Mumbai Court May 1997 Judgments

Narendra Mafatlal Mehta Vs. Income Tax Officer.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)59TTJ(Mumbai)165

ORDERI. S. VERMA, J.M. :This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 23rd March, 1990, wherein various grounds have been taken which we proceed to decide one by one.2. Ground No. 1 : Addition made on account of gross profit sustained by the CIT(A). The assessees counsel has submitted that the lower authorities had made the addition in the trading account by rejecting the gross profit rate declared without pointing any specific mistake in the assessees accounts. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, has relied on the orders of the lower authorities.3. We have considered the rival submissions. Under the IT Act assessment of a person can be framed under s. 143(3) or under s. 144 or under s. 147 or under s. 145 r/w s. 144. An assessment under s. 143(3) is to be completed on the basis of materials available with the AO whereas an assessment under s. 144 is an ex parte assessment but the AO has power to estimate the assessees income to th...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Alfa Exim

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT366Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Two Appeals are being disposed of by this common order. M/s. Sandeep Impex Limited imported two consignments of polyester fibre and acrylic yarn. It claimed clearance of these goods in terms of quantity based advanced licences which had been transferred to it and also claimed exemption from duty in terms of Notification No. 80 of 1995 and No. 204 of 1992. M/s. Alpha Exim, Appellant in Appeal No. C/29 imported a consingment of polyester fabrics and claimed clearance against a transferable licence and exemption of duty in terms of Notification No.80 of 1995.2. The Customs at Nhava Sheva Port were of the view, after examination of the goods that the material is imported, that its denierage differed from that of the material which required for making the goods which had been exported. Notices were therefore, issued to both importers proposing confiscation of the goods and denial of the benefit of the notification. The importers resisted the notices, taking the stand that the licences h...

New India Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT113Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing the stay application, we have decided that appeal itself can be disposed of for the reasons stated after waiving the pre-deposit of duty and penalty after hearing both sides.2. Appellant is a manufacturer of photographic paper. Its manufacturing involves essentially coating paper of a specific kind with a photo sensitive emulsion of which silver nitrate is the main ingredient. It appears that, because of the varying quality of raw material which it receives, appellant first takes up what it calls a trial production of the paper in its R & D section. About 40 kgs of silver nitrate and other raw material required are issued and the resultant paper is tested to see whether it conforms to the required specifications. If it does it is claimed that it becomes bent of the appellant's marketable production. If the paper is found wanting in any manner it is destroyed.3. Appellant had taken credit of the duty paid on the raw materials used for such trial production. The Dep...

Shaikh Ahmed Pir Mohammad Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT654Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is against the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, Mumbai, confiscating 24 gold bars which he found was recovered from the appellant and imposing a penalty of Rs. 60,000/- on him.2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Additional Collector narrates how the Customs officers searched the appellant when he got down from the aircraft after travelling from Delhi on Flight AI 305 and how the search resulted the recovery of the gold. He has gone by the appellant's statement in which he admitted carrying the gold which was given to him by a woman Asha who was to pay him Rs. 10,000/-.3. The appellant was heard in person and written arguments submitted by his advocate considered. It is contended that the appellant was not given a notice in writing and denied an opportunity to make effective representation as provided in Section 124 of the Customs Act. 3. The provisions of Section 124 of Customs Act, 1962 are reproduced below: "Section 124. Issue of show cause notice...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kinetic Engg. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT396Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad has filed this appeal praying for setting aside the impugned order No.V.2 (87)801/88/1170, dated 21-2-1990 of Collector of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Mumbai and to restore the original order passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Ahmednagar dated 28-1-1988 under F.No. VGN (30) l/TD/87 462.The facts of the case are "That the respondent M/s. Kinetic Engineering Ltd., Ahmednagar, imported Piston Assemblies under the Bill of Entry No. 2150, dated 3-3-1985. They were declared as such in Col. No. 6 and assessed under T.I. 34A for the purpose of CVD. The duty at the rate of 20% ad valorem + 5% Spl. Excise duty were paid as applicable to parts of motor vehicles falling under T.I. 34A. On clearance from Customs, facility under Rule 56 A of Central Excise Rule was claimed, under Notification No. 249/82, dated 1-11-1982. Notification No. 247/82 exempts Motor Vehicles from so much of excise duty as has been ...

