Mumbai Court June 1998 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Argus Indo (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT352Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondents manufacture parts of transformers they filed classification list for the parts under sub-heading 8504.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, and claimed exemption under Notification No.160/86 this notification grants exemption inter alia at Serial No. 2 thereof to goods falling under Heading 85.04 other than transformers and chokes for fluorescent tubes. The Jurisdicrional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise by an order dated 29-5-1992 held that parts of transformer are not eligible for the benefit under the Notification, for the reason that transformers are excluded from the scope of the exemption under Heading 85.04. The Assistant Commissioner relied upon Note 2(b) of Section XVI which says that other parts if suitable for use solely or principally with the particular kind of machine or with a number of machines of the same heading are to be classified with the machine of that kind. Hence as the parts of transformer are classified under the same Heading 85.04, ...

Velji Tokarshi Vikmani Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal for the asst. yr. 1990-91 against the order dt.7th October, 1996, passed by the Dy. CIT(A), E-Range, Mumbai.2. The assessee is an individual and is an old man of 70 years. He is running a shop at Matunga, Mumbai. For the asst. yr. 1990-91, for which the previous year ended by 31st March, 1990, he filed income-tax return disclosing Rs. 49,110 as business income, capital gains and other sources after making deductions under Chapter VI-A and also agricultural income of Rs. 54,000. These particulars were given in the statement of income filed by him along with the return of income. An intimation under s. 143(1)(a) was received by the assessee determining the income at Rs. 87,329. The return of income was filed on 26th February, 1991. While giving the intimation, he made a prima facie addition of Rs. 38,219 to the returned income. The contention of the assessee is that he had offered an amount of Rs. 7,349 as income from "other sources" as can be seen from p. 1 of the ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Santosh L. Chowgule and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1998]234ITR787(Bom)

B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal') has referred the following questions of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that reorganisation of capital of the company by passing resolution on September 30, 1971, constitutes transfer of shares within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the capital loss on sale of irredeemable cumulative preference shares of Chowgule and Co. Ltd. constitute short-term capital loss to the assessee ?' 2. These questions arise out of the orders of the six appeals. As the facts of all the six appeals are identical, a single consolidated reference has been made by the Tribunal. The main order o...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Santosh L. Chowgule and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Bom)80

DR. B. P. Saraf, J.By this reference under s. 256(l) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this Court for opinion at the instance of Revenue:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that reorganisation of capital of the company by passing resolution on 30-9-1971 constitutes transfer of shares within the meaning of s. 2(47) of the Income Tax Act?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the capital loss on sale of irredeemable cumulative preference shares of Chowgule & Co. Ltd. constitute short-term capital loss to the assessee?'These questions arise out of orders of the six appeals. As the facts of all the six appeals are identical, a single consolidated reference has been made by the Tribunal. The main order of the Tribunal being in ITA No. 102/Pn/1982 in case of Mrs. Sulakshana. S. Chowgule, the facts ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. I.T.C. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT750Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the decision of the Collector (Appeals), Mumbai made in GS/799/B.I/92, dated 21-10-1992 whereunder he held that the respondent was entitled to refund of the duty.2. The respondent is manufacturing well known brand of tobacco, cigarette etc. The disputed period is from 28-2-1986 to 23-6-1986. A notification in terms of Section 11C(1) was made on 26-8-1998 whereunder it was stated that the Central Government directed that the whole of duty of excise payable under the Act on cut tobacco should not be required to be paid in respect of their commodities. The date of amendment of Section 11C was made on 1-7-1988. The notification issued under Section 11C was on 26-8-1988. The amount was refunded on 18-9-1990. Show cause notice was issued on 27-12-1990. In the impugned order the Collector has held that, following the judgment of the Tribunal in CCE, Chandigarh v. Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. -1988 (33) E.L.T. 115, the amount claimed by the ...

