Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1983)LC(1973)DTri(Mum.)bai
1. The Additional Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Nagpur has filed an appeal against Order No. S/49-94/81 GC (Nagpur) dated the 10th day of November, 1982 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 7-4-1981, Preventive Officers, Amravati Division, during the course of checking of the accounts and stock of the respondent found that he was in possession of primary gold weighing 592.200 gms. He had a gold smith's licence. As per provisions of Section 42(ii) a goldsmith can have 300 gms. and thus the respondent had 292.200 gms. gold in excess as per the version of the appellant. A show cause notice dated 22-7-81 was issued to the respondent to show cause why penal action should not be taken on him under Section 74 of the Act and why the seized gold should not be confiscated under Section 71 of the Act. Respondent had filed a reply.The officers bad asked only for GS 13 register. Respondent had also obtained a Gold Dealer's Li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1988)24ITD211(Mum.)
1. This appeal involves a question of inclusion in the net wealth of the value of certain gold bonds which had matured before the valuation date. The assessee was the holder of National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980, and the date of redemption of these bonds was the 27th October, 1980.The valuation date is 31-3-1981. The assessee had not redeemed them and his contention has been that the value of the Bond is exempt from wealth-tax Under Section 5(1)(xvia). He has pointed out that the Govt.of India by a Press notification dated 23rd March, 1982, had extended the date of redemption of these Bonds up to 30th September, 1982. The Commissioner has considered the Press notification whereunder the repayment facilities were extended. The said Press Notification inter alia states as follows : Some holders of National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980 have not so far tendered their Bonds at the repayment centres. To avoid any inconvenience to them, facilities for delivery of Gold in repayment of these Bonds ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1984)9ITD882(Mum.)
1. The revenue has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on various grounds. The first ground relates to the assessee's claim for depreciation on assets which were formerly used for scientific research. By the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, the provisions of Section 35(2)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') were amended retrospectively so as to deny the assessee's claim for relief under Section 32 of the Act in respect of such assets. The assessee, therefore, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India restraining the ITO from taking into account the retrospective amendment of Section 35(2)(iv) for the assessment year under consideration. The High Court by the order dated 17-12-1980 granted injunction as prayed by the assessee.And yet, the ITO while framing the assessment for the year under consideration made an assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act by applying the retrospective amendment of Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1984(17)ELT244(Bom)
1. The petitioner is a limited company and has its main office at Calcutta. The petitioner is exporter of textiles and fabrics and is engaged in the manufacture of Art Silk fabrics. Between April 1979 and January 1980, the petitioner imported polyester filament yarn from M/s. Greenland Corporation, Japan. The importation was effected under the cover of valid R.E.P. Licences granted to the petitioner in accordance with the Import Trade (Control) Order, 1955. The licences were issued to the petitioner in the capacity as merchant exporter against export of goods.2. On February 7, 1977, the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Banking, issued a notification in exercise of the powers under Section 25 of the Customs Act exempting nylon filament yarn and polyester filament yarn imported into India from whole of duty of customs leviable thereon which is specified under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act. The notification requires the importer to comply with certain requirem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1985)87BOMLR167; (1985)45CTR(Bom)180; [1985]155ITR637(Bom); [1985]20TAXMAN4(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. Mr. M. C. Chagla, former Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, passed away on February 9, 1981, leaving behind a will dated January 5, 1978, appointing the petitioners - his two sons - as the executors of the said will. The deceased, at the time of his death, owned a flat being 'C' Block on the third floor of 'Pallonji Mansion', 43, Cuffe Parade, Bombay, and was residing there along with petitioner No. 2 and his family members. The building in which the flat is situated was constructed in the year 1936 and the land on which the building is erected is the Government leasehold land, the lease being for a duration of 99 years commencing from February 12, 1935. Mr. Chagla was in occupation of the flat as a tenant from the year 1961 till the year 1971, and the contractual rent paid was Rs. 270 per month. In the year 1971, the tenants with the consent of the owners formed a housing co-operative society and the deceased who was one