Mumbai Court July 2007 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Excise Vs. Essel Propacks Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)13STT52

1. Heard both side. The issue involved in the present Appeal is that whether Cenvat Credit can be utilized for payment of Service Tax in respect of Services provided by Goods Transport Agents (GTAs) in accordance with the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 or otherwise.2. The Appellant herein is the manufacturer of Laminated Tubes. The Cenvat Credit is available to the assessee on the inputs and capital goods. Duty is being utilized towards payment of Service Tax on the Goods Transport Agents for which he is responsible to pay the Service Tax. This has been rightly allowed by the Commissioner (A). However, aggrieved by the same the Department came in Appeal. There is a decision covering the subject and the simple issue has been settled in favour of the assessee vide Order in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v.Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. 3. The Tribunal in the above case while considering the Rules 2(p) 2(q) 2(r ) of the Cenvat Credit Rules has held that "there is no restriction for utilizatio...

Narang Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)BomCR853; (2007)211CTR(Bom)524; 2007(217)ELT497(Bom); 2007[8]STR117

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Considering the importance of the question heard forthwith. The question: 'Does the third proviso to Section 254(2A) of IT Act, have the effect of denuding the Tribunal of its incidental power to grant interim reliefs 2. Finance Act, 2007 substituted Sub-section (2A) to Section 254 of the IT Act, 1961 w.e.f. 1st June, 2007. The said sub-section as amended reads as under:(2A) In every appeal, the Appellate Tribunal, where it is possible, may hear and decide such appeal within a period of four years from the end of the financial year in which such appeal is filed under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 253:Provided that the Tribunal may, after considering the merits of the application made by the assessee, pass an order of stay in any proceedings relating to an appeal filed under Sub-section (1) of Section 253, for a period not exceeding one hundred and eighty days from the date of such order and the Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal within the sai...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Rasul and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2008)DMC358

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment delivered by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, whereby she acquitted both the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498A r/w Section 34 of I.P. Code.2. The facts giving rise to this prosecution are as under: Deceased Nahid Anjum was married to accused No. 1 on 26.4.1992. Accused No. 1 used to ill-treat Nahid since the time of her marriage. She was being beaten by accused No. 1 and was also forced to bring sum of Rs. 30,000 from her father. He used to give her threat that if she does not bring the money, he will not cohabit with her and will not keep any kind of relations with her. Accused No. 1 used to insist upon the deceased to write a letter to her father making such demand. The deceased asked accused No. 1 as to why he wanted money. She, however, wrote two chits to her father, who is the complainant. In one of those chits, she had written to her father that her husband wante...

Devidayal Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(121)ECC331

1. Vide the impugned order the Commissioner of Customs has confirmed duty demand of Rs. 17,98,718/ together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and imposed penalty of equal amount under the provision of Section 112(a) of the Act on the appellants herein on the ground that imported materials under bill of entry on which they claimed exemption for payment of duty of customs and from payment of additional duty, in term of Notification No. 203/92-Cus dated 19.05.1992 by subscribing to a declaration that they had not obtained input stage credit under Rule 56A or Rule 57A on materials utilized by them for discharging export obligation under VABAL licence dated 28th January 1994 were not covered by the notifications. The case of the department is that the benefit of exemption is not available for the reason that the importers obtained input stage credit under the provisions of Rule 57A of the Central Exciso Rules, which was contrary to the conditions of Notification 203/92.2. None app...

VIn Vish Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Asst. Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These are two block assessment appeals; filed by the Assessee and the Revenue, respectively. These cross appeals are directed against the order of the CIT(A)-VII at Mumbai dated 13.3.2003 and arise out of the assessment completed Under Section 158 BC(c) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act 1961.2. The grounds raised in the appeal filed by the Assessee are as follows: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the contention of your appellant that the block assessment for the period 1.4.89 to 29.11.99 made by the A.O, was invalid, bad in law, void ab-initio and without jurisdiction as the notice issued Under Section 143(2) of the Act was beyond the prescribed time limit of one year as provided in the proviso to Section 143(2) of the Act. 2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the payments made to Smt.Leena J.Sonawala over the block period of Rs.5,75,277/- towards the salary, Rs.3,00,000/- towards the ex-gratia payment and Rs.3,22,120 to...

