Mumbai Court October 1998 Judgments

Mahendra Jayantilal Nanavati and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(82)LC157Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals are directed against the impugned order captioned above passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai-II. By this order the Collector has demanded duty of Rs. 66,033.85 from the Appellant Mahan Synthetic Textiles Ltd. besides imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000/-; and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed on Appellant Mahendra Jayantilal Nanavati, Managing Director of Mohan Synthetic Textiles Ltd., and on S.R. Fabrics who is the other Appellant under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. The brief facts are on 4.10.1987 the Preventive Officers of the Central Excise Commissionerate Mumbai-II made a surprise visit to the premises of Appellant Mahan Synthetic Textiles and conducted verification of the stock with reference to the statutory records. They found unaccounted quantity of 3725.80 L. Meters of processed man-made fabrics. In the course of detailed verification the officers also observed that at the time of actual weighment of representative lot, the weight of ...

Mrs. Carol Friedel Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1988-89 involves only one point relating to computation of capital gain.2. During the period relevant for the asst. yr. 1988-89, the assessee sold 1/4th share in Flat No. 91, Bennett Villa, 27, Woodhouse Road, Bombay-39, for total consideration of Rs. 8,50,000. The assessee was entitled to benefit of s. 53(b) and also of the provision of s. 54 of the IT Act. The capital gain was also to be computed after having regard to the provision of s. 48(2) of the IT Act. It was claimed by the assessee that deduction under s. 48(2) is to be allowed first and thereafter, relief permissible under ss. 53(b) and 54 is to be computed. The computation of the assessee is as under : 1. Sale proceed of 1/4th share in the Flat No. 91 in Benette Villa, 27, Woodhouse Road, Bombay-400 039 [under s. 48(1)(a)(ii)] 44,563 (b) Expenditure on transfer [under s. 48(1)(a)(i)] 12,899 -------- 57,462 ---------- 3. Long-term capital gain 7,92,538 [as per s. 48(1)(a)] (a...

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samir Diamonds Export (P.) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1999]71ITD75(Mum)

ORDERPer J. K. Verma (AM)As the name of the assessee suggests, the assessee is an exporter of diamonds. For this purpose, it imports rough diamonds and after shaping, cutting, polishing and sorting them, exports the cut and polished diamonds. It had filed a return of income at Rs. 3,48,163 after availing of the deductions under section 80HHC at Rs. 8,01,687. The assessing officer observed in his order that the assessee-company is a sister concern of Ws. Samir Diamonds and M/s. Samir Diamonds Mfg., which concerns as a group, comprise one of the biggest groups of exporters of cut and polished diamonds in India. He further noticed that the directors of the company are brothers and members of the Mehta family which controls the diamond trade not only in India but also in ANTWERP and New York, apart from DTC London and that large quantities of rough diamonds are purchased from the family's Belgian concerns and exports are made to family's New York concern. In order to verify the correctness...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Veer Gems

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT333Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the decision of the Collector (Appeals) made in Order-in-Appeal No. S/49-57/93-Lic.599/93-BCH, dated 13-10-1993 whereunder the Collector (Appeals) had allowed the appeal of the respondent reversing the findings of the Deputy Collector who by his order dated 4-2-1993 had confiscated the rough diamonds imported by the respondent for violation of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act imposing a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and penalty of Rs. 25,000/-.2. The respondent imported a consignment of rough diamonds declaring the weight to be 13055.40 cts. On weighment it was found that the goods weighed only 6760.40 cts. and not 13055.40 cts. On being asked, it was explained by the respondent that the goods were purchased from the supplier M/s. Sunraj Gems who purchased from M/s. Argyle Diamonds. It would appear that the actual supplier M/s. Argyle Diamonds split up the supply into two packets, viz. 6760.40 carats and 6295:00 carats. By mistake M/s. Argy...

