Mumbai Court January 2010 Judgments

Sunil D. Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

ORDERD.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard.2. By this application, the applicant takes exception to the order dated 25th September 2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ichalkaranji refusing to accept the bail and surety furnished by the applicant in pursuance of his earlier order dated 14th July 2009 passed under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Cr. P.C.).3. The facts giving rise to the present application are briefly given below:The applicant, who is arrayed as the accused No. 2 in C.R. No. 44 of 2009 registered at Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Ichalkaranji for an alleged offence punishable under Section 376 and other sections of the I.P.C., was arrested by the police on 1st March 2009. The applicant was initially remanded to police custody and was thereafter remanded to the judicial custody and is presently in judicial custody. Investigation was not completed and a chargesheet was not filed within the period of 90 days of arrest, which expired on 30t...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs. Badve Engineering Pvt L ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal was filed by the department challenging the reduction of quantum of penalty from Rs 1,01,746/- to Rs 15,000/- ordered by the lower appellate authority under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. During the period 2002-03, the respondent had availed certain CENVAT Credits, which were not admissible to them according to the Revenue. These credits were reversed by them prior to the issue of the show-cause notice in question. The show-cause notice, which invoked the extended period of limitation, proposed to appropriate the above debits in CENVAT account towards the demand of duty raised under the proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Act. It also proposed to impose a penalty on the respondent under Rule 13 (2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act for the breach/violation of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 as discussed above. The relevant allegation, raised and discussed in earlier paragraphs of the show-cause notice, was that the not...

Kirloskar Pneumatic Co Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Ii ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this appeal filed by the assessee, the short question arising for consideration is whether the decision of the lower authorities to demand duty on a certain quantity of inputs for the period 2005-06 and to impose equal amount of penalty on the assessee is sustainable on the facts of this case. A senior auditor of the department on 8.12.2006 made on an audit report, wherein the following figures were entered with regard to aluminium ingots (input): Opening balance as on 1.4.05 - 1260 kgs Receipts in 05-06 48,419 kg Total 49,617 kgs Issue in 05-06 61,083 kg Closing balance (-) 11,412 kg The senior auditor himself worked out Rs 3,22,525/- to be the total amount of CENVAT Credit said to have been availed by the assessee on aluminium ingots weighing 13,724 kgs in 2005-06. Reproducing the above figures, the department issued a show-cause notice to the assessee on 21.5.2007 seeking to recover duty of Rs 3,22,525/- from them with interest thereon under Section 11AB as also to impose a pe...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Vs. Maharashtra Aldehydes and C ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The short question arising for consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent is entitled to CENVAT Credit on the denaturing agents used by their job worker for denaturing ethyl alcohol into denatured spirit. The credit was disallowed by the original authority on the ground that the denaturing agents were not used in the respondent’s factory. The credit was proposed to be denied, in the show-cause notice, on the ground that the denaturing agents did not qualify to be inputs under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. The lower authorities rejected this proposal and allowed the credit to the assessee. The lower appellate authority noted that the issue had already been settled by this Tribunal in the case of Laxmi Organic Industries Ltd vs Commissioner 2002 (140) ELT 123 (Tri-Mumbai). In that case, crotonaldehyde was used by a job worker to denature ethyl alcohol and the denatured spirit was returned to the principal manufacturer for further use in the manufacture of acetaldehy...

Ariane Orgachem Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this appeal, the prayer is to set aside a penalty of Rs 42,201/- imposed on the appellant under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act and also to set aside the demand of interest on duty raised under Section 11AB of the Act. There is no representation for the appellant despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. I have examined the records and heard the learned JDR for the respondent. 2. In adjudication of a show-cause notice dated 26.4.2006, the original authority had disallowed CENVAT Credit of Rs 42,201/- to the appellant and ordered its recovery under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Act. The amount of Rs 42,201/- debited by the party earlier in their CENVAT Account was appropriated towards this demand. The adjudicating authority had also sought to levy interest on this amount under Section 11AB of the Act for the delay of reversal of the Credit. A penalty of Rs 42,201/- w...

