Mumbai Court July 2007 Judgments

Cipla Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(121)ECC150

2. The appellants being aggrieved by the impugned Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), filed the present appeal. The appellants are one of the largest pharmaceutical manufacturing companies in India. They manufacture drugs/medicines and export them to various foreign countries and they also manufacture goods which are cleared for domestic consumption. The Import and Export Policy provides for duty free import for the purposes of re-export i.e. the goods can be imported from abroad and can be re-exported back, out of the country, in the same condition. The goods which are imported in such circumstances are to be stored in a Custom bonded warehouse and thereafter as and when the appellant company procures an export order, the goods are allowed to be removed from the warehouse and exported out of India against realization of foreign exchange. In the course of such a normal business transaction, it is a common practice that sometimes, foreign buyers either revoke the ord...

ito Vs. Pericles Foods (P.) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in quashing the order under Section 143(3)(t) passed by the assessing officer and holding that the same as null and void ab initio.2. Assessee filed the return on 10-10-2001 declaring income at Rs. 69,120. Subsequently ref und of Rs. 1,19,998 was given to the assessee.Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny. Notice was issued under Section 143(2)(i) on 30-10-2002. Assessing Officer found that assessee claimed expenses against rent income of Rs. 6 lakhs. This should have been disallowed. Assessee is engaged in the business of investment and trading as per the return. It was claimed that the income derived by the assessee was not rent because assessee was not the owner of the premises. Assessee has taken the premises on sub-tenancy from a Trust.In support of the above, assessee filed a copy of the agreement entered into with Shree Basant Kumar Somani Memorial Trust. Assessee also produced cop...

Shri Mulraj Dwarkadas, (Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs Smt. Me ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR754; 2008(2)BomCR376; 2007(6)MhLj274

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of appellants and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. 2. Appellants are challenging the order passed by the Small Causes Court dated 22/6/1987 whereby the Small Causes Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal which was filed by the original appellant under Section 217 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, confirming the order passed by the assessing authority which increased the rateable value of the premises. 3. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this First Appeal are as under:4. The building in question was built in 1911 and the rateable value of the building prior to 01/04/1963 was fixed at Rs 24,090/. Respondents, however, after giving notice to appellants increased the said rateable value to Rs 51,915/. Thereafter, certain deductions were given in favour of appellants and, finally, rateable value was fixed at Rs 45,630/with effect from 01/04/1983. Against this order, appel...

Aderabad Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. Div. Jt. Registrar, ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR510; 2007(5)BomCR595

Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The Petitioners have applied for issue of a writ of certiorari in respect of the order of the Deputy Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai-Respondent No.1, dated 16.5.2006. The order is in respect of expulsion of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 as nominal members of the Petitioner-Society. The expulsion decided in the Special General Body meeting of the Petitioners was approved by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The 1st Respondent, under the impugned order, has set aside the said order and refused to approve the expulsion of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) read with Rules 28 and 29 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules (MCS Rules). 2. The Petitioner Society's building has been constructed by one Bakhtawar Construction Company as the builder and developer under an Agreement dated 31.3.1975 executed by the developer with the owners of the land and the supplemental Agreement d...

Safari Mercantile (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Bom)165; [2007]294ITR64(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Heard Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. This petition is filed to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal, Bombay, dt. 7th March, 2007, whereby the miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner seeking rectification of mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal on 9th May, 2006, has been dismissed.3. The assessment year involved herein is the asst. yr. 2001-02.4. The return of income for the asst. yr. 2001-02 was filed on 31st Oct., 2001, and the assessee paid the self-assessment tax of Rs. 90,00,000.5. On 30th Dec, 2001, an order was passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 140A of the IT Act, 1961, stating therein that the assessee has not paid the full amount of self-assessment tax and, accordingly, the assessee was treated as assessee deemed to be in default in respect of tax, surcharge and interest remaining unpaid. After issuing notice under Section 221 of the Act, penalt...

