Mumbai Court February 2007 Judgments

ispat Metalics Ind. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(117)ECC263

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise Raigad who has ordered that the assessee should pay back excess cenvat credit of Rs. 7,69,41,291/- (Rs. 4,98,22,174/- covered by show cause notice dated 7.4.04 + Rs. 2,71,19,117/- covered by show cause notice dated 9.11.04) together with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount upon the assessee. The case of the department is that since the assessee was using iron ore pellets manufactured by M/s.Kundermukh Iron Ore Company Ltd (hereinafter referred to as KIOCL) which is a 100% EOU, as main input for manufacture of pig iron/hot metal and the inputs were supplied by the manufacturer to M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as IIL) who cleared them from their factory to M/s. Ispat Metallics Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as IML), the appellants herein, credit was admissible only in terms of Rule 3(6)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 which provided for credit of 50% of X multiplied by (1 + BC...

Sgs India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax-10(3)(1) ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR628; (2007)208CTR(Bom)263; [2007]292ITR93(Bom); 2007(4)MhLj93

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Rule. Rule, Returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing.2. In this petition, petitioner has challenged the notice dated 25th May, 2005 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act for short) whereby the assessment for AY 2001-02 is sought to be reopened. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 21st November, 2006 passed by the assessing officer rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner for reopening the assessment.3. The petitioner carries on business of providing verification, inspection and certification of services in India. On 30th October, 2001, the petitioners filed its return of income for AY 2001-02 declaring the taxable income of Rs.8,42,67,317/-. Subsequently, the petitioner revised its return to income to Rs.8,19,03,180/- on account of change in the depreciation claim. 4. The return of income filed by the petitioner was duly processed under Section 143(1) of the Act vi...

Prafullchandra S/O Bajranglal Agrawal Vs. Omprakash S/O Richpal Tiwari ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR84; 2007(5)BomCR821; (2007)109BOMLR529

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. The applicant/defendant, whose application for dismissal of suit on preliminary ground was rejected, has come in revision. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision are as under Initially the plaintiffs/non-applicants had instituted a civil suit No. 634 of 1992, alleging that defendant No. 1 is making construction of a building on the adjoining plot and the said construction is in contravention of the provisions of the Municipal Law. It is contended that even though the plaintiff objected to the said construction, the defendant did not pay any heed. It is further contended that after filing of the suit also the defendant continued to carry out the said construction and, therefore, the plaintiff seeks injunction. In that suit, an application was filed contending that the court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The suit was, therefore, dismissed in view of the decision reported in : [1963]48ITR577(Bom) (Vora Automotives v. Gopalrao Pohre). 3. The plain...

Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Maharas ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR796; 2007(5)MhLj39

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a Government of India undertaking. It has factories at various places one such place being Thai, Taluka Alibaug, District Raigad. Petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder. In or about 1978, about 259.83 hectares of land from the villages Thai, Boris-Gunjis and Navgaon, Taluka Alibaug, District Raigad was acquired by the State Government to enable petitioner No. 1 to set up their chemicals and fertilizers plant at Thai, Taluka Alibaug, District Raigad.2. The State of Maharashtra has enacted various laws and has also issued Government resolutions for resolving the problems of the persons directly and indirectly affected due to acquisition of the lands for the purpose of certain projects. According to the petitioners the gist of the above Government resolutions is that only one person per family of PAPs (Project Affected Persons) may be given priority in employment in Government service subject to such persons fulfilling the minimum educational requirements...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kaishar Interiors Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC168

2. The department is in appeal aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai and as well as Commissioner (Appeals). Central Excise, Mumbai. The alleged case of the department is that the assessee had manufactured wooden furnishings falling under Chapter 44, 70 & 94 of Central Excise Tariff Act and removed them clandestinely without paying Central Excise duty there on.The alleged goods are said to have been manufactured at the site of the customers by the assessee i.e. M/s Kaishar Intriers Pvt. Ltd. The Ld.DR has raised a point that both the authorities below have not discussed the issue involved in the matter and simply dropped the demand on the point of limitation as the show cause notice was issued beyond a period of six months invoking the provisions under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act and there is no clear finding by the authorities concerned about the bar of limitation. As such, the matter needs to be remanded back ...

