Mumbai Court March 2010 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Vs. Isibars Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J), In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the appellant opposes a refund claim filed by the respondent. During the period of dispute (April to December 2001), the respondent had undertaken job work on the billets (raw material) supplied by the principal manufacturer and had returned the job-worked goods (wire rods and bars) to the raw material supplier without payment of duty, claiming the benefit of Notification 214/86-CE. For undertaking the job work of converting the billets into wire rods and bars, the respondent had procured furnace oil on payment of duty and used the same as fuel. They also took CENVAT credit of the duty paid on the fuel. Subsequently, however, they had to reverse this credit at the instance of the department. Later on, they filed a refund claim claiming refund of an amount of Rs.12,52,519/- equivalent to the credit so reversed. The department issued a show-cause notice proposing to reject the refund claim on the ground that the responden...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs. Prachi Forgings Pvt. Lt ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J), This appeal is filed by the Revenue, represented today by the learned SDR. There is no representation for the respondent despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. The short question arising for consideration in this case is whether the benefit of Notification No.223/88-CE dated 23.6.1988 (as amended) (serial No.4) is admissible to the respondent in respect of the subject goods for the period September 1993 to February 1994. 2. The relevant show-cause notice denied the benefit of concessional rate of duty under serial No.4 of the Table annexed to the notification, which was available to forgings and forged articles of steel (other than stainless steel), to the respondent on the ground that the goods manufactured by them and cleared during the above period were forgings and forged articles of alloy steel. The show-cause notice accordingly demanded duty of Rs.1,86,629/- from the party. The original authority dropped the demand of duty and oth...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-v Vs. R.A. Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J), This is an appeal filed by the department, represented today by the learned JDR. There is no representation for the respondent despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. 2. The appeal is against a remand order passed by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) on 13.6.2003, at a time when there was no power of remand with the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned JDR has, apart from the grounds of the appeal on merits, laid emphasis on the jurisdictional aspect by relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in MIL India Ltd. vs. CCE, Noida 2007 (210) ELT 188 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "In fact, the power of remand by the Commissioner (A) has been taken away by amending Section 35A with effect from 11.5.2001 under the Finance Bill, 2001. Under the Notes to clause 122 of the said Bill it is stated that clause 122 seeks to amend Section 35A so as to withdraw the powers of the Commissioner (A) to remand matters back t...

Sterlite Industries (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Auran ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J), This appeal pertains to three refund claims filed by the appellant, a claim dated 17.7.1996 for Rs.4,71,355/-, another claim dated 30.9.1996 for Rs.2,46,936/- and a third one dated 24.10.1996 for Rs.4,52,160/-. All the three refund claims were rejected by the original authority on the ground of non-production of original documents. In the appeal filed by the assessee against the Assistant Commissioner's order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) found that the party had not produced the requisite documents and also had not adduced evidence against the bar of unjust enrichment. In the result, all the refund claims were rejected. 2. The learned consultant for the appellant submits that the documents requisitioned by the lower authorities are either not relevant to the refund claims or not available with the claimant. It is also pointed out that, though in the relevant show-cause notice pertaining to the claim for refund of Rs.4,52,160/-, the department only p...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur Vs. B.G. Constructions

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J), This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the appellate Commissioner's order upholding the order of adjudication passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Both the lower authorities rejected the proposal as contained in the show-cause notice for assessment of the subject goods in terms of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. They held that the goods in question in the form it was cleared by the respondent was exempt under Rule 34(b) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 from the requirement of declaration of MRP and thereby from the application of Section 4A of the Act. According to the Revenue, all the three conditions of "wholesale package" laid down under clause (x) of Rule 2 of the above Rules were to be cumulatively satisfied by the manufacturer so as to claim exemption under Rule 34(b). These three conditions, mentioned in the memo of appeal, are as follows:- (i) A number of retail packages, where such first mention...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Universal Medicare Private Limited

Court: Mumbai

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arising out of an order of the Tribunal pertaining to assessment year 2003-2004, raises the following three questions of law:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT, in law, was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 35 lac treated as deemed dividend Under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by stating that since the transactions are not reflected in the books of accounts, it cannot be treated as deemed dividend?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal in law, was right in holding that the AO has not established that the money was advanced for the benefit of any shareholder and the same has to be taxed in the hands of such shareholder who obtained the benefit and not in the hands of the assessee company, following the ratio of decision in the case of ACIT v. Bhaumik Colour P. Limited 27 SOT 270 (SB) ?3. Whether on th...

K.K. Bhaskaran and Sarjeet Singh Vs. Administrator of Daman and ors.

Court: Mumbai

P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Whether it is open to the department to prescribe a certain percentage of quota between degree holders and diploma holders in the matter of promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to the Assistant Engineer is the question which is raised in the present petition at the instance of the petitioners.2. The petitioners are working as Junior Engineers in the Electrical Department of the Administration of Union Territory of Daman and Diu. The petitioners are the diploma holders in Electrical Engineering and are serving with respondent No. 1 since 1983. The post of Junior Engineers comprises of diploma holders as well as degree holders. The graduate engineers are those who have attended a five year Degree Course in Engineering and obtained the qualification of Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) whereas diploma holders are those who have attended a three year diploma course in Engineering.3. So far as the post of Junior Engineer is concerned, the same is Assistant Engineer (E...

The Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. Administrators of Estate of Late Sir ...

Court: Mumbai

V.C. Daga, J.1. This Gift Tax Reference at the instance of the Revenue relating to the assessment year 1968-69, is made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay under Section 26(1) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958 to seek opinion of this Court on the following two substantial questions of law.Whether on the acts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in (1) holding that property can be valued on rent capitalization method to determine the fair market value of the property for purpose of Gift Tax Act and (2) holding that by valuing the property in question after applying the well recognized methods under the W.T. Rules, there is no question of deemed gift.THE FACTS2. The relevant facts are that the administrator of the estate of late Sir J.M. Scindia was owning 1/3rd share in the immovable property styled as Smundra Mahalhile while the other 2/3rd share in this property was held by the H.U.F. Of late Sir J.M. Scindia. Originally, the entire property belonged...

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs. Pundalik Datta ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(3)MhLj279

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner is challenging the impugned orders whereby both the Courts below directed the respondent-original complainant to continue in the job inspite of termination notice whereby the petitioner considering the conviction order passed by the Competent Court, terminated the services as per Rule 10(a) Maharashtra State Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations. The relevant portion reads thus:No person shall be eligible for appointment or shall be continued in service of the Board, if he /she is declared insolvent by the Competent Court or convicted in a Criminal Court or any other Court of Law for any criminal offence inclusive of offence under the Untouchability Act, which is the opinion of the Competent Authority, is considered unsuitable for employment, in view of the surrounding circumstances and gravity of the offence. The services of an employee so convicted shall be liable for termination without the necessity of enquiry or any disciplinary action...

Shri Laxman Yeswant Prabhudesai, Vs. Nrc Limited and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2010]155CompCas88(Bom)

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This Appeal under Section 483 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against an order dated 30th July, 2009, passed by the learned Company Judge in the above company application.2. The appellants before us are the original Applicants. They moved the above company application praying that the order dated 21st April, 2007 in company application No. 3 of 2007 be set aside and this Court should direct the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay to forthwith remove attachment of Plot No. R34 situate at MIDC, Trans Thane Creek Industrial Area, Village Tetavali, District Thane, Navi Mumbai and return the possession thereof to the applicants.3. The other prayer is that the Official Liquidator should be restrained from issuing any notice of auction or tender notice and selling the aforementioned plot of land.4. The company application was supported by the affidavit of the appellant No. 1. He stated in the affidavit that h...