Mumbai Court February 2007 Judgments

V.S. Dempo and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)6STR313

1. I have heard both sides on the above appeal against the denial of service tax credit of Rs. 6,18,895/- on the ground that the tax was paid by service providers of port services for payment of service tax on output service of Steamer Agent and both services, the port service and steamer agent service do not fall within the same sub-clause of Clause (90) of Section 65 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. The Department relies upon Rule 3 of the Service Tax Credit Rules 2002 which reads as under: Service tax credit:- (1) An output service provider shall be allowed to take credit (herein referred to as service tax credit) of the service tax paid on such input services, which fail in the same category of taxable service as that of output service, for which invoice/bill is issued on or after sixteenth day of August 2002. (2) For the purposes of these rules two services shall be deemed to be falling in the same category of taxable service, if the input service and output service fall in...

Revannath Gabaji Gawade Vs. Commissioner of Customs (E.P.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. I have heard both sides on the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs who has inter alia imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) upon the appellant herein who was an employee of the CHA M/s. Exffin Shipping (India) Ltd., on the ground that he had aided and abetted M/s. Aar Cee International in an attempt to fraudulent export of the night gowns which were over valued and hence liable to confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The Commissioner has found that the appellant obtained the documents for the export goods from Deepak Soni without causing any verification of the genuineness and authenticity of the antecedents of the exporter and that he adopted a very casual approach in acceptance of the documents without causing proper verification. The Commissioner has held that by his acts of willful casual-ness in accepting the export documents without due diligence, he had aided and abetted the exporters. In my view, this is hard...

Creative Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC578

1. I have heard both sides on the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), who has upheld penalty of Rs. 2,43,425/- (Rupees two lakhs forty three thousand four hundred twenty five only) under Section 76, penalty of Rs. 2,0007- (Rupees two thousand only) under Section 77 and penalty of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) under Section 75A of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1944.The service tax amount together with interest stands paid and is not contested by the appellant.2. Penalty has been imposed for the reason that the appellants who were rendering as 'Mandap Keepers' and had not registered themselves as required under Section 69 and were not paying any Service Tax for the services rendered by them. I find that no independent reasoning has been given for imposition of penalty and also find that the applicants plea is that they were not aware that they were liable to service tax as 'Mandap Keepers' and immediately on knowing that they were liable to p...

Jewel Hotel (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)9STT427

1. The appellants challenged the imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,46,222/-(Rupees one lakh forty six thousand two hundred twenty two only) imposed on them under the provisions of Section 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. I have heard both sides. Service Tax of Rs. 72,361/- (Rupees seventy two thousand three hundred sixty one only) has been paid together with interest by the appellants who have been held to be providers of 'Mandap Keeper' service, and such liability is not disputed. The question is only whether they are liable to penalty for non-registration, non-payment of service tax during the period in dispute and non-filing of periodical returns. I note that the appellants explanation for non-filing, non-registration etc. is that they did not get themselves registered with Service Tax due to ignorance of law but later paid the service tax and filed returns and did not collect service tax but paid service tax and interest from their own pocket and since there was no willful...

Datamatics Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110ITD24(Mum.)

1. These appeals by the assessee and the Revenue, pertaining to asst.yr. 1993-94, are disposed of by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience.2. When the matter was taken up for hearing learned Counsel for the assessee sought permission of the Bench to raise the following additional grounds: 1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lower authorities erred in reopening the assessment by issuing notice under Section 148 and completing the assessment under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147, without providing the assessee with a copy of the recorded reasons for reopening the assessment, in total disregard of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (2003) 179 CTR (SC) 11 : (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC), although the assessee prayed for a copy of the same after filing the return in due compliance of the notice under Section 148. 2. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred i...

