Mumbai Court September 2006 Judgments

icomm Tele Ltd., Brig Krishna Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC157

1. These are applications for waiver of pre deposit of duty demand amounting to Rs. 28,00,65,375/-, and penalty of Rs. 1.00 crore, imposed on M/s ICOMM Tele Ltd, and a penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakhs imposed on Brig Krishna Nandan, Managing Director of the applicant firm and a penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakhs imposed on Sumanth Paturu, Director of the applicant firm by the Commissioner in the impugned order.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants had secured a tender for supply of 32 Channel Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (PWDM for short) equipment for supply to M/s BSNL for a value of Rs. 82.32 crores. The applicants were to source the equipment from one M/s ZTE Corporation, China and an agreement to this effect was signed during May 2001 under which the whole DWDM equipment was to be imported and supplied to M/s BSNL. Subsequently, on account budgetary changes, concessional rate of duty was prescribed @ 5% in respect of parts of DWDM system. The applicants thereafter re-ne...

ishwar R. Gidwani Vs. the Competent Authority and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR190

J.N. Patel, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. By consent, heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has impugned the order dt.4.8.04 passed by the competent authority, so also the order dt.14.6.06 passed by the appellate tribunal and the proceedings initiated under Section 7 and 19 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (for short SAFEM (FOP) Act). The petitioner has sought Writ of certiorari and declaration that the impugned orders be held as null and void and the same be quashed and set aside. 3. The facts leading to the initiation of the proceedings can be summed up as under: 4. The petitioner was ordered to be detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) vide order dt.1.6.94 issued by the Government of India, New Delhi. The order could not be executed for the reasons that the petit...

Ratnamala W/O Ashokrao Shinde and Bandu S/O Raghunath Panchlinge Vs. E ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR741; 2006(6)BomCR571; 2006(6)MhLj801

V.R. Kingaonkar, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, Rule is finally heard. 2. By this Petition, Petitioners impugn order dated 29th July, 2006 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, confirming order of Additional Collector, Hingoli, whereby their election as Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch, respectively, are set aside. 3. There are seven members of Village Panchayat Palodi (Dist. Hingoli). Admittedly, election was held on 24.8.2005 for post of Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch. An election officer, who is Junior Engineer in Irrigation Department, was appointed to conduct the election. The election officer convened a meeting of the village panchayat members. The Panchayat members were informed about the purpose of the meeting and the election proceedings were started. At about 1:45 pm. three members of the village Panchayat submitted an application to the election officer and requested him to conduct the election by secret ballot. The election officer grant...

Allana Cold Storage Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Bom)401; [2006]287ITR1(Bom)

1. All these four petitions are filed by companies which are sister concerns. They are all about the assessment orders passed by the first respondent-Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 2001-02. Rule on petitions. Reply has been filed by the first respondent. By consent of counsel for both the parties, the petitions are heard and decided at the admission stage itself.2. The principal grievance of the petitioners is based on the judgment of the apex court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO reported in [2003] 259 ITR 19. The law laid down by the apex court in this judgment is that when a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act is issued, the noticee is expected to file the return and if he so desires he may seek reasons for issuing the notice. The apex court has laid down that on the assessee seeking such reason, 'the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish the reasons within a reasonable time'. Thereafter, the apex court has added that on receipt of reasons, ...

Chandrashekhar S/O Rohidas Dusane and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR856; 2007(1)BomCR164; 2006(6)MhLj820

P.V. Hardas, J.1. Since the facts in both the petitions are identical, both these petitions are decided by this common judgment. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, these petitions are, therefore, heard finally at the stage of admission.2. Writ Petition No. 4872 of 2006 has been filed by the petitioners praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ directing respondents No. 1 and 3 to 6 to convene an adjourned meeting held on 29-6-2006 to any other appropriate date for transacting the business of adjourned meeting and for completing further stages of election to the office of Mayor. Alternatively it is prayed that the State Election Commission be directed to make appropriate arrangements to convene the adjourned meeting dated 29-6-2006 for the purpose of holding the elections to the office of Mayor of respondent No. 5 Corporation. It is also prayed that by a writ of prohibition or by an appropriate writ, respond...

