Mumbai Court July 2007 Judgments

Kishore Transport Services (P) Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)9STR77

1. We have heard both sides on the application for waiver of Service Tax of Rs. 6,57,492/- + 2,12,393/-(total Rs. 8,69,885/-) and penalty of Rs. 500/- under Section 75A, Rs. 200/- per day under Section 76 and Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 and Rs. 13,14,984/- and Rs. 4,24,786 under Section 78 of the Finance Act,1994. The period of dispute is from April 2001 to March 2004. The demand has been confirmed on the ground that the applicants herein had rendered services as 'Clearing and Forwarding Agent'.2. We find that no strong prima facie case for total waiver has been made out by the applicants, in the light of the Tribunal's decision in Super Poly Fabriks Ltd. v. C.C.E., Ludhiana 2006 (4) S.T.R. 595 in which the Bench has distinguished the Larger Bench decision in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Commissioner 2006 (3) S.T.R. 321 which Larger Bench decision is relied upon by the applicants before us to support their contention that the decision in the case of Prabhat Zarda relied upo...

Tejshree J. Walwalkar Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)8STR597

1. This stay application is directed against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 4,140/- on the appellants. Since the issue involved in this ease is covered by the amnesty scheme, stay application is allowed and appeal itself is taken up for disposal.2. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records.3. The issue involved in this case is that the appellant has not discharged the service tax liability despite taking the service tax registration from the department. The period involved is April 99 to April 2003. The appellant discharged the entire Service Tax liability and the interest thereof on 04/10/2004. The adjudicating authority appropriated the said amount and imposed a penalty, which was enhanced by the Ld. Commissioner, in his order-in-appeal. I find that the case of the appellant is covered by the amnesty scheme permitted by the Ministry of Finance vide letter No. 137/39/2004-CX dated 28/09/2004.Under this scheme the Ministry of Finance waived the penal acti...

Hybro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)299ITR295(Mum.)

1. The only issue arising in this appeal relates to the disallowance of Rs. 83,90,623/- Under Section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (the Act) being 20% cash purchases of Rs. 4,19,53,1147-.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of live birds (chicken) and selling the same to hotels, restaurants and catering units. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that assessee had made cash purchases of Rs. 4,06,19,5567- from M/s. Saguna Poultery Farms, Rs. l 1,64,5887- from M/s. Venkateshwara Hatcheries (I). P. Ltd. and Rs. 1,69,000- from M/s. Faisal Broiler. The assessee was asked to show cause why disallowance Under Section 40A(3) of the Act be not made in respect of such purchases. The explanation of the assessee was that no disallowance could be made since such payments were covered by the exception laid down under Rule 6DD(f) of the I.T. Rules, 1962 (Rules).The Assessing Officer rejected the explanation of the asse...

K.N. Manuel Vs. Cantonment Executive Officer and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR787

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The Petition challenges an order passed by the Labour Court dated 21.5.1997 on an application filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. The Petitioner was employed as an electrician with the Respondent Cantonment Board from 1.9.1950 to 30.11.1987. The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.1987. He had opted for the pension scheme under the General Provident Fund scheme which came into existence in 1976. The petitioner was entitled to General Provident Fund, according to him, in view of the option exercised by him. At the time of retirement, the petitioner was paid less than what was due and payable to him on account of provident fund. Certain amounts were recovered from the leave encashment paid to the petitioner on account of excess payment of provident fund. A recovery was also sought to be made from his provident fund dues. Aggrieved by the action taken by Respondent No. 1 to recover amounts from his retiral dues, ...

Shri Ganpat K. Sanade Vs. the Managing Director, Nasik Sahakari Sakhar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR453; [2008(116)FLR862]

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The Petition has been filed against the order of the Labour Court rejecting the application for amendment at Exhibit 61. This order was passed on 5.4.1997. The Labour Court held that the application at Exhibit 61 for amendment of statement of claim, was belated and the amendment application filed after 12 years could not be granted. The Labour Court also observed that another application for amendment at Exhibit 34 was yet to be disposed of.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:The petitioner claims to be employed with the Respondent from 1.2.1977. The petitioner filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act being application (IDA) No. 690 of 1985 for recovery of certain dues payable to him under various awards and provisions of law. On 26.6.1992, the petitioner wanted provide additional particulars regarding the claim made by him and, therefore, sought to amend his application at Exhibit 34. The respondent herei...

