Mumbai Court September 1997 Judgments
Orkay Polyester Vs. Director, Anti-evasion, C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1997
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT227Tri(Mum.)bai
1. First appellant was at the relevant time engaged in a manufacture of pre-oriented yarn (POY for short) and was also engaged in texturising such yarn. The other five appellants manufactured texturised yarn from POY and were job workers for the first appellant. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Director (Anti-Evasion), adjudicating upon notice issued to the appellants has found against the first appellant on the following counts.2. The first is that the POY cleared by the first appellant as being 755 denier was actually below 640 denier and liable to a higher rate of duty, the difference being Rs. 46.50 per kg. He has consequently demanded duty of approximately Rs. 2.68 crores. He has found that appellants could not account for 124 M.Ts. of polyester chips, principal raw material for POY and concluded that 119.6 M.Ts. of yarn has been manufactured out of this quantity of raw material and cleared by the appellant without paying duty of approximately Rs. 1.00 crore.He has found ...
Tag this Judgment!Archana International Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1997
Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT209Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Customs holding that used diesel engines imported by the appellants are liable for confiscation for the reason that they are second-hand goods and ordering their confiscation, permitting them to be redeemed on a fine of Rs. 40,00,000/- and imposing a penalty on the importer of Rs. 10,00,000/- under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. Advocate for the appellant say that he does not question the liability to confiscation of the engines in question on the ground that they are second-hand engines and that an import licence, which was required for importation was not produced. He says however, the quantum of redemption fine and the penalty determined by the Commissioner are excessive.2. The challenge to the redemption fine is on the ground that it is excessive and that there is no basis indicated in the order of the Commissioner. The Advocate contends that the Commissioner has not indicated any report of market enquiry on the basis o...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Electronics Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT668Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellant imported a consignment of parts of car, cigarette lighters and declared its cif value at Rs. 9555/- for 4800 pieces. The Department was of the view that the consignment was under valued. It proposed that the value of the goods should be Rs. 50,400/-. This value was determined on the basis of the market price of Rs. 80/- per lighter which the Department found to be the price of lighters of comparable quantity and quality and by applying Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules. The importer waived issue of written notice. It contended before the Additional Collector that it had imported parts which were insufficient to compare a complete lighter. Additional Collector did not accept this contention and increased the value to Rs. 50,400/-. Since the licence produced by the importer was not sufficient to cover the value of the goods so increased, he ordered confiscation of the goods with an option to redeem on payment of fine. He also imposed a penalty. Hence this appeal.2. The appellan...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Bharat Bijlee Ltd. Vs. V.K. Srivastava, Commissioner of Income Tax ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)BomCR274; [1998]230ITR76(Bom)
ORDERDr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. The petitioner in this case is aggrieved by the levy of interest by the Assessing Authority under section 215 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') while giving effect to the revisional order of the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Act. The dispute pertains to the assessment year 1978-79 the relevant previous year being the year ended on 30th June 1977. The case of the assessee is that prior to the substitution of sub-section (3) of section 215 of the Act by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 with effect from 1st April, 1985, there was no provision for levy of interest under section 215(1) of the Act or enhancement thereof on the basis of the tax determined on revised assessment and in that view of the matter, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax ('Assessing Officer') acted illegally and without jurisdiction in levying the interest under section 215(1) of the Act on the basis of the tax redetermined on revision of the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Bijlee Ltd. Vs. V. K. Srivastava, Commissioner of Income Tax an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR329
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. The petitioner in this case is aggrieved by the levy of interest by the assessing authority under s. 215 of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act') while giving effect to the revisional order of the CIT under s. 263 of the Act. The dispute pertains to the asst. yr. 1978-79, the relevant previous year being the year ended on 30th June, 1977. The case of the assessee is that prior to the substitution of sub-s. (3) of s. 215 of the Act by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 w.e.f. 1st April, 1985, there was no provision for levy of interest under s. 215(1) of the Act or enhancement thereof on the basis of the tax determined on revised assessment and in that view of the matter, the IAC ('AO') acted illegally and without jurisdiction in levying the interest under s. 215(1) of the Act on the basis of the tax redetermined on revision of the assessment order and the CIT was not justified in law in confirming the same. 2. The material facts are as follows : In the financial year r...