of the tenants joined the society and became t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)(153)ELT198Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-III. The as-sessees are aggrieved by - (a) denial of benefit of Notification No. 126/78-C.E, dated 27-5-1978 to Tankmastic although the classification claimed under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 2715.90 as "cut back bitumen" has been accepted, (b) denial of benefit of Notification No. 35/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986, to the products CPRX compound and Shalikote T-10, T-12, T-14 & T-25, (a) extension of benefit of the above Notification to Tarfelt BH, BS, DC & Tarfelt Scrap, although the claim for classification of these products under CET sub-heading 5909.00 has not been accepted and the goods have been classified under CET sub-heading 5906.90, (b) extension of benefit of Notification No. 126/78-C.E. to Tankmastic and Shalitex Primer, (c) extension of benefit of Notification No. 126/78-C.E. to Shalibond BS and Shalibond CS, and (d) extension of benefit of Notification No. 35/86-C.E. to Shalik...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1984)38CTR(Bom)203; [1985]151ITR67(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In this reference two questions referred to us at the instance of the assessee by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, Bench 'D', are as under :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss apportioned to the wife in the firm of M/s. Kosangas & Company was rightly excluded in determining the appellant's total income or total loss ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax had rightly assumed jurisdiction under section 263 and had rightly passed the order in question ?'2. A few facts necessary to appreciate the point in controversy may now be stated. The assessee, an individual, was a partner in the firm of Messrs. Kosangas & Company in which his wife, Rukmini, was also a partner. We are concerned in this matter for assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68. For these two years the said firm had suffered a net loss in its business. When the ITO finalised the assessment for the two y...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)82ITD749(Mum.)
1. All these five appeals by the assessee arise out of five separate orders of the learned CIT(A) dt. 28th Nov., 1995, 24th July, 1996, 30th July, 1997, 28th July, 1998 and 29th Oct., 1999, for asst. yrs.1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 respectively. Approval of the Committee on Disputes permitting the assessee to pursue the appeals before the Tribunal is placed on record for the assessment years in question. Since the point of dispute is common in all the appeals, they are being disposed of by this combined order for the sake of convenience.2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are quite narrative and argumentative which is contrary to ITAT Rules. However, the common issue is that the assessee in all these appeals is aggrieved against inclusion of interest on debentures, bonds and Government securities in the total amount of interest on loans and advances and subjecting it to interest-tax under the Interest-tax Act, 1974 (the Act).3. Assessee, that is, Life Ins...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. All these five appeals by the assesses arise out of five separate orders of the learned CIT(A), dt. 28th Nov., 1995, 24th July, 1996, 30th July, 1997, 28th July, 1998, and 29th Oct., 1999, for asst. yrs.1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97, respectively. Approval of the Committee on Disputes permitting the assessee to pursue the appeals before the Tribunal is placed on record for the assessment years in question. Since the point of dispute is common in all the appeals, they are being disposed of by this combined order for the sake of convenience.2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are quite narrative and argumentative which is contrary to ITAT. Rules. However, the common issue is that the assessee in all these appeals is aggrieved against inclusion of interest on debentures, bonds and Government securities in the total amount of interest on loans and advances and subjecting it to interest-tax under the Interest-tax Act, 1974 (the Act).3. Assessee, that is, Life...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1988(14)LC131(Bombay)
ORDERH. Suresh, J.1. The petitioner company manufactures various kinds of packing materials, containers including tubes popularly known as aluminium collapsible and rigid tubes. These tubes are manufactured by them in a factory situated at Worli, Bombay. The process of manufacturing collapsible tubes consists of forcing slugs or lumps of aluminium through a die under pressure. This operation known as the extrusion operation is carried out in a machine known as the 'Extrusion Press'. After the tube is delivered from the extrusion press, it is finished, that is, trimmed to a correct length and its nozzle is threaded to the appropriate specification. The petitioner says that the operation of extrusion is complete at this stage and the resultant product known as an extruded tube comes into existence. This item is liable for excise duty under item No. 27(e) of the Tariff as it stood then.2. The said item 27 also included sub-item (f) relating to containers made of aluminium, and there is an...
Tag this Judgment!