Shri Mangilal Himmatlal Jain, Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(121)ECC265

1. After hearing both sides on application for waiver of pre deposit of duty of Rs. 7537.420/- levied on yarn imported by M/s Umaji Overseas under Proviso to Section 28 read with Section 72 of Customs Act, 1968 read with the Notification No. 53/97-Cus dated 3.6.1997 and penalty of equal amount, and penalties of Rs. 10 lakhs upon its partners and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on Shri Mangilal Himmatlal Jain, yarn broker, we find that it is possible to decide the appeals at this stage itself as the grievance of the importer is of violation of principles of natural justice; hence after granting the prayer for stay we take up the appeals for final hearing.2. We find that although there is no dispute that copies of relied upon documents were made available to the appellants, they had been asking repeatedly for return of documents seized from their premises which, although not relied upon in the show cause notice, were required by them for the purpose of preparing their defence. The correspondence...

Girish C. Bathija Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)113TTJ(Mum.)521

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order of the CIT(A) XIV, Mumbai for the asst. yr. 1998-99 on the following grounds appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment made by the AO of sale of asset (being right in flat) as short-term capital gain in place of long-term capital gains declared by the appellant. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not verifying the fact that the appellant had never taken possession of the flat and what was sold by the appellant was the right in the flat and the appellant had incorrectly shown the transaction as sale of flat in place of right in flat. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding the sale of flat as short-term capital gain by treating the date of possession as the date of acquisition, while the date of first payment should have been treated as the date of acquisition of flat.2. The brief facts are that: the...

Armour Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Joint Cit, Spl. Range-6

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), XLII, Mumbai, dated 29-3-2001 for the assessment year 1995-96.2. We have heard both the parties and have also perused the records and other applicable legal position, Gr. No. 1: The Commissoner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts on records in confirming the assessing officer's action of rejecting the book results and estimating the average net profit rate @ 3 per cent amounting to Rs. 83,57,970 which is totally unrealistic and unjustifiable on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Without prejudice to the above, in case of rejection of book results and estimation of N.P. rate, the 'depreciation' as well as interest should be separately deducted as has been held in various decisions. As againstthis, the assessing officer had relied on CBDT Circular No. 29-D, dated 31-8-1965 and allowed only 'depreciation'. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appellant's contention...

Dowell Leasing and Finance Ltd. Through Its Director Syed RiazuddIn S/ ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR512(Bom); 2008(1)BomCR768; (2007)109BOMLR1545; [2007]79SCL451(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The Respondent No. 1 had filed an Arbitration Reference against the present Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, under Bye-laws of the Bombay Stock Exchange, Mumbai. The Arbitral Tribunal passed an Award on 19.03.2002 against the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. That Award was challenged by the Petitioner before this Court in Arbitration Petition No. 264 of 2003. A learned Judge of this Court was pleased to set aside the Award by Judgment dated 31.08.2004.2. Respondent No. 1 then filed Arbitration Reference No. 21 of 2005 against the petitioner. The petitioner herein filed an Application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.) It was the petitioner's contention that there was no agreement between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 1, nor was there any contract or dealing or transaction between the petitioner and the Respondent No. 1. The learned Arbitral Tribunal after hearing the parties by ...

Smt. Archana Harshwardhan Chaturvedi and Girish J. Chaubey Vs. Commiss ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR1724

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri S.V. Manohar, learned Counsel for Petitioners and Smt. S.S. Wandile, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents. Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.2. Shri Manohar, learned Counsel for petitioners has contended that in the instant Criminal Writ Petition, grievance of petitioners is that, complainant has filed police complaint dated 13.03.2007 against Shri Harshwardhan Chaturvedi (accused No. 1 -husband of petitioner No. 1), Smt. Asha Chaturvedi (mother of accused No. 1), Dr. Prakash Chaturvedi (father of accused No. 1) and Ku. Jaya Chaturvedi (sister of accused No. 1), for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, similarly under Sections 3 and 4 of Prohibition of Dowry Act, as well as under the provisions of Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Shri Manohar, learned Counsel for petitioners has submitted that apart from the above referred complaint, allegations are al...