Mumbai Court March 2007 Judgments

Dil Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC378

1. The issue for determination in the above appeals against the common order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) viz., classification of products "DIL VIT D3-200" and "DIL VIT D3-500" is no longer res Integra as it has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Glaxo India Limited v. CCE 1992 (69) ELT 124; Tetragon Chime Pvt. Ltd. v. CCELi Taka Pharmaceuticals v. CCE that such products are of a kind used in animal feeding falling under Chapter heading 23.02 even though they are not obtained by processing vegetable or animal material to such an extent that they have lost the essential characteristics of the original material other than vegetable residues and byproducts of such processing.2. In the present case the demands raised in the show cause notices issued to the appellants for classification of the products as mixtures of Vitamin under Chapter heading 29.36 were dropped by the Additional Commissioner following the earlier order-in-appeal dated 30/09/1999 of the Commissi...

Ganesh Banzoplast Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)111TTJ(Mum.)385

1. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of learned CIT(A)-C-III Mumbai, dt. 16th Nov., 1998 passed for asst. yr. 1995-96.The first grievance of the assessee relates to confirmation of disallowance of debenture issue expenditure amounting to Rs. 5,21,22,533 on the ground that it is capital in nature.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant assessee is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is a manufacturer and supplier of benzoate plasticizers, benzoic acid and sodium benzoate, an import substitute. It has filed its return of income on 30th Nov., 1995 declaring total income of Rs. 1,43,01,080.The case was selected for scrutiny and learned AO with a view to give logical end to the proceedings issued notice under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The learned AO on scrutiny of the statement of total income noticed that assessee has claimed debenture issue expenses of Rs. 5,21,22,533 as allowable deduction while computing th...

ito Vs. Industrial Roadways

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)112ITD293(Mum.)

1. These three appeals have been filed by the Revenue on 17-02-2005 against the orders of the learned CIT(A)-XIII, Mumbai dated 11-11-2004 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment orders Under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 for assessment years 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. As the common ground and common facts of the case relate to these three appeals they were argued together by the learned departmental representative and the learned Counsel of the assessee. We are deciding these appeals by this common order for convenience.2. The only dispute involved in these three appeals is deletion of the addition made by the assessing officer on account of freight receipts paid by M/s Ramco Industries Ltd. Facts of the case leading to this dispute briefly are that the learned assessing officer found from TDS certificates issued by M/s Ramco Industries Ltd that the assessee was paid large amounts by way of freight charges. The assessee claimed that he did not earn the freig...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Seva Automotive Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)7STR276

1. On hearing both sides on the application For stay of operation of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) by which he has set aside the service tax demanded from the respondents herein who are authorized service station, we find that no prima-facie case has been made out by the revenue in view of the finding of the lower appellate authority that handling charges are in relation to sale and not in relation to any services provided by the respondents and further, prima-facie, the revenue has not been able to show that the handling charges on which the service tax has been demanded by the adjudicating authority is in the nature of repair charges liable to service tax....

innovassynth Technologies (i) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. At the outset we note that the entire service tax amount of Rs. 13,27,784/- confirmed against the applicants herein has been paid together with interest. We, therefore, waive the requirement of pre deposit of penalty of Rs. 14 lakhs and stay recovery there of pending the appeal.2. At this stage we note that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal filed before him on ground of non compliance with the requirement of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. Since no finding has been recorded on the merits of the demand, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the appellate authority to pass an order after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellants of being heard. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand for discussion on merit without insisting on pre deposit....

Arcadia Share and Stock Brokers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)10STJ118CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing ld. SDR and perusing the records (none appears for the applicants inspite of notice) we find that a prima-facie case has been made by the applicants for the reason that the amount of service tax involved has been deposited by the applicants but under the wrong heading and, therefore, prima-facie there is no necessity of calling upon them to deposit the amount once again. We therefore, waive pre deposit of service tax and penalty and stay recovery of the amount in question pending the appeal....

Saumil R. Kadakia Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109TTJ(Mum.)26

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order dt. 27th March, 2003 passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yr.2001-02.2. The short grievance raised in this appeal, though crouched in lengthy and somewhat argumentative grounds of appeal, is against CIT(A)'s declining depreciation in respect of machinery of Rs. 11,28,400 (and related capitalized expenses aggregating to Rs. 1,21,000) claimed to have been installed and put to use by the assessee in the relevant previous year.3. The assessee appeared in person and made his efforts to explain the aforesaid grievance and relevant facts of the case. However, since the assistance offered by the assessee was inadequate and as the assessee expressed his inability, on account of difficult financial position that he is said to be traversing through, to hire a legal counsel to present his case, we requested Shri Prakash Jotwani, learned advocate who was ...

icici Bank Limited Vs. Mafatlal Engineering Industries Ltd. (In Liquid ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR453; 2007(3)BomCR991; (2007)109BOMLR1222; 2007(4)MhLj731

Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The Applicant in both these Notices of Motion is the Sub Divisional Officer, Thane, Collector Office, District Thane. He has applied for discharging the Court Receiver appointed in the above Suit and Petition by orders dated 12th October, 2001 and 23 rd July, 2003 for part of the suit properties. 2. The Applicant claims a part of the suit properties being 25.58.8 hectors of open vacant land out of which 18.32 hectors is resumed by the State Government and in possession of the Applicant, 3.54 hectors being allowed to the Railways by the Government and 4.18 hectors having been granted to one Nutan Workers Society by the Government. The Applicant also claims 70 hectors of land forfeited by the Government under order dated 12th March, 1999 passed by Tahasildar, Thane and taken possession by the Government for nonpayment of revenue by the Defendants/Respondents being Mafatlal Engineering Limited (in liquidation)(Mafatlal). This claim is for part of the lands from the tota...

Anita and ors. Vs. Jaswantsing Majorsing Jat and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008ACJ305

N.V. Dabholkar and M.G. Gaikwad, JJ.1. Heard Advocate Mrs. Renuka Ghule for appellants and Advocate Mr. V.N. Upadhye for respondent No. 2. Advocate Mr. Upadhye has vehemently opposed admission of the first appeal.2. This is a first appeal challenging the award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jalna, while disposing of Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 134 of 2001, by its judgment and order dated 4.11.2003. Needless to say that being an appeal by the claimants, main grievance is regarding quantum of compensation.3. With the help of the lawyers, we have gone through that part of the judgment, which pertains to the evidence regarding income of the deceased and computation of compensation towards loss of income of the family (claimants are legal heirs of the deceased). These details are available in para 8 of the judgment. Learned Member of the Tribunal has relied upon salary certificate produced at Exh. 58, which showed gross salary of deceased to be Rs. 5,846 per month. It also...

Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These appeals belong to same assessee and involve common issues, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of through this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. We have heard both the parties and have also perused the material on record.3. We shall first take-up the assessee's appeal in ITA No.5144/Bom./1994 which arises out of order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 17-2-1994 for assessment year 1986-87. 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) V, Bombay Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in holding that your appellants have failed to produce M/s. Drill Rock Engineers, Hyderabad along with their books, bank statements and statement of details of services rendered by them and that the commission paid to M/s. Drill Rock Engineers Pvt. Ltd. was only an adjustment in the accounts and that agents were not informed whenever the commission amount was credited to their account and thereby in upholding the disallowance of the commission of Rs. 12,...