Tag this Judgment!Mukund Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)(60)ECC122
1. The appellants as contractors of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Rourkela Steel Plant in Orissa. have been entrusted with the setting up of gas cleaning plant as part of Basic Oxygen Furnace shop. For this purpose the appellants entered into an agreement and signed a contract on 27.2.93 with M/s. Davy Mckee (Stockton) Ltd. by which M/s. Davy were to provide basic design and drawing and also supervise the detailed engineering erection and commissioning of the gas cleaning plant in India and were also to undertake training of personnel abroad. They were also to render technical services and undertake guarantee test for the efficient functioning of the gas cleaning plant. The fabrication, manufacture etc. are to be done in India with indigenous goods based on the designs supplied by M/s. Davy.2. In pursuance of the agreement a consignment of Design and Engineering Drawings were imported at Mumbai Customs. Air Cargo Complex for which Bill of Entry was filed on 20.8.96. The Asstt. Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!Comed Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT416Tri(Mum.)bai
1. With the consent of both sides appeal taken up for disposal after hearing the respondent.2. Appellant availed of the Modvat procedure in credit of the duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture in respect of the inputs and final products. It decided with effect from 1st April, 1991 to avail of the total exemption provided in Notification No. 175/86 and hence clearances of the goods from 1st April onwards were without payment of duty. Notice was issued in January, 1996 on the ground that some stocks cleared from 1st April, 1991, the appellant did not pay the duty. It was required to refund the Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs used to manufacture the goods. The notice invoked the extended period contained in the proviso to Rule 57(7), alleging generally suppression and mistatement of facts. The Commissioner did not accept the contention raised by the assessee that the RT 12 return for the month of April 1991 indicated that the goods which were manufactured prior to 1st A...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
Reported in: 1998(4)BomCR423
ORDERDr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion at the instance of the assessee:'1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasjustified in law in confirming the levy of tax on the sales of tender forms,amounting to Rs. 3,81,054/-? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal erred in holding that the sales of tender forms are not covered by the scope of Entry 4 Schedule 'A' appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and that they are taxable? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the levy of tax on the sales of Board's publication, amounting to Rs. 4,639/-? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the levy of tax on the sales of Waste Papers, amounting to Rs. 147/?'2. So far ...
Tag this Judgment!Audumbar Manohar Randive and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR53; 1998(2)MhLj511
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Since these four connected matters arise out of same set of facts and a common impugned judgment, we are disposing them off by one judgment.2. Five persons, namely Audumbar Manohar Randive, Sharad @ Kisan ShivajiRandive, Shivaji Mukund Randive, Dhanaji Manohar Randive and Dilip ManoharRandive, were charged for offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 302, 504,323, 506 I.P.C., r/w 149 I.PC. and 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The AdditionalSessions Judge, Pandharpur, Solapur, convicted and sentenced all of them, in themanner stated hereinafter :---(i) Under section 147 I.P.C. to one year R.I.(ii) Under section 323 r/w 149 I.P.C. to one year R.I.; and (iii) Under section 506 r/w 149 I.P.C. to six months R.I.The learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted Shivaji Mukund Randive, for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. simplicitor and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for six months.The sub...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Register of Shipping Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)66ITD219(Mum.)
1. These five appeals of the assessee relating to the asst. yrs.1987-88 to 1991-92, involving common issue, are disposed of by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience.2. The dispute involved in these appeals is relating to the exemption under s. 10(21) of the Act. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused.3. The relevant facts in this case are that the appellant is a company registered under s. 25 of the Companies Act 1956. The appellant company is rendering services in the field of classification of mercantile shipping, maintenance of machinery and equipment in mercantile shipping. Assessee had sought recognition under s. 31(1)(ii) as a scientific research association. Having its object, the undertaking of scientific research, assessee, claimed exemption under s. 10(21) and for the asst. yrs. 1987-88 and 1990-91 the exemption claimed was originally allowed. However, for the asst. yr. 1991-92, the AO observed that the appellant-company was receiving survey fee...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »