clf value of Rs. 7,68,492; assess...

Alang Marine Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Rajkot, confirming customs duty demand of Rs. 75,03,406/- under Section 28 read with Section 72 together with interest @ 24% p.a. under Section 28AA of the Customs Act by denying the benefit of duty free clearance in terms of notification 16/2000-Cus. dated 1-3-2000 to goods covered by bills of entry No.4/2000-2001 and 5/2000-2001 both dated 25-1-2001, covering "Hull of mini bulk carrier and tug and pusher craft".2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants who are engaged in the activity of ship building had been granted licence for private bonded warehouse under Section 58 of the Customs Act for storage of goods without payment of duty on first importation. Permission was also granted for manufacture/repair/engineering works of ocean going vessels from imported as well as indigenous raw materials in customs bond, under Section 65 by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Bhavna...

Neolex Cables Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC511

2. At the stage of hearing stay applications itself, appeals are heard since the points involved in both of them is one and the same.3. These appeals are filed by the assessee, aggrived by the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai. The issue involved in both the appeals is one and the same as such they are being disposed of by common order.4. The assessee M/s. Neolex Cables, Western Express Highway, Mumbai, are manufacturers of Wires and cables falling under Chapter Heading 8544.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The main raw material of manufacturing wires and cables are cable wires which were procured from various manufacturing units. The appellants were availing Cenvat credit on duty paid on such cable wires under Central Excise Credit Rules, 2002 and the said credit was utilized for the payment of Central excise duties on clearance of their final products i.e. wires and cables. The two Show-Cause-Notices dated 08.12.2004 for the amount of ...

Welspun Zucchi Textiles Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1.2 Earlier the assessee company was the 100% EOU and for the purpose of manufacture of the goods they imported new as well as second hand used machinery and equipments under the EOU scheme and installed the same in the registered premises as per the Exim policy 1997-2000 with effect from dated 1-4-94 EOU could be permitted De-bonding by the approval of Development Commissioner and such De-bonding was subject to payment of duties of Customs and Central Excise applicable at the time of such De-bonding. The Development Commissioner was to permit such De-bonding as a one time option to de-bond on payment of duty on Capital Goods under the prevailing Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) scheme, subject to the factory units satisfying the eligibility criteria as prescribed by Exim Policy.2. The Commissioner, pursuant to a Show Cause Notice dated 29-4-2004 found: (A) 1. The second hand/used capital goods in question were de-bonded on 4-11-99/5-11-99. 2. The depreciated value of the capital...

Prabhat Publicity Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC120

1. A Bill of Entry No 560 dt. 4.3.04 was filed seeking for clearing a printing Machine manufactured in 1995 on a declared CIF value of Rs. 19.96 lakhs.1.2 The goods were examined on 17.3.04 in presence of a chartered Engineers and Asst. Commissioner of 1 CD & CHA Representative. The declared machine was "1 Royal Zenith 5 color offset printing machine with all standard electrical and mechanical accessories 28'x40' year of manufacture 1995 & Sr. No. 368571 and 1 used Adast dominant 715, one color offset printing machine with all standard Electrical & Mechanical accessories, 19"x26" year of manufacture 1995. On examination it was noticed- i the specification like year of manufacture, Sr. No. & other were not there on the machine. iii 4 steel plates having embossed "Royal Zenith" were found pasted on the machines and appeared to be freshly pasted and not part of the original machine. iv One more plate pasted similarly was found to have the following specifications:4. Schal...

Kay Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under the Indian Compa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR89

B.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act 1956 with its registered office at Yamuna Nagar, Haryana and an establishment located on Plot No.B-54, MIDC Area, Satara. It has challenged the legality of the notification issued by the Government of India through Ministry of Labour on 19/10/1990 under Section 5 read with Section 7(1) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the P.F. Act for short), thereby incorporating certain amendments to the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952. In the first amendment the salary limit of Rs.2500/-per month for coverage under the scheme has been enhanced to Rs.3500/-per month and in the second amendment, paragraph 26 has been substituted so that every employee on joining such establishment covered under the P.F. Act would be required to be covered under the scheme right from the first day of his employment rather than waiting for three months. Though the petition was admitted, the ...

Komalsingh Sonusingh Pardeshi and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR67

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard.2. The petitioners seeks writ of mandamus for direction to the respondents to reserve only 5% tenements for allotment to the Government nominees in Scheme No. 248 of the petitioners and further declaration quashing the reservation for Government nominees over and above 5%, in view of the decision of the Apex Court delivered in the matter of (Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame and Ors.) reported in : AIR1990SC630 .3. The petitioner No. 1 was the owner of the properties bearing various survey numbers situate at Lohegaon, Haveli, Pune. On return being filed under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') in respect of the properties held by him, he was declared to be the excess holder under Section 8(4) of the said Act in respect of 2390.12 sq. metres of land. In accordance with the Government Resolution dated 27-8-1986 the petitioner No. 1 applied for exemption of the said pro...