Cc Vs. Paramount Trading Corporation

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(79)LC385Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These are two appeals filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the common Order-in-Appeal dated 23.10.1980 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The respondents are M/s. Paramount Trading Corporation, Moradabad. The matter relates to the additional duty of customs known as countervailing duty in respect of the scrap imported.The Appellate Collector took a view that the scrap of recyclable material was not the result of a manufacturing activity and that it was not a 'manufactured' goods even if they were 'goods'. He held that the scrap when imported was not liable to pay the countervailing duty.2. In his common order-in-appeal the Appellate Collector of Customs had disposed of 11 appeals from different files. The Revenue have filed two appeals. The Tribunal had directed the Revenue to file 9 more supplementary appeals if they so desire. They have failed to do so. As the matter relates to the classification we proceed to deal with these two appeals on merits after he...

Cibatul Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT944Tri(Mum.)bai

1. As the appeal itself lies in a short compass and can be disposed of, after hearing the ld. Counsel Shri Daruwalla for the applicants and Shri V.K. Puri, the ld. SDR for the Revenue, we grant stay and take up the appeal for disposal.2. The appellants have been granted Value Based Advance Licence and DEEC Book for importing aniline oil. One of the conditions of the licence is that the appellants shall export sulphanilic acid. In the corresponding Customs notification allowing exemption being Notification No. 203/92 imposes a condition that import of material against a Value Based Advance Licence are exempted from duty subject to the condition which is relevant to the present case that the export obligation is discharged within the time limit, and also that no input stage credit is obtained under Rule 56A or 57A of the Central Excise Rules. The Department initiated proceedings against the appellants on the ground that the condition regarding non availment of Modvat credit in the notif...

Gujarat Communications and Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)LC295Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this case the Appellants are availing of Modvat credit. They have also made certain clearances of their final product duty free under Notification 263/87 which prescribes following of Chapter X procedure of the Central Excise Rules as condition for availing of Notification.The lower authorities denied exemption to the Appellant on the ground that they have taken Modvat credit in respect of the final product cleared under Chapter X procedure. Rule 57C was invoked which lays down that the Modvat credit cannot be taken in respect of the exempted goods.2. The order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-II, Vadodara denying exemption has been upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad leading to the present appeal.3. After hearing Shri S.D. Gohil, the learned Consultant for the Appellant and Shri D. Gurnani, the ld. DR, we are of the view that the matter now stands settled by the decisions of the Tribunal which held that in such cases where ...

CamlIn Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)LC698Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Application is for waiver of deposit of Rs. 35.17 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs.2. Advocate for the applicant says that the demand and the penalty follow on the finding of the Commissioner that plastic crayons composed of plastic and wax out of which plastic crayons are imported classifiable under 3204.19. He contends with the finding of the Commissioner that the product is marketable because a similar product was imported by M/s. Luxor Pen Co. [as noticed by this Tribunal's decision in 1994 (70) E.L.T. 294] is incorrect because the product imported by Luxor Pen Co. is different. He contends that the goods have acquired the essential characteristics of crayon and since they can be used to colour on paper and other suitable substance are to be classified without payment of duty. He further contends that if duty is payable on the product in question, Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs which amount to Rs. 18.77 lakhs will be available. He contends that the department was...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Oyster Electronics Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT474Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These four applications are for stay of operation of the order of Commissioner (Appeals), in which she has set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner holding that parts of dot matrix printers imported by the respondent in four different consignments carried on the same ship and supplied by the same person constitute a complete printer, assessing them to duty on that basis and ordering confiscation and imposition of penalty on the ground of misdeclaration.3. Prima facie it is difficult to hold that in the facts of the case, each of the consignment has to be assessed on merits independently.However, we note that the applicant had, by means of packing list, indicated the specification of each of the parts in question, and brought to the notice of the department that he had in effect imported all the essential parts which make up the printer. In these circumstances we accept the suggestion made by the Advocate for the respondent and stay the operation of the order of the Commission...