Abu-dhabi Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. Jt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The Tribunal has decided vide order dated 14-2-2007 the cross appeals of the assessee and the revenue for assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 and vide the same order, two cross-objections of the assessee were also decided for assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. In these years, three issues were involved in all these three years.2. The first issue was regarding applicability of Section 44C for allowability of head office expenses. This issue was raised in assessee's appeal for assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97; whereas, the same issue was raised by the revenue in assessment year 1997-98.This issue has been decided by the Tribunal as per para No. 5 of the impugned Tribunal order as per which, the Tribunal has restored this matter back to the file of the assessing officer with the direction that the assessing officer should decide this issue afresh in all the three years as per amended provisions of Section 44C after considering the Judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court...

Charbonnages De France Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

2. The first and main ground urged by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in confirming the order of the assessing officer with regard to payment made for preparing the Feasibility Study Report as fees paid for technical services. According to the assessee, Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the amount was paid for outright purchase of Feasibility Study Report and hence it could not be considered as fees for technical services. Assessee filed the return on 6-3-1998 declaring nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny subsequently. Assessee is a company and entered into an agreement with Central India Coal Company Ltd. ('CICCO' for short hereinafter referred to as ) for the Feasibility Study Report for developing coal mines for Lohara West Mine Project. For this the assessee received payment of Rs. 55,32,000 from CICCO. As per the agreement, tax payable in India is to be borne by Indian party, as such CICCO paid 20 per cent tax on ...

Shri Ravikant C. Borkar Vs. Shri Gokuldas Ramchandra Naik and State of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR1693

N.A. Britto, J.1. This is Complainant's appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by Order dated 31-3-2005 of the learned C.J.M., Margao.2. The case of the Complainant was that by an agreement-co receipt dated 23-2-2001 the accused along with his wife had agreed to sell a flat of the building situated at Murida in Chalta No. 18 of P.T. Sheet No. 78 of City Survey of Margao Town for a price of Rs. 3,00,000/- and pursuant to the said agreement the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 22-3-2001 as earnest money. The Complainant produced the said receipt at Exh.C-16.3. It was also the case of the Complainant that the accused expressed his inability to transfer the said flat in the name of the Complainant and therefore agreed to return the earnest money with interest which the Complainant did by issuing a cheque dated 25-8-2001 for Rs. 58,750/- which when presented for payment was returned dishonoured for insufficiency of...

State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Md. Sharif Haji Sharif and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR381

Deshmukh S.B., J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment and the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Nanded, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 108/2006 on 22-11-2006.2. The petitioners in this writ petition, are the defendants in R.C.S. No. 223/2006 filed by the respondent, who is the plaintiff in that suit. Parties hereinafter, are referred to their status as plaintiff and the defendants in R.C.S. No. 223/2006. The plaintiff, sought a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their employees and servants from making any sort of interference and obstruction to the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in C.T.S. No. 9978 and 9980, corresponding to Municipal Corporation No. 1-14-1035 out of land Survey No. 19 of village Asadullabad. The area of the suit property is to the tune of 4215 sq. ft. as described in the suit itself. This application, Exhibit-8, is filed alongwith the suit itself on 14-03-2006. Initially, the trial Court, issued notice to the ...

Ravikant C. Borkar Vs. Gokuldas Ramchandra Naik and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)MhLj166

N.A. Britto, J.1. This is complainant's appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by Order dated 31-3-2005 of the learned C.J.M., Margao.2. The case of the complainant was that by an agreement-cum-receipt dated 23-2-2001 the accused along with his wife had agreed to sell a flat of the building situated at Murida in Chalta No. 18 of P.T. Sheet No. 78 of City Survey of Margao Town for a price of Rs. 3,00,000/- and pursuant to the said agreement the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 22-3-2001 as earnest money. The complainant produced the said receipt at Exh. C-16.3. It was also the case of the complainant that the accused expressed his inability to transfer the said flat in the name of the complainant and therefore agreed to return the earnest money with interest which the complainant did by issuing a cheque dated 25-8-2001 for Rs. 58,750/- which when presented for payment was returned dishonoured for insufficiency ...