Mumbai Court September 2006 Judgments

Pharmalab Engineering (i) Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(114)ECC8

1. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the benefit of Notification No. 51/93 dated 28/02/93 to the appellant's products "Packing Inspection Table" classified by them under Chapter heading 8422.90. The notification in question grants exemption to all goods falling under heading 8422.90, other than the parts. Undisputedly, the goods fall under heading 8422.90. However, the benefit of the Notification has been denied to the appellants on the ground that the said "Packing Inspection Table" cannot be considered to be a complete machine, inasmuch as the same is used only for visual inspection of filled/sealed bottles before labeling operation. The revenue authorities have not considered the said use of the table as the part of whole procedure of packing operation.2. On the other hand, the appellants have contended that the machine used for inspection of filled/sealed bottles/vials before their packing has its own drive. Bottles/vials put on the table move forward automatically. Tha...

ircon International Ltd., Rao Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC347

1. As a common issue is involved in all the three appeals, the same are being disposed of by a common order. All the appellants imported Motor Grader MG 330 and sought benefit of exemption from payment of Customs duty in terms of the Notification No. 11/97-Cus dated 01/03/97, as amended by Notification No. 73/97-Cus dated 03/10/99 and Notification No. 01/98 dated 21/01/98 and the successor Notifications No. 23/98-Cus dated 02/06/98 and No. 20/99-Cus dated 28/02/99. Relevant entries in all the above Notifications are identical, which granted exemption to several items of machinery utilized for road construction. The appellants claimed the benefit of items covered by the entries in the Notifications "Surface Dressing Equipment (Self Propelled) (Chips Spreader)".2. Vide impugned order, the Commissioner has denied the benefit of Notification to Motor Grader MG 330 on the finding that the same cannot be said to be covered by the entry inasmuch as the same is not used for Surface Dressing o...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Mardia Tubes Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)8STJ393CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. Being aggrieved with the order with that part of the impugned order vide which Commissioner has dropped the demand of duty of Rs. 69,522.85, Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri P.K. Katiyar Ld. SDR. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents.2. The Respondents are registered Central Excise units and engaged in the manufacture of Copper & Copper Alloy Products, Zinc Products, Tin Products & Copper and articles thereof falling under Chapter 74,79 & 80 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 where availing Modvat facility.Based upon certain seizure in Sept., 93 and detailed investigations carried out by the officers of Division X, a number of irregularities and misuse of Modvat facility by the aforementioned units were detected and a show cause notice issued in May, 1995. It was, inter alia, alleged in the Show Cause Notice that M/s. MTL and M/s. MEL have availed excess Modvat credit & deemed credit no available them and in certain cases also they...

Commissioner of Customs (Gen.) Vs. Akm Trading Corporation

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein (hereinafter referred to as importer) imported 41,958 Mtrs of goods declared as "Processed Cotton Fabrics" and filed Bill of Entry dated 3-3-2001 for clearance, claiming exemption from payment of Customs duty under the DFRC scheme and produced DFRC dated 12-10-2000, which described duty free import items as processed cotton fabrics and export item as "Cotton Processed made-ups other than the grey". During the course of assessment of the Bill of Entry there was a doubt as to whether the goods allowed for import should be 100% cotton fabrics or processed fabrics containing more than 50% cotton content and remaining either polyester or nylon, etc. and, therefore, the matter was referred to the DGFT, New Delhi under cover of letter dated 7-3-2001. In response thereto vide letter dated 23-5-2001 of DGFT, the Foreign Trade Development Officer informed that - "it had been decided not to allow import of the material under question...

Allied Photographies India Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals pertain to the same assessee, involve common issues and were heard together. As a matter of convenience, therefore, both of these appeals are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order.2. We will first take up assessee's appeal for the assessment year 1992-93 i.e. IT A No. 6410/Mum./96. The appeal is directed against Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dated 31-7-1996 in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) of B the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1992-93.3. In the first ground of appeal, the assessee is aggrieved of Commissioner (Appeals)'s confirming the disallowance of Rs. 40,000 under Section 37(2A) of the Act.4. Having heard the rival contentions on the issue and having perused the material on record, we find that the disallowance has been made on the basis of accepted past history of the case and in the absence of details. However, in the past, 10% ad hoc disallowance has been confirmed by the C Commissioner (Appeals) and accepted ...

