Mumbai Court March 2007 Judgments

Metropolitan Industries and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC453

1. The brief facts of the case are that specific information was received by the Customs (Prev.) Commissionerate, Mumbai of unauthorized importation/fraudulent clearance of Nickel and Copper under DEEC Scheme and subsequent sale thereof in the open market by M/s. Metropolitan Group of Industries, resulting in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, and that the declared supporting manufacturing firm M/s. Fairlon Engineering Pvt.Ltd. did not carry out any manufacturing activity and that no exports were effected by the importers. Investigations were carried out which interalia, revealed that M/s. Metropolitan Industries had obtained four DEEC licences, viz.one dated 23.3.1992, two dated 22.5.1992 and one dated 5.6.1992 for import of copper wire bars/scrap nickel metal 99% purity and the resultant product was described as Cupro Nickel fittings (Nickel 30% & Copper 70%), and the factory was shown at GIDC. Bamanbore, Rajkot (Gujarat). The licencee claimed to be engage...

Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)7STR574

1. We have heard both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 91,23,443/- together with penalty of equal amount. The issue in dispute relates to includibility of transportation charges in the taxable services of storage and warehousing services and cargo handling services.2. We find that a strong prima facie case for waiver has been made out in the light of CBEC circular dated 1.8.2002 which provides that in a case where transport and cargo handling services are provided in a composite manner, if the bill indicates the amount charged for cargo handling and transportation separately on actual basis, tax would be leviable only on the cargo handling services, and there is no dispute that service tax is being paid by the applicants on the cargo handling services. The show cause notice accepts that the bill indicated the above amounts separately. Therefore, prima facie the circular is applicable in the present case. We, therefore, waive the pre-deposit of t...

Adsteam Agency (India) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit, Range 3(1)(1)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These appeals are preferred on behalf of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on common ground. We, therefore, heard these appeals together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order.2. Brief facts borne out from the record are that the assessee-company was originally registered in the name of M/s. Sea Tech Services Ltd. Lateron the name of the company was changed to M/s. Adsteam Agency (India)Ltd., the present assessee. It has acquired the shipping agency business of Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. and Cruickshank & Co. Ltd. through agreement dated 2-4-1998. The assessee-company has filed its return of income on 30-11-1997 declaring a net loss of Rs. 9,20,056. While declaring the net loss the assessee-company claimed 20 per cent depreciation on the amount paid for non-competition covenant of Rs. 38,47,000 as per the agreement dated 2-4-1998 and amount of Goodwill paid Rs. 5 lakhs. The assessing officer disallowed the claim of the assessee against...

Air India Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Spl. Range-19/iac Range

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)114TTJ(Mum.)844

1. The assessee-company has filed three appeals against the orders of the ld. CIT(A) for AYs 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 while the Department is in appeal against the orders of the CIT(A) for AYs 1985-86 and 1986-87. The assessee company is a public-sector undertaking. Therefore, clearance by the high-powered Committee of Disputes is necessary to pursue the litigation before this Tribunal.The Department has not obtained the requisite approval from the Committee of Disputes and hence both the appeals filed by the Department are not maintainable. They are therefore dismissed in limine. The assessee has however obtained the approval of the COD to pursue the litigation before this Tribunal against the orders of the CIT(A) regarding certain disallowance which results in depletion of accumulated deprecation and unabsorbed business loss for all the three years under appeal. Therefore the appeals filed by the assessee are taken up for adjudication. 1. a) The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming th...

Hotel Sahara Star Sahara Hospitality Ltd., Formerly Known as Batra Hos ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR370; 2007(3)BomCR636; (2007)109BOMLR1238; 2007(4)MhLj222

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by communication dated 8th September, 2006 whereby the petitioners' application for grant of additional FSI on CTS No. 2085 of Santacruz (West) domestic airport for a five star hotel, has been rejected. The petitioners are a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and have a hotel in the name and style of Hotel Sahara Star. The petitioners are also challenging the issuance of the two impugned notices viz. one under Section 354A of the MMC Act and another under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (Hereinafter referred to as the M.R.T.P. Act). In so far as the notice under Section 354-A of the MMC Act and the notice under Section 53 of the M.R.T.P. Act are concerned, their legality presently is not being considered as the petitioners by their application dated 26th May, 2005 have applied for regularisation under Section 44 of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966. 3. The original pra...

