Mumbai Court April 2007 Judgments

Namdeo Umaji Industrial Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(120)ECC125

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dt. 31.5.06 which upheld the order-in-original that rejected the refund claim filed by the appellant.2. The issue involved in this case is regarding the refund claim which arose due to the classification dispute of the Agricultural sprayers imported by the appellant. The appellant paid full rate of duty on the bill of entry dt. 17.04.2000 as per the assessment of the assessing officer. Subsequently, they challenged such assessment which resulted in favorable order to them and they were not required to pay any CVD on said imports. Consequent to order in their favour, appellant filed refund claim of the amount of CVD paid by them. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellant has not produced any documentary evidence in support of the refund claim that they have not passed on the amount CVD paid by them. On an appeal Commissioner (Appeals) also came to the same conclusion.3. The Ld. Representa...

Dee-vee Metals Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC310

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original dt. 25.7.06 which confiscated the consignment of Lead Scrap imported by the appellant and also imposed penalty on the appellant in addition, an absolute confiscation of eight cut pieces of cartridges was ordered.2. The issue involved in this case is regarding the certification of imported lead scrap by the appellant. Appellant filed bill of entry for clearances of lead scrap. The appellant also filed all the required relevant documents along with the certificate of a accredited certifying agency in respect of the such consignment. On 100% examination of the consignment, the apprising officer found eight cut pieces of used cartridges in the consignment of 93.86 MT of lead scrap.The appellant waive the issuance of show cause notice and participated in the adjudication proceedings. It was the contention of the appellant that they imported the consignment following all the proper procedures and they went by the certificate issued by the...

Nuclear Power Corporation of Vs. Jt. Cit, Special Range-32

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal relates to assessment year 1997-98. The assessee-company, upon incorporation on 3rd September, 1987, took over various nuclear power projects including existing power stations located at different places across the country from the department of Atomic Energy, Government of India. The assessee-company is a public sector undertaking wholly owned by the Government of India in the department of Atomic Energy. The assessee has obtained approval of the COD to pursue the present litigation before this Tribunal.2. First four grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are inter-linked and read as under : 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the inclusion in the income of an amount of Rs. 3,000.26 lakhs being Renovation & Modernisation levy-collected by the appellant. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that this was a case of application of receipts...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Asea Brown Boveri Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)11TTJ(Mum.)502

1. The appeals filed by both the Department and the assessee are directed against the orders passed by the learned CIT(A) for asst. yrs.1996-97 and 1997-98. Major issues involved in them are mostly common.We therefore find it convenient to dispose off all of them by a consolidated order. 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 62,26,739 being guest house expenses under Section 37(4) of the IT Act. It is submitted that the expenditure of Rs. 62,26,739 includes expenditure on rent, rate, taxes, insurance and depreciation and have been claimed as a deduction under section other than Section 37 of the IT Act and therefore provisions of Section 37(4) are not applicable. It is submitted that it may be so held now.3. The assessee is in appeal against the order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of Rs. 62,26,739 being expenditure incurred on guest house. At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee fairly admitted that the afor...

Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd., a Company Registered Under the Companies Act V ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR418; 2007(4)ARBLR385(Bom); 2007(4)MhLj230

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This appeal arises from the order dated 30-4-1998 passed in Arbitration Petition No. 122 of 1998. By the impugned order, the appellants' petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter called as 'the said Act', has been dismissed. The challenge in the matter is three-fold. Firstly, that the award declared by the arbitrator is beyond the scope of the reference to arbitration. Secondly, the arbitrator failed to consider the important and relevant document, namely, the letter dated 15-7-1996 while the document, if considered, the conclusions arrived at by the learned arbitrator would have been different from those arrived at. Thirdly, the finding of the arbitrator about the shortage of 1350 metric ton (for short, M.T.) in loading the material is contrary to the materials on record in as much that in fact the shortage was only to the extent of 350 M.T.2. The respondents herein received an order on 16-4-1996 from a French buyer ...