Klassic Wheels Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal was filed by the assessee challenging the penalty of Rs 61,555.53 imposed on them under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and the redemption fine of Rs 58,000/- imposed in lieu of confiscation of the seized goods. However, there is no representation, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. I have examined the records and heard the JDR for the respondent. 2. The appeal is directed against the Appellate Commissioner’s order sustaining the order of adjudication passed by the original authority. The original authority had confirmed a demand of Rs 61,555.53 against the assessee (appellant), in adjudication of a show-cause notice issued on 14.9.1998, in respect of certain excisable goods found to have been clandestinely removed by them during the period April 1996 to March 1998. Obviously, the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Act was invoked for demanding the duty. The adjudicating authority has also ordered for recovery o...

R.V. BhasIn Vs. State of Maharashtra and Marine Drive Police Station

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR154

Ranjana Desai, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the parties and at the request of the counsel, taken up for hearing.2. The applicant, who is an advocate, is the author of a book entitled 'Islam - A concept of Political World Invasion By Muslims' ('the book'). The book was published in 2003 by National Publications, 76, Bajaj Bhavan, Nariman Point, Mumbai of which the applicant claims to be the proprietor. The book was translated into Hindi by Dr. Anil Misr.3. In exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code') the Government of Maharashtra issued a notification dated 9/3/2007 ('the Notification') and declared that every copy of the book as well as of the translation thereof shall be banned and forfeited to Government. The Notification is as follows:NOTIFICATIONGeneral Administration DepartmentMantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032Dated the 9th March, 2007Code ofCriminalProcedure, 1973.No. PUB2007-C.N.15/07...

The Commissioner of Income Tax-25 Vs. Gopal Purohit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Bom)582

1. The following questions of law have been formulated in the appeal filed by the revenue against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 10th February 2009:a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in treating the income from sale of 7,59,003 shares for Rs. 5,00,12,879/as an income from short term capital gain and sale of 3,88,797 shares for Rs. 6,65,02,340/as long term capital gain as against the 'Income from business' assessed by the A.O.?b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in holding that principle of consistency must be applied here as authorities did not treat the assessee as a share trader in preceding year, in spite of existence of similar transaction, which cannot in any way operate as res-judicata to preclude the authorities from holding such transactions as business activities in current year?c) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-i Vs. thermax Ltd. and Others

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

In all these appeals filed by the Revenue, the appellant prays for imposition of penalties on the respondents under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. In all these cases barring appeal No. E/2949/06, the respondents had taken excess CENVAT credit which was detected by the department later on. Upon such detection of wrong availment of excess credit, the respondents reversed the credits and also paid interest thereon. Subsequently, show-cause notices were issued to them. In the case of M/s. Thermax Ltd., the original authority imposed penalty equal to the amount of CENVAT credit on the assessee under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. In the case of M/s. Mather and Platt Pump Ltd., the adjudicating authority imposed penalty on the party under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, without reference to Section 11AC of the Act. In the case of M/s. Sharayu Precisions, the adjudicating authority did likewise. In the remaining ca...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs. Uma Precision Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

This is an appeal filed by the department wherein the appellant prays for restoration of the penalty imposed on the respondent by the original authority. There is no representation for the respondent despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. I have examined the records and heard learned JDR who has reiterated the grounds of this appeal. 2. In adjudication of a show-cause notice which invoked the extended period of limitation on the alleged ground of suppression of facts by the respondent with intent to evade payment of duty, the original authority had imposed a total penalty of Rs.78,481/- on the party under Rule 13 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. A major part (Rs.73,470/-) of this penalty was imposed on the ground that the respondent had deliberately chosen not to reverse CENVAT credit of Rs.73,470/- on capital goods which were sent to a job worker, even though the job-worked goods were not received in their factory w...