Mumbai Court October 1997 Judgments

Bai Dayambai Adamji Rangwala Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee-trust against the order dt.22nd February, 1996, passed by the Dy. CIT(A), B-Range, Mumbai, dismissing the appeal and ratifying the order of the AO to deny the benefit of exemption to the assessee-trust under s. 11 for the contravention said to have been committed by the assessee under s.11(5) r/w s. 13(1)(d) of the IT Act.2. The assessee is a trust created under the terms of trust deed dt.15th April, 1965. It is the assessee's case that exemption under s. 11 was granted to the assessee-trust from its inception to asst. yr.1987-88. The appeal before me relates to asst. yr. 1988-89. Let me survey the facts of the case relating to that assessment year.3. Return of income dt. 17th April, 1990, disclosing 'nil' taxable income was filed by the assessee-trust for this assessment year. In the month of March, 1991, the assessee's CA appeared in pursuance of notice under s. 143 issued to the assessee-trust. It was asked to file vouchers and bills for e...

Bai Dayambai Adamji Rangwala Charity Trust

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)61TTJ(Mumbai)779

ORDERThis is an appeal filed by the assessee-trust against the order dated 22-2-1996 passed by the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), B-Range, Mumbai, dismissing the appeal and ratifying the order of the assessing officer to deny the benefit of exemption to the assessee-trust under section 11 for the contravention said to have been committed by the assessee under section 11(5), read with section 13(1)(d), of the Income Tax Act.2. The assessee is a trust created under the terms of Trust Deed dated 15-4-1965. It is the assessees case that exemption under section 11 was granted to the assessee-trust from its inception to assessment year 1987-88. The appeal before me relates to assessment year 1988-89. Let me survey the facts of the case relating to that assessment year.3. Return of income dated 17-4-1990 disclosing nil taxable income was filed by the assessee-trust for this assessment year. In the month of March, 1991, the assessees C.A. appeared in pursuance of notices under section 143 issued ...

Swati Growth Funds Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT71Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed by the Appellant against the decision dated 21-10-1992 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) who confirmed the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs dated 18-9-1992 made in Order No. S/10-118/921. The Additional Collector by the Order-in-Original had held that import of Star Aniseed has violated the provisions of Sections 111 (d) and (m) of the Customs Act. He therefore imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The said order was confirmed by, as stated earlier by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). The goods are known as Star Aniseed otherwise known as Badiyan Khatal (fruit). Prior to 1992 i.e. for the period between 1990-93 the import of the said material has been rendered by Appendix 6, List 4 which itemised list of Crude Drugs. This item is found in Item 35 thereof. In 1992 when the Exim Policy changed the goods not under Negative Import reflecting under Chapter XV but under restricted items, paragraph 156 thereof...

Suvas Electronics P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT103Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Ahmedabad captioned above imposing penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on the appellants under Rule 173Q(1)(bb) of the Rules.2. The ld. Counsel for the appellant Shri S.J. Vyas contended that the appellants were availing Modvat credit on their finished products. The Department found that they had availed the Modvat credit for paying duty on transformation during 1988 but that they had not declared transformer as a finished product for the purposes of Modvat credit under Rule 57G. On this being pointed out to them by the Departmental Officers visiting their factory in 1988, the appellants had paid up the consequential amount of duty of Rs. 49,629.60. Proceedings were initiated subsequently by a show cause notice issued in 1989 for confirming the demand and proposing to impose penalty on the appellant.After considering their reply the present impugned order has been passed by the Additional Commissioner of ...

Lyovak Laboratories Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT292Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the decision dated 26-12-1989 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I, whereunder he denied exemption under Notification No. 116/69 to the appellants.2. Appellants are manufacturing goods called 'Furagyl Suspension' containing an ingredient 'Metronidazole Benzoate' falling under Chapter 14E of the Tariff. The respondents claimed exemption under Notification No. 116/69, dated 3-5-1969. The Additional Collector who heard the matter did not agree with the contentions raised by the assessee on the ground that classification list indicated that exemption under Notification No. 116/69 was claimed for 'Furagyl Suspension'. This classification list was filed for the year 1981-82, whereas no classification list if any filed by the appellant for material year 1985-86. He also held that Notification No. 116/69 grants conditional exemption, therefore while availing the said exemption, it was mandatory for the party to discl...