Manoj Kumar Goswami Vs. P.V. Sanghavi,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR69; 2007(2)ARBLR356(Bom); 2007(3)BomCR43; 2007(4)MhLj569

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. A challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to an arbitral award of the Indian Motion Pictures Distributors' Association having failed, an appeal has been filed. 2. The Appellant is an actor by profession. The Appellant has a brother by the name of Rajiv Kumar Goswami who, at the material time, resided with the Appellant and carried on business from the same address in the name and style of 'VIP Films Combines', the Third Respondent to these proceedings. By a letter dated 26th March 1991, the Third Respondent informed the Indian Motion Pictures Distributors' Association, the Second Respondent, that under an agreement of the same date, the Third Respondent had assigned distribution rights to the First Respondent in respect of a film by the name of 'Deshwasi' in the territory of Bombay on a commission basis, for a period of five years from the date of the first release of the picture. By the letter, the Third Respondent requested the...

Nanda D/O Yadavrao Shankhpale Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Its ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR401; 2007(3)BomCR555; 2008(1)MhLj581

Naresh H. Patil, J.1. These petitions arise out of identical and common issues. Therefore, we propose to finally dispose of these petitions by a common judgment and order.2. In Writ Petition No. 2818 of 2004 we grant Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respective respondents waive service. By consent of the parties this writ petition is also taken up for final hearing.3. The petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 2641 of 1992 and 2818 of 2004 is the same i.e. Madhav Shankhpale who is brother of Nanda Yadavrao Shankhpale, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3443 of 1990.4. The conspectus of the matter unfolded from the pleadings of the parties is described as below.5. Madhav Shankhpale, one of the petitioners, claims to be belonging to 'Mahadeo Koli', Scheduled Tribe. The tribe claim of the petitioner was initially verified and by an order dated 14-10-1982 passed by the Director of Social Welfare, Maharashtra State, the certificate issued in favour of petitioner Madhav by the Taluk...

Malti D/O Deoram Koli Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR701; 2007(3)BomCR572; (2007)109BOMLR895; 2007(4)MhLj740

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No. 1 and learned Counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3.2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 29-12-1992 in the services of Zilla Parishad Jalgaon. Initially the petitioner claimed that she belonged to Tokre Koli, a Scheduled Tribe. A caste certificate was issued, according to the petitioner, by the Executive Magistrate Jalgaon on 10-12-1981. As the petitioner was appointed as a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Jalgaon referred the caste certificate of the petitioner for verification to the Scrutiny committee vide letter dated 17-6-1996. During vigilance enquiry, the Tahsildar Jalgaon informed the Vigilance Officer that there was no entry found in the register maintained by the office of the Tahsildar Jalgaon regarding issuance of such a caste certificate in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Vigilance Officer submi...

Harikant Ramnarayan Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)MhLj419

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri S.A. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.B. Ahirkar, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.3. The question which arises for our consideration in the present writ petition is, 'When the offence alleged to have been committed by the Army Officer/Personnel and cognizance thereof has already been taken by the competent Criminal Court, whether the Officer Commanding in view of Section 125 of the Army Act is legally entitled to make a request to the Criminal Court to hand over the custody of the accused to the Army Authority as well as record of the criminal trial for conducting Court martial proceedings as per the procedures prescribed in this regard.'4. Mr. Jaiswal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the instant case the petitioner is a military personnel. At the relevant time, the petitioner was attached to 333 Missile Brigade Military Cantonmen...

Smt. Ratpalkaur Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (investigatio ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Bom)288

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the legal heir/wife of Sardar Inderjeet Singh Osan who died on 11th Aug., 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee').2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Tribunal dt. 29th July, 2005 in ITA No. 919/Nag/1996 relating to block assessment period 1st April, 1985 to 23rd Oct., 1995.3. According to the assessee, following questions of law do arise out of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal:(a) Whether in a search proceedings unaccounted cash which is found in possession of some other person, other than assessee, then on mere admission by assessee that out of the said cash some belongs to him, can be a basis of initiating proceedings under Section 158BC against him?(b) Whether under given facts and circumstances of the case the assessment made under Section 158BC was valid, legal and in conformity with the provisions of law, where the tax liability and its payment attracts separate rates/slab?(c) When unaccounted cash was...