Rose Mount (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT287Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant imported a consignment of goods described as Magnetic Flow meter Transmitter (MFT) designed to measure the flow of liquids and by converting the signal into the required readable signal output.The Customs was of the view that the goods were covered by Entry 175 of Appendix 2B of the Import Policy 1990-93. On this objection being communicated to the appellant, it waived the issue of written notice.After hearing it the Collector has held that the goods will not be entitled to import under the REP Licence produced, since the Policy prohibited the import of goods falling under Appendix 2B under such a licence. The Collector, therefore, confiscated the goods with an option to redeem them on payment of fine and imposed a penalty on the appellant.2. The representative of the appellant contends that the goods are capital goods and therefore, will not fall in the scope of Appendix II, which is for raw materials, components, consumables, tools and spares.He said that they are i...

Poysha Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT142Tri(Mum.)bai

1. A sum of Rs. 45,44,658/- has been demanded as duty and an equal sum imposed as penalty under Rule 57-1(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944.Representative of the applicant says that the amount has been demanded on two grounds. First is that the appellant issued documents showing clearance of inputs of which it had taken delivery. In terms of Rules 57F(1)(ii) the inputs did not physically go to M/s. Tin Plate Co. Ltd. the consignee. Commissioner has come to the conclusion that there was no physical movement as required under the Rules. The second ground is that the Modvat credit has been taken on the basis of inputs cleared under Bills of Entry which were endorsed in applicant's name.2. Applicant contends as regards the first point that applicant entered into an agreement with M/s. Tin Plate India Ltd. to be exclusively a job worker for the latter. The agreement was entered into because of financial difficulties. At this time the applicant had sizable stock of raw material i.e. tin plat...

Sunder Agencies Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range, Thane, passed under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') and pertains to the Block Period commencing from 1-4-1985 to 16-11-1995.2. Briefly the facts : The assessee is a partnership firm. It is a member of Dayaramani Group of Ulhasnagar. It is engaged in the business of Indian made foreign liquor, beer, wines, etc. On 16-11-1995, search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee. Among other things, a 'gift item register' was found. It is shown under Sl. No. 19 of the Panchnama.Deposition under section 132(4) of the Act was recorded. There was no question in regard to Gift register. The register contained some entries for the period 1994-95. It was not complete. Certain presumptions were drawn by the Assessing Officer on the basis of that register and additions were made...

Simplex Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT201Tri(Mum.)bai

1. M/s. Simplex Mills Co. Ltd. received a consignment of Polyester staple fibre, which is an input for the manufacture of finished goods.Staple fibre was manufactured by M/s. Terene India Ltd. who issued an invoice showing payment of excise duty to Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai (RIL). Reliance endorsed this invoice to Simplex Mills who took the credit on the basis of this invoice. The department issued notice on the ground taking credit on an endorsed invoice was not permissible.The assessees replied and was heard in person by the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector whose order has been confirmed by Collector (Appeals) passed the order denying the credit. He said that Terene are the manufacturers of the goods; he did not accept the contention that Reliance Industries were the wholesale fibres of Terene. Hence this appeal.2. It is the appellant's contention that Reliance is the actual manufacturer of the goods for which it utilised the plant and machinery of Terene. Terene ...

Mahalakshmi Glass Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT558Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This issue for decision in this appeal is whether refractory bricks used for repairing and constructing furnace are "Capital Goods" within the meaning of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, and the assessee is entitled to take Modvat credit of duty. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has held that they are not "capital goods", since the furnace of which they form part are not classifiable under Tariff Heading 84.17.2. The Advocate for the appellant explained that the furnace in which the appellant melted the raw material for making glass is at the heart of its manufacturing operation.3. The Departmental Representative contends that the furnace itself is not is an excisable commodity, and that therefore no credit can be taken on the components parts of such a furnace.4. We are not able to find a requirement in Rule 57Q that for credit to be taken on part of the capital goods, the "Capital Goods" themselves must be liable to duty. While the Commissioner has not g...