Mumbai Court March 2007 Judgments

Shri Durgadatta Mishra and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(119)ECC122

1. These are 17 appeals arising out of the order of Commissioner holding that export goods totally valued at Rs. 80,20,58,389/- under claim by advance licence were mis-declared in order to get undue benefits for import of raw materials to which the exporter namely M/s B.O.F.L. were not entitled and held them liable to confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposing penalty of varying amounts on M/s B.O.F.L., its Managing Director, Executive Director, Director and other officers and on M/s VPL and its officers who also associated with M.s B.O.F.L. in obtaining advance licence from M/s DGFT by mis-representation and has also exported products on behalf of M/s BOFL and subsequently purchased the advance licenses issued in favour of M/s BOFL. Penalties have also been imposed on the other transferee of the licenses who have imported the goods etc.2. The brief facts of the case are that the main appellant M/s BOFL is a manufacturer and exporter of de-oiled Soyabean c...

Kamal Photo Studio and Colour Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(120)ECC363

1. All the three appeals are being disposed off by a common order as the issue involved is identical and all three arise from the same impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals).2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Prakash Mehta Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant and Shri C. Lama Ld. JDR, I find that the appellants are owner of by photo lab and photo studio, which was made liable to service tax w.e.f. 16.7.2001. However, the appellant submits that during the said period there was lot of confusion as to whether the photographer has to pay tax or the photo lab has to pay the tax. Accordingly, tax was not being deposited by them, which was ultimately deposited in December 2003 along with interest amount. Proceedings were initiated against them, which culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority levying penalty under Section 76 as also under Section 78 of the Finance Act. The said order was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3....

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Arabian Exports Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109TTJ(Mum.)440

1. These are two appeals by the Department against the order of the CIT(A) relating to asst. yrs. 1998-99 and 1997-98.2. Since the issue is common in both the appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience the same are disposed of by this single order.3. In both the appeals, the Department is objecting in directing the AO to exclude from the total income the amount of Rs. 38,11,615 in respect of Koregaon unit being 100 per cent export-oriented unit holding the same to be entitled to exemption under Section 10B as the unit fulfilled all the conditions as per Sub-section (2) of Section 10B without appreciating that apart from the fulfilment of basic conditions in Sub-section (2), working out of the correct profits and gains is essential for several other purposes under the aforesaid provision.Thereafter, the Department, through its ground Nos. 2 and 3 has further raised objections, which are in the nature of arguments.4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company ca...

Kisan S/O Ramji Khandare Vs. Kausalyabai W/O Gangaram and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR1; 2007(3)BomCR118; 2007(4)MhLj43

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. The appellant herein is original defendant No. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by judgment rendered by the first appellate Court, confirming the trial Court's decree, with little modification, holding that Respondent Nos. l to 3 i.e. original plaintiffs are entitled to relief of declaration that the sale deeds executed by plaintiff No. l Kausalyabai are inoperative and were obtained by playing fraud and hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession of the suit properties alongwith mesne profits. 2. For sake of convenience, I shall refer to the parties by their nomenclature in the trial Court. The Respondent No. l Kausalya was plaintiff No. l. Respondent No. 2 Sarangdhar is her son and was plaintiff No. 2, whereas Respondent No. 3 Asrabai is her daughter and was plaintiff No. 3 in the trial Court. They filed suit (R.C.S. No. 40/90) for declaration to the effect that the sale deeds executed by the plaintiff No. l are not binding on them. They sought recover...

Smt. Nilambari Dinkar Pawar Vs. Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR12; 2007(3)BomCR607

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 13.12.2002 delivered by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal No. MUM/26/1995. By this judgment and order, the Tribunal has dismissed the Petitioner's Appeal challenging the order of Termination dated 29.3.1995 issued by Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 before me.2 The Petitioner filed the above Appeal invoking the jurisdiction of the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 (M.E.P.S Act for short).3. Petitioner's case is that she was appointed by the Management on 20.7.1993 as an Assistant Teacher. The order of appointment, copy of which is at Exhibit D to the petition, sets out the pay scale and contains a stipulation that the appointment is purely on probation for two years subject to approval from the Education Department. It is her case that during the perio...