Kalpesh K. Shah Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008]296ITR74(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. Heard.2. This appeal is filed by the assessee-appellant under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, stating that the following questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated January 30, 2006, in I.T.A. No. 6323/ Mum/03:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the impugned cash credit of Rs. 7 lakhs in respect of loans from Shri Y.J. Choksi Group and disallowance of interest of Rs. 3,96,964 thereon?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have deleted the impugned additions by way of cash credit and disallowance of interest in view of gross violation of the principles of natural justice and directions given by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in his order dated March 30, 2001?3. The appeal is admitted on the aforesaid questions and by consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing.4. The assessment year involved here...

Shree Ambe Mata Industries Vs. Ccex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(122)ECC171

1. This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No. BPS(308) 252/2003 dated 26.9.2003.2. The issue involved in this case is that the appellants are engaged in manufacturing of MS CTD Bars falling under Chapter No. 72 of CETA, 1985 and availing Modvat credit facility under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. On 1.2.1997, there was a balance of Rs. 1,70,621.08 in the RG-23A Part-II account of the appellants. During the period 13.2.1997 to 18.2.1997, the appellants received inputs i.e. M.S. Scrap from unregistered dealers. The appellants recorded the same in RG-23A Part-I register. Subsequently on 26.2.97 and 27.2.97, the appellants cleared the M.S. Scrap on payment of duty by debiting the amount of duty in RG-23A Part-II. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants for illegal utilization of credit on the ground that the M.S. Scrap cleared by the appellants was received without payment of duty and show cause notice was also issued to show as to why the amount should not be rec...

Commissioner of C. Excise Vs. Ajanta Sales Corporation

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)13STT324

1. Heard both sides. I have seen the impugned order passed by the Learned Commissioner (A), Aurangabad wherein he has imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/-.2. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue is in appeal. This case pertains to payment of Service Tax which has been delayed including filing of Returns Under Section 77 & 78 of Service Tax Act. Of course, there is no doubt that the Service Tax amount of Rs. 97,048/- and interest amount of Rs. 29,395/- was paid much prior to the issue of Show Cause Notice. The defense of the assessee in not making payment is that there was no intention to commit delay on their part and this is due to unawareness of the provision of law. Further it is submitted that they have not collected the Service Tax from the Service Receiver (Grasim Industries Ltd) and if they have knowledge, they would have paid it and collected it from them. Anyway the assessee has paid the amount under the bonafide belief without any ill intention. According to the assessee the Co...

Sakasi Realtors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. I have perused the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai Zone II who has rejected the refund claim of Service Tax for Rs. 58,624/- and also the rectification application filed by the assessee on the basis of Section 74 of the Act. The appeal was also not filed within the stipulated time by the appellant.2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that a letter is not an Appealable Order which is not maintainable and hence rejected the appeal. The learned Counsel appearing herein rely upon the decision laid down in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. CCE (A) Cochin 2006 (200) ELT 428 (Tri. Bangalore) wherein it was held that a Letter issued by the Department is a decision and is appealable Order.Therefore the learned Commissioner (A) shall dispose of the Appeal in light of the above said decision.3. Accordingly the matter is remanded back to the learned Commissioner.The present appeal is allowed in remand....

Futuristic Concepts Media Ltd. Vs. Ccex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(123)ECC69

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No.AT/525/M-II/2005 dated 7.11.2005.2. The issue involved in this case is regarding the non-payment of 8% of the amount of the value of the exempted goods cleared by the appellant by utilizing the duty paid inputs for manufacturing of dutiable as well as exempted goods under the provisions of Rules 57CC and 82 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants paid an amount of 8% of the value of the exempted goods as per direction of Central Excise officers on visit to the factory premises of the appellant. The adjudicating authority as well as the first appellate authority has imposed and upheld penalty and interest on the said amount, which was paid by the appellants.3. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that they are only challenging the imposition of penalty and the interest thereon and they are not challenging the amount of 8% paid by them. He submits that the issue is squarely covered by the d...