Motor Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT816Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal against the order passed under file No.V(84) 15-93/Adj/90, dated 10-6-1992 whereunder the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad, confirmed a duty demand of Rs.2,24,659/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Nozzle, Nozzle holders, Injectors etc. falling under Chapter sub-heading 8409.00 of the CETA. The appellants issued their inputs, viz. steel bars, to the job worker under Rule 57F (2) and got manufactured hollow screws out of the said material. On receipt of the same, in their factory they consumed it captively for the manufacture of final products injectors or sold the same to M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, They did not file miy classification list or price list of the said hollow screws in respect of sales to M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra as it was without payment of duty thereon and this was for a period from October 1985 to October 1989.This was investigated by the department and a show ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1069Tri(Mum.)bai

1. By consent this reference application has been converted into an application for rectification of the mistake in the order of the Tribunal.2. In this order the Tribunal has considered the plea of the appellant that incidence of duty had not been passed on to the customers but being borne by it because same price of the goods remain the same before duty was imposed on them and after. While discussing this aspect the Tribunal has said as follows :- "If the duty burden was in fact passed on to the customers, it would follow, there being no change in any of the other variables, that the wholesale price would go up to the extent of the duty. That has not happened. Wholesale prices remained the same. Therefore, any extra burden caused by the duty has been absorbed by the assessee and had not been passed on." The departmental representative is right when she says that, in view of this last sentence the issue has virtually been decided and the Assistant Collector to whom the matter had bee...

Herbertsons Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT820Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is directed against the impugntci order captioned above whereby the Collector has denied the Modvat credit on glass bottles used in the manufacture of edible preparations falling under Chapter 20, 21 and 33 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Collector has found that there were broken bottles and such breakages occurred during the filling operations or during the transfer of stock from raw-material godown to the factory. It was held that during the period 1-3-1987 to 31-3-1990 there were such ineligible quantity of bottles which were broken on which Modvat credit involved was Rs. 1,42,423.70.Show-cause notice was issued alleging that these inputs were not used in the manufacture of the final product and as such credit thereon was inadmissible. It was alleged that the Appellants ought to have followed the procedure under Rule 57F(4)(c) for disposal of the waste arising during the manufacture. The Collector adjudicated the matter holding that the amount of demand b...

Synbiotics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT97Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above is an applications were filed for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 4.58 crores and penalty Rs. 1 crore. In the beginning when the matter was taken up for hearing it was found that by the impugned order the adjudicating authority i.e. the Collector had confirmed 51 show cause notices. When we asked Shri V. Sridharan about filing of as many appeals as there are show cause notices, he told that appeals are being filed on the date of hearing, i.e. on 3rd June, 1998. Accordingly we had taken up on the understanding the appeals would be filed. We are told that appeals have since been filed and hence we take up all the matters. At the time of hearing we stated that while appeals may be filed separately we dispense with filing of individual appeals as we have shortage of space.2. Appellant is engaged in the production of bulk drugs streptomycin and tetracycline falling under Chapter 29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. They follow certain procedure, viz.fermentor,...

Union of Indiathrough Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices Vs. Anwar Ahemad Qure ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR3; 1999(4)BomCR38

ORDERA.A. Halbe, President. 1. This is an unfortunate event wherein we find that the Postal Authorities have not come with clean hands before us andwe are, therefore, not inclined to disturb the order of the District Forum in Complaint No. 156/96, passed by the District Forum, Akola directing the Postal Authorities to pay Rs. 5000/- by way of compensation which has to carry 18% interest plus cost of Rs. 250/- for the inordinate delay in the Postal article delivery of the Speed Post Parcel handed over to them by the respondent on 8-1-96 at Akola for delivering the same to the addressee 'The Secretary, U.P. Urdu Academy, Balehra House, Quaisar Bagh, 21, R.K. Tandan Road, Lucknow-226 001.' The article was presented for the delivery to the addressee on 22-1-96, and hence the Academy refused to accept on the ground that the same was received after the stipulated date of 15-1-96 meant for submission of Urdu Literature for being selected for the award of the prize. The complainant is a litera...

Shrifabs India (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT196Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applicants purchased certain goods on High Sea Sale basis from M/s. Galaxy Paints Ltd. When the goods were imported and cleared by M/s. Galaxy Paints Ltd., the name of the applicants was not shown anywhere as high sea buyer. The bill of entry was not endorsed to the applicant. Although, the goods were received by them no declaration was made by them to the Customs, to the effect they had intended to take Modvat credit and had not filed the refund claim.2. Vide show cause notice dated 25-2-1992 Modvat credit taken by the applicants was sought to be denied on the twin aspects of non endorsement and failure of filing the declaration by the importers. The original authority held against the applicant and confirmed demand amounting to Rs. 1,85,437/-. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the order, resulting in this application for disposal with pre-deposit of this amount as a condition of hearing the appeal as also, the stay or recovery thereof.3. I have heard Shri D.D. Gwalani for the ap...