City Transport Corpn. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. Since common issue is involved in all these appeals, the same are being disposed of by the common order for the sake of convenience.2. The only issue arising in these appeals, relates to Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) under Section 194C read with Section 201 (A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) as well as charging of interest under Section 201 (1 A) of the Act.3. Briefly stated the facts are these : The assessee is a firm engaged in transporting goods mainly for Asian Paints Ltd. and its sister concern Hindustan Mineral Products from their factories at Ankleshwar to any place in India, mainly south India. The assessee firm does not own any trucks but hires the same from different parts for the purpose of transporting goods of the above parties. A survey was conducted at the premises of the assessee but books of account were not found since, according to the assessee, the books were lying in their branch office in Ankleshwar. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to produce books of ac...

Arvind Motasha Vs. Asstt. Cit, Range 9(3)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order dated 19-12-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 199293.2. Although the assessee has raised three grounds of appeal, and several sub-grounds of appeal thereunder, the solitary grievance of the assessee is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 22,50,000 as undisclosed income of the assessee. The addition is made in the hands of the assessee on the basis that an NRI gift of Rs. 20,00,000 received under the Remittance of Foreign Exchange (Immunities) Scheme, 1991 by one M/s Vishwamurti Trading Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. in which assessee was a director, was a bogus gift arranged by the assessee and the assessee paid Rs. 20,00,000 being amount of the gift, plus service charges of Rs, 2,50,000 to arrange this bogus gift, out of his undisclosed income....

Municipal Corporation of the City of Pune, a Body Corporated Under the ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR132; 2006(5)BomCR511; 2006(6)MhLj454

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Advocate for the Petitioner and the Respondents. 2. Respondent No. 1 is a Chartered Accountant. He was served with a notice of payment of tax by the petitioner -Pune Municipal Corporation. He challenged the said notice by filing Appeal before the Court of Principal Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, vide Municipal Appeal No. 72 of 1988. The Appeal was allowed and the assessment made by the Corporation was set aside. Against the said Order, the Petitioner filed Civil Appeal No. 829 of 1989 before the District Judge, Pune. The said Appeal was dismissed by the District Judge, Pune, vide Order dated 2.3.1991. Against the said order, the Pune Municipal Corporation - Petitioner, has filed this writ petition. 3. A short question is involved in this Petition and that is whether user of the premises by the Respondent No. 1 for his profession of Chartered Accountant can make him liable to taxes which can be levied in respect of premises used for the purpose of trade and ...

A. Satheesan, Assistant Director (Qa), Directorate of Quality Assuranc ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR19; [2007(112)FLR723]; 2006(6)MhLj456

V.M. Kanade, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 20th June, 2006 in Original Application Nos.871/2000 and 693 of 2002. The petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the same benefits to the petitioners as were granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in Original Application No. 757 of 1990. 2. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the present petition are as under :3. The petitioners initially joined the services in Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals (DGS&D;), Department of Supply, as Examiners of Stores (Textile / Engineering) in the pay scale of Rs. 425-700 (PR). It is an admitted position that the pay scale of Draughtsman was similar to that of the petitioners at the relevant time. On 1st February, 1988, the pay scale of the Draughtsman was revised. A representation was made by some of Examiners of Stores and a req...

Bradma of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue in dispute in the present appeal is the correct classification of integrated circuits (software for imported postage franking machines) imported by the appellants herein and seeking clearance under Customs Tariff Heading 8542.50. According to the department, the goods are parts of franking machines and hence classifiable under CTH 8470.90 which covers franking machines and parts thereof.Anjaleem Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad, the apex court has held that even a programmed IC is classifiable under Heading 85.42 and that the essential character of an IC does not change with the programme being embedded therein. Further, on application of Note 2(a) to Section XVI of the Tariff under which Chapters 84 and 85 fall, the ICs in question will remain classifiable under Heading 85.42 as, although they may be parts of franking machines, they are specifically enumerated/included in Heading 85.42. Further, according to Note 5 to Chapter 85, the classification of ICs under CT...