Somnath Nanda Naik Palang Vs. Radhabai Purshottam Naik Palang and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR672

Kakade P.V., J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.2. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. This is an appeal preferred against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division in Inventory Proceeding No. 1/1992/A, adjudicating applications at Exhibits 44, 49 and 56 which were disposed of by common order as they were interconnected.3. After hearing both the parties for sometime, it is pointed out that the validity of the will involved in this dispute is being adjudicated in Appeal No. 247/2006 pending before the District Court. It is also found that the impugned order cannot stand and by consent the impugned order passed by the lower Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Inventory Court for adjudication according to law pertaining to Exhibits 44, 49 and 56....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Esteem Services

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)8STJ391CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. These are department's appeals against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. PII/BKS/98/2005 dated 22-2-2005 and PII/BKS/125/2005 dated 28-2-2005 in which he has substantially modified the orders of the Dy. Commissioner, vide orders-in-original Nos.REF/50/2004 dated 29-10-2004 and REF/55/2004 dated 30-11-2004.3. The relevant facts relating to appeal No. E/2495/2005 are as follows: (a) The respondent company was a manufacturer of 100% cotton grey made ups and readymade garments falling under Chapter No. 63 and 62 and was availing cenvat credit of duty paid w.e.f. 1-4-2003 on the inputs, namely, cotton yarn, processed fabrics and grey fabrics. (b) They have also procured inputs without payment of duty under the Notification No. 43/2001. (c) During the period from July to September, 2003 the party has exported goods totally valued at Rs. 1,25,53,271/- and claimed rebate attributable to the duty paid inputs valued at Rs. 13,56,082/- used in the manufacture of exported goods. (d)...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The Respondents applied for a 100% EOU permission for export of vegetable oil extracted from oil seeds but they were refused such permission. Subsequently they asked for permission to be registered as a 100% EOU for export of deoiled cake which is actually a bye-product in the process of extracting oil from oil cake which was allowed. The learned Advocate for the Respondents contends that the Respondents have not received any Excise duty or Customs duty concession either on the raw material used or on the machinery used.The vegetable oil produced by them is also chargeable to Nil rate of duty under the Excise Act. They have fulfilled the requirement of export obligation in respect of deoiled cake.2. The department has demanded duty on the DTA sale of vegetable oil treating the same as bye-product of an EOU and hence holding it chargeable to Excise Duty equal to 30% of the Customs duty.Notification No. 8/97 as amended provides levy of actual excise duty on goods pr...

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)8STJ365CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The issue involved relates to leviability of Service Tax and imposition of penalty vide impugned order dated 25-1-2006. Me submits that the entire service tax has already been paid. The stay petition has been filed for dispensation of the equal amount of penalty and additional penalties imposed Under Section 75-A, 76, 77 and 78. Since the entire tax is paid and the issue relates to leviability of the service sax on consideration received for activity under the heading 'commission' we find that the appellants have a prima facie case. We, therefore, dispense with the pre-deposit of the penalty amounts during the pendency of the appeal...

Rudolph Staudinger Vs. Asstt. Cit (Osd)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These appeals are preferred on behalf of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.2. In these appeals the assessee has filed the stay applications which came up for hearing on 27-6-2006. Keeping in view the nature of the issue involved, we decided to hear the appeal, instead of adjudicating the stay application. Accordingly, these appeals were fixed for hearing on 29-6-2006 which was later on adjourned to 30-6-2006 and the arguments on main appeals were heard.3. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention that assessee is a foreign national who was working in Hotel Leela Venture Ltd. during the relevant assessment year. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has made various additions and disallowances in the total income of the assessee. Details of various such additions/disallowances finally sustained by the C...