Chandra Lachmandas Raheja Vs. Nancy Francis Rego and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR399

Karnik D.G., J.1. Heard Counsel for the plaintiff. None present for the defendants.2. This Chamber Summons is placed before me is a suit, in view of Rule 156 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules.3. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have died during the pendency of the suit. Plaintiff has taken out this chamber summons for exempting the plaintiff of necessity of substituting the legal representatives of the defendant Nos. 1 to 3.4. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure under which the exemption is sought reads as under:(4) The Court whenever it thinks fit, may exempt the plaintiff from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of any such defendant who has failed to file a written statement or who, having filed it, has failed to appear and contest the suit at the hearing; and judgment may, in such case, be pronounced against the said defendant notwithstanding the death of such defendant and shall have the same force and effect as if it has bee...

Aknam Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(120)ECC345

1. We have heard both sides on the above appeal against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has upheld the adjudication order passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Service Tax rejecting the claim of the appellants who are rendering service of Banking and financial services and Business Auxiliary Services for refund of Rs. 2,68,594/- paid as Service Tax under Head of Business Auxiliary Service on the commission received from sales of mutual funds during October 2003 to March 2004 on the ground that exemption from payment of Service Tax was not available in terms of Notification 13/2003 ST dated 20.06.2003.2. The Notification in question exempts business auxiliary services provided by a commission agent from the Service Tax leviable thereon under Section 66(2) of Finance Act, 1994. The explanation to the Notification states that for the purpose of this Notification commission agent is a person who causes sale or purchase of goods on behalf of another person for a consideration which...

Mad Entertainment Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(119)ECC359

1. Vide impugned order, Service Tax has been confirmed against the appellants by treating the services rendered by them as "advertising agency services" for the period 01/04/99 to 15/07/2001. In addition personal penalty has been imposed. The appellant's contention that the services being rendered by them are properly classifiable under the taxing entry "Video Production Services", which have been made liable to tax with effect from 16/07/2001 have not been accepted by the authorities below, hence the present appeal.2. Shri Rohan Shah, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that they are engaged in the activity of shooting films and making masters and/or copies on tape, interalia, for use by advertising agencies/advertisers. The main activity being undertaken by them is to perform one or more of the following activities: They are working for the advertising agencies and are manufacturing a master tape and deliver the same to the clients, who arranges to have the advertiseme...

themis Agencies Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants herein had availed Modvat credit of Rs. 4,59,410/- on their final products received back after export from their customers without obtaining permission for re-importation and return of goods to their factory premises under Rule 173 MM of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 10-11-97 was issued demanding the above mentioned amount of duty, which notice was confirmed by the Asstt. Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 18-9-1998. The appellants had paid the amount vide TR 6 challan dated 19-12-1997 even before the adjudication of the notice, and claimed the refund in April 1998 which was rejected by the Asstt. Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 5-10-1998. Vide Order No. CIV/1156/ WZB/04 dated 18-3-2004, the Tribunal held that the assessees were entitled to Modvat credit. The appellants filed a refund claim on 5-5-2004 under the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which was sanctioned to them by orde...

Addl. Cit Vs. J.M.P. Investments Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal, filed by the revenue, and cross-objection, filed by the assessee, are directed against the order dated 31-1-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1997-98. As the appeal and the cross-objections were heard together and as the issues are somewhat interconnected, we are disposing of the appeal q as also the cross objection by way of this consolidated order. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in lav/, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in directing the assessing officer to compute the income from house property in respect of five vacant galas, after taking into account MRV as per records and other provisions of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in directing the assessing officer to restrict the disallowance in respect of maintenance of two galas to the extent o...