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. B.P. Steel Industries ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR704

V.C. Daga, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the rival parties. Perused petition.2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the order of the Electrical Inspector (respondent No. 2) confirmed by the Honble Minister of State, Government of Maharashtra (respondent No. 3), holding that the dispute raised was well within the scope of Section 24(2) read with 26(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 ('Act' for short) as such the Electrical Inspector had jurisdiction to deal with and decide the dispute between the parties.The Facts:3. The petitioner- Bombay Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking is an undertaking of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and is a licensee under the Act.4. The petitioner was supplying electricity to respondent No. 1-M/s.B.P.Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. who has a factory located in the compound of M/s. Mysore Chemicals at Plot No. 39/44, Sion (E), Mumbai. The petitioners factory has four meters installed to co...

Suman Dattatraya Kadam Vs. Shobha Kailas Bonekar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008(1)JCR370(NULL)]

R.M. Borde, J.1. The instant review application is filed by original respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 721 of 2006 Shobha Kailash Bonekar v. Cantonment Executive Officer 2007 (3) Bom. CR 1 praying for recalling the judgment dated 31.1.2007 passed on a reference by Five Judges Bench of this Court. The grounds of objections raised in the application objecting to the verdict delivered by the Bench are serialized as below:(a) According to the applicant, although the dispute between the contesting parties i.e., original respondent No. 3 and original respondent No. 1 relates to 'seniority and promotion', by reading para No. 3 of the judgment, it appears that the Court proceeded to determine the issue on the footing that the subject-matter relates to 'disciplinary action'. This mistake, according to the applicant, is an error on the face of record.(b) An objection is raised in paragraph Nos. 7 and 9 of the application as regards non-consideration of provisions of Section 2(2) of the Bomba...

Sharad Madhavrao Patil Vs. Rohidas Chudaman Patil

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)BomCR883

Patil Naresh H., J.1. The petitioner in this election petition challenges the election of the respondent from 88-Kusumba Legislative Assembly Constituency in Dhule District on the ground of corrupt practices as enumerated under the provisions of Sections 123(1) and (8) and 100(1)(b) (iii) and (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, 'the Act').FACTUAL MATRIXThe petitioner pleads that he is a valid elector and competent to contest election to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner is an active social worker and a member of 'Shiv Sena' a registered political party. The petitioner filed nomination for the election in question as a candidate of Shiv Sena. Copies of Form 'A' and Form 'B' annexed to his nomination paper are placed on record as annexure 'A' to this petition. The petitioner has produced identity card allotted by the Returning Officer, 88-Kusumba Legislative Assembly Constituency as Annexure 'B'.2. It is contended that the res...

Commissioner of Customs (i) Vs. Associated Marbles Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications filed by the Revenue for disposal of the above appeals by way of remand as earlier, the appeals filed by the importers against the same order have already been sent back by way of remand, are dismissed for the reasons recorded below: Against the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs, the importers had filed appeals before the Tribunal which were disposed of by the Order No. A/531 to 555/05/C.II dated 4-7-2005 by way of remand. The Revenue preferred Appeal Nos. C/1071/05 & C/1082/05 against the same impugned orders on 20-9-2005 i.e. after the disposal of the importers' appeals by the Tribunal. In such circumstances, the appeals filed by the Revenue is to be treated as not maintainable in the light of the Tribunal's order No. A/55-77/WZB/2007/C.II dated 15-12-2006, the relevant portion is reproduced below: 4. After considering the submissions made by both sides and after going through the larger bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of LML Lt...

The Best Undertaking Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC318

1. The dispute in the present appeal relates to imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 4,60,000/- (Rupees four lakhs sixty thousand only) imposed on the appellant and confirmation of interest. The appellant is a undertaking owned, controlled and managed by and constituted under Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988. They are engaged in the manufacture of nuts and bolts bus Washing Machine, buses trolleys etc.in their Dadar workshop. The said manufactured goods are not sold by them but used for the maintenance of the buses being run by the Municipal Corporation. The dispute relates to the excisability of the said goods resulting in confirmation of demand of duty of Rs. 48,28,550/-(Rupees forty eight lakhs twenty eight thousand five hundred fifty only) for the period 1996-2000. The appellant have deposited the said duty demand before the issuance of the show cause notice and hence it is their contention that imposition of penalty or confirmation of interest under the provisions of Secti...