Mehernosh Randeria Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Acc),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants M/s. LIPL have imported certain consignment of MCCBs, Plugs and Sockets which according to the department are notified for MRP based valuation for the purpose of payment of additional duty of customs but was claimed by the importers to be meant for industrial use and not for retail sale and were accordingly cleared at the transaction value instead of the MRP based valuation as per-Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Investigations revealed that the imported items after clearance were brought into trading godown of the appellants at Sinnar and were warehoused. These items were traded from the godown by transfer to various depots of LIPL for further sale to wholesaler/dealers on the list price as fixed by LIPL. Labels were affixed on the packages of MCCBs stating that "the goods are specially packed for the exclusive use in any industry as raw material or for the purpose of servicing any industry, mine or quarry and not intended for retail sale". Investigation ...

Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Blue Star Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC499

Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President 1. The delay of 208 days in preferring the above appeal is sought to be explained by the Revenue as under: Sr. No.Receipt of O-I-O No. AT (704 to 706) M-III dt. 30.12.05 in the office of Commissioner Service Tax, Mumbai on 25.01.06 The said order was examined by Commissionerate of Service Tax on Receipt of letter from C.C. Unit, C.Ex. Mumbai Zone-I requesting to forward case records to C.C. Unit, C.Ex. Mumbai Zone-I Asstt. Commissioner of Service Tax, Division VI, was requested to send the case record files Reminder was issued to Asstt. Commissioner, Service Tax Dn-VI to send the case records immediately.Reminder dt.27.06.06 was issued to Asstt. Commissioner, Service Tax, with request to expedite as the matter was time bond.Case records forwarded to C.C. Unit, C.Ex. Mumbai Zone-I, vide letter F. No. V/ST/HQ/TRIB/Misc/200/05 DT. 11.07.06 Chief Commissioner C.Ex, Mumbai Zone-I office advised that the issue to be examined in view of the fact that all th...

Dnyaneshwar Sakharam Bhoir, Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR549; I(2007)DMC673

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This appeal arises from the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 429 of 1997. All the four accused were put on trial and the Accused No. 1 has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, whereas, the accused Nos. 2 to 4 have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. This appeal has been filed by all the four accused who have been convicted and sentenced.2. Vaishnavi- the daughter of P.W. No. 1 Dwarkanath Shankar Patil (Complainant) and a resident of Ghansoli, New Bombay was married to accused No. 1 on 5.6.1995. The Accused No. 2 is the mother and accused Nos. 3 and 4 are brother and sister respectively of the accused No. 1. The accused came from the poor family background and the accused No. 1 had hardly studied. At the time of his marriage he was unemployed, whereas, Vaishnavi ha...

Vimal G. JaIn Vs. Vertex Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., a Private Limit ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR18(Bom); 2007(5)BomCR478; (2007)109BOMLR780

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Admit. The learned Advocate for the respondents waives service. By consent, heard forthwith.2. This appeal arises from the order dated 10-1-2005 passed in Arbitration Petition No. 451 of 2004. By the impugned order, the arbitration petition filed for setting aside the award made by the arbitration committee of the Stock Exchange has been dismissed. 3. The challenge to the impugned order is on two grounds: firstly, that the learned single Judge failed to take note of the fact that the arbitration proceedings were sought to be initiated after the expiry of the period of limitation, as prescribed under the Bye-laws and secondly that the appellant had already paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the respondents. 4. Perusal of the impugned order apparently discloses that the point regarding bar of limitation was not raised before the learned arbitrator and, therefore, the same being a mixed question of law and fact, the learned single Judge has rejected the petition und...

Coca Cola India (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)208CTR(Bom)269; [2007]290ITR464(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. Two orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal' for short) are challenged in this petition. Firstly, the petitioner challenges the order of the Tribunal dt. 5th Oct., 2005 insofar it pertains to remanding the issues relating to the disallowance of service charges and marketing expenses to the AO without considering the specific grounds raised in the appeal. Secondly, the petitioner challenges the order of the Tribunal dt. 7th July, 2006 in rejecting the miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner by stating that the decision to restore the matter to the AO for de novo consideration was a conscious decision. The assessment year involved herein is asst. yr. 1997-98.3. The petitioner is a 100 per cent subsidiary of Coca Cola South Asia India Holding, Hongkong, which in turn is a subsidiary of Coca Cola Asia Holding, Singapore and t...