Shree Ram Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT184Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeals are against the common order captioned above of the Commissioner of Customs Mumbai. In all these cases the appellants imported second hand used diesel engines. The Custom House found that the declared value of the diesel engines on examination of the goods was misdeclared and in all these cases the appellants claimed clearance of the goods under Open General Licence. The Com-misioner found that these old and used diesel engines will not be eligible for clearance against Open General Licence but required specific licence. Further in the case of appellant Shree Ram Enterprises and Shri Mahavir Engg. Co.The Commissioner further found that the value declared by the appellants for assessment purpose was low and therefore he enhanced the assessable value in both these cases. Following proceedings initiated against the appellant the cases were adjudicated by the common order in which the Commissioner confiscated the goods under Section lll(p) and lll(m) of the Customs Act, 196...

Atul Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT423Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the decision of the captioned order passed by the Addl. Collector of Central Excise, Surat.By the impugned order the adjudicating authority on the basis of the evidence before it and on the basis of the Explanatory Notes came to the conclusion that the product in question has come under Heading 28.51.2. It is the contention of the Id, Counsel Shri AV Naik that in reply to the show cause notice by their client's letter dated 18-1-1990 that the purity of their treated water is not similar to purity of the distilled water or conductivity water as referred to above. He also relied on the analysis given by the Manager Analytical Laboratory and he argues that the product in question namely treated water is entirely different from demineralised water as well as distilled water. In the anlysis report it is argued the property of each water has been fully brought out. Therefore he argues that the impugned order is not correct.3. Shri Gurnani ...

Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT638Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue for decision in this appeal is the eligibility to Modvat credit of the duty paid on emery belt and emery paper. The appeal had been heard and reserved for orders. However, the bench was of the view that the issue required to be reheard, especially with regard to the use of the articles in question. The matter was accordingly relisted and both sides heard.2. Collector (Appeals) has held that both the goods would not be inputs, since they were "identifiable with the equipment" and were falling within the scope of the exclusion clause contained in the Explanation to Rule 57H. The advocate for the appellant explain that the emery cloth belt comprised a closed loop of fabric about 10 cms.wide and about 50 cms. diameter, coated with abrasives material on the outside. The belt was put to use by being spread out over rollers, such rollers revolving at high speed.3. It would be clear from this Explanation that the belt is designed for use and is actually used as part of a larger a...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Mico Wire Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT426Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of copper strips/flats/bars falling under Chapter 74 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Following a visit to their factory by the Central Excise Officers proceedings were initiated against the appellant by issue of a show cause notice dated 30-9-1992 charging them with non-accountal of the excisable goods manufactured by them and proposing confiscation and penalty. The matter came to be adjudicated by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Surat who passed the adjudication order dated 29-10-1993 confiscating 5,136 kgs. of copper strips, flats and bars valued at Rs. 5,90,640/- which had been seized earlier by the officers allowing a redemption fine of Rs. 1,25,000/-. He confirmed the demand of Rs. 67,923.60 under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules. A penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed under Rule 173Q(1) on the respondents. The appeal against D.C.'s order was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order and held that...

National Organic and Chemical Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT912Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal against the decision of Order No. 78/91- Addl.Collector dated 11-12-1991 whereunder he confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 3,25,688.20 and he also levied a penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakhs.2. The appellants carry on the business manufacturing inter alia, various chemicals alcohols such as DA A, Normal Butanol (NBA), Iso-Butanol (IB A). During the period relevant i.e. May, 1982 to December, 1982, the aforesaid alcohols were classified under Tariff Item 68. One of the materials for the product DAA was a chemical known as Citric Acid. One of the raw materials necessary for the remaining products was a chemical known as Cobalt Octate. Both Citric Acid and Cobalt Octate were also classified under Tariff Item 68. A show cause notice dated 12-10-1984 were issued to the appellants alleging that the appellant had taken proforma credit on these two items for the period from May, 1982 to December, 1982, on the basis of wrong declaration dated 26-7-1982 and 25-2-1983 stating that Cobal...