Smt. Rekha W/O Narayan Marotkar, Vs. Rambhau S/O Badhu Khadgi and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom135; 2007(3)ALLMR789; 2007(5)BomCR806

C.L. Pangarkar, J. 1. This is an appeal by the appellants/plaintiffs whose application under Order 13 Rule 1 and 2 was rejected by the trial court. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under The defendant No. 1 is the real paternal uncle of plaintiffs while defendant No. 2 is their real mother. Defendants No. 3,4 and 5 are the children of defendant No. 1. Plaintiffs' father Ramchandra and his brother Rambhau i.e. defendant No. 1 were the owners of Khasra Nos. 82, 86/12, 86/14, 79/2, 80/2 and 73/3 of mauza Hajari Pahad. The two brothers namely Ramchandra and Rambhau were holding property jointly till the death of Ramchandra till 1974. After his death, the property is being held jointly by plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 to 5. The plaintiffs submit that they are Hindus and they have 1/10th share in the suit property held jointly by them and defendants No. 1 to 5. The plaintiffs submit that they have learnt that defendants No. 1 and 2, without any authority and Power, have sold ...

Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd. (Earlier Known as Centurion Bank Ltd.) V ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)BomCR452; (2007)109BOMLR543; (2007)210CTR(Bom)197; [2007]290ITR555(Bom); 2007(3)MhLj104

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, petition is taken up for final hearing. The Petitioner is a Company engaged in the business of banking and related financial activities including leasing. The Petitioner was earlier known as Centurion Bank Limited. The Petitioner is also the successor-in-interest of two companies named 20th Century Capital Corporation Limited and 20th Century Finance Corporation Limited who have merged with the Petitioner. As of date the Petitioner which was formerly known as Centurion Bank Limited is today known as Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited. 2. By this petition, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 27.12.2005 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission under Section 245D(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the said Act') whereby the Settlement Commission has taken a view that the settlement applications filed by the Petitioner in respect of its own assessments and the a...

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and anr. Vs. Shipping Corporation ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR92; 2007(6)BomCR395; 2007(3)MhLj100

ORDERS.A. Bobde, J.1. This is the defendants' Notice of Motion. The defendants seek a stay of this Suit No. 1512 of 2001 filed by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation and the New India Assurance company Limited under Section 352C of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958.2. The plaintiff No. 1, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, had some cargo on a vessel owned by Shipping Corporation of India Ltd i.e. the defendants. That cargo was lost in an occurrence. The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and the insurers, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. have sued Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. in this suit i.e. Suit No. 1512 of 2001 for a sum of Rs. 28,40,016/- towards compensation for the loss suffered by them.3. By this Notice of Motion, the defendants, Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. seek stay of the suit under Section 352C of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. That section reads as follows:352C. Limitation fund and consolidation of claims against owners.--(1) Where any liability is ...

Sailesh Developers, a Registered Partnership Firm and Mr. Ramesh Bhava ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR100; 2007(3)BomCR7

1. A Division Bench of this Court (Coram Smt. Ranjana Desai and Abhay S. Oka, JJ) found that there was a divergence of opinion between two Division Benches of this Court as regards powers of Charity Commissioner under Section 36(1) of The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1950). Therefore, a direction was issued to place the papers of these petitions before the Honourable the Chief Justice for passing appropriate direction in accordance with Rule 28 of the High Court, (O.S.) Rules for making a reference to larger Bench. The questions formulated by the Division Bench for a decision by a larger Bench read thus:i) Whether the power vesting in the Charity Commissioner under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 is confined to grant or refusal of sanction to a particular sale transaction which the trustees propose to make or it extends to compelling trustees to sell or transfer the property to another party who participates in the proceedi...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Simtools Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue for determination in all these appeals arising out of a common impugned order is whether notional interests on advances are in the nature of additional consideration from customers and, therefore, liable to be included in the assessable value of goods manufactured and cleared by the respondents during the period in dispute.2. We have heard learned SDR and learned Counsel for M/s. Jasco Engineering and perused records - none appears for the other respondents in spite of notice.3. We note that there is no finding that the price has been influenced by the fact that interest free advances were given by the buyer to the manufacturer. No nexus has been established between the advances and the assessable value. The department has not discharged the burden of proving that the price of the goods was depressed as a result of the receipt of interest free advances. In these circumstances, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in CCE, Mumbai v. ISPL Industries Ltd. , holding that no ...