Mumbai Court November 2000 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Jay Bros. Investment and Trading Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-2000
Reported in: (2002)74TTJ(Mumbai)748
ORDERD. Manmohan, J.M.This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)XXII, Mumbai, and it pertains to assessment year 1993-94.2. Facts, concerning the only issue in dispute before us, revolve in a narrow compass. The assessee is an investment company having income from dividend and interest. In respect of the assessment year 1993-94, the assessee declared income of Rs. 3,53,190. Tax payable on the declared income works out to Rs. 2,03,084. However, tax collected by the department in the form of TDS was Rs. 5,45,555. Assessee-company filed its return on 29-12-1993, i.e., before the due date to file return under section 139(1) to claim refund of tax. The return was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act wherein the income returned by the assessee was accepted. The intimation is dated 29-3-1994, wherein the interest payable on the refund was calculated @ 12 per cent on Rs. 3,42,471 for 12 months only i.e., from 1-4-1993, to 29-3-1994. Th...
Silvester Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-2000
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT119Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing both sides on the stay application we have decided to take up the appeal itself for disposal after waiving deposit.2. The appellant is a processor of textile fabrics. In accordance with the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors' Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998, it filed a declaration showing number of stenters and chambers installed in its factory and other relevant particulars. After considering this, the Commissioner passed order on 24-12-1998 determining the annual capacity in terms of the Rules and duty liable to be paid. This order was stated to be provisional although there is no reason shown for its provi-sionality. The assessee discharged the duty liability casted upon it by this order. On 14-6-1999 the Commissioner passed a final order determining the appellant's duty liability. This order determined the annual capacity, and consequently the duty payable by the assessee to be higher than what had been earlier determined. The difference betw...
Cc Vs. Ispat Profiles (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-2000
Reported in: (2001)(95)LC512Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We are concerned in this appeal with the value of a second hand structural rolling mill imported by Ispat Profiles (I) Ltd. (Ispat for short). The mill was manufactured by M/s. Stahlex, Dusseldorf and supplied in 1967 to a buyer in Italy. It appears that the mill could not be erected there for reasons that are not clear, and the components of the mill, were not even unpacked, and were lying packed in Italy for nine years. In September 1994, Stahlex made an offer of sale of the mill to PT Ispat Indo Indonesia, a firm that is part of the same group as the appellant. The offer was for sale of the plant, described as "brand new, very modern, complete universal mill," for US $ 16 million.The offer found favour with the group, and was actively pursued. A decision was also taken to import the machine into India for use by the appellant before us. As a result of further negotiations that took place between the parties, the price was agreed to be $ 13.875 million.The plant in due course was...
Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-2000
Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT768Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants imported, during the period between March, 1997 and November, 1998, components for the manufacture of machinery and electrical appliances and raw material (such as steel sheets) for the manufacture of such components. The goods were classified under heading 98.01 of the Customs tariff. This heading is for raw materials components and other specified goods required for initial setting up or substantial expansion of a specified industry project. The clearance so claimed was allowed. On the goods reaching its factory, the appellant took credit under Rule 57A of the additional duty of customs paid on the raw materials and components. By notice issued to it, the department alleged that, by application of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 57Q, credit was only available to the extent of 75% of the duty paid on these goods. This sub-rule restricts credit available on goods classifiable under heading 98.01 of the Customs tariff to 75% of the additional duty of customs paid on them. The ap...
Texind Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT622Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this case, the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was denied to the appellant on the ground that they were clearing the goods i.e.Typing machine under the brand name of foreign manufacturer.2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant said that the appellants were importing parts of machines bearing the name of foreign manufacturer. He submits that the appellants were manufacturing the machine in question out of these parts and they were not affixing the brand name of the foreign manufacturer. He submits that the benefit of exemption under the Small Scale Exemption is not for the specified goods which are manufactured affixing the brand name or trade name of another person not eligible for grant of exemption. His contention is that as the appellant were not affixing the brand name of other person, therefore, they are entitled to the benefit of notification. He also relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vimal Printery & Ors v. C.C.E. He submits...
Hutchison Max Telecom Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-2000
Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT774Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility or otherwise to the exemption contained in entry 173 of the Table to Notification 11/93 of the software imported by the appellant.2. The appellant is a mobile telephony service provider. The software was used by it, for obtaining details of the extent to which a subscriber availed of voicemail facility, in order to bill him for their use.3. The entry to the notification after its amendment on 11-2-1998 (which is the period with which we are concerned) exempts from duty "computer software". The Explanation to the entry says that software "does not include software required for operation of any machine performing a specific function other than data processing and incorporating or, working in conjunction with an automatic data processing machine". The Asstt. Commissioner, whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) has found that the software falls within this exclusion and denied the benefit of exemptio...
Unimac Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-2000
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT182Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is against the order of the Collector (Appeals) in which he has confirmed the finding of the Assistant Commissioner, in the order challenged before him, that the appellant was required to pay duty, in terms of notification 77/80 on components of trucks imported by it, and not utilised in the manufacture of exported goods, as required by the notification, and also liable to penalty.2. The contention of the advocate for the appellant is that the goods could not be utilised in the exported product because the factory was shut down. This closure was caused by the insistence of the Development Commissioner of the Kandla Free Trade Zone on the appellant achieving the addition by export of 30% of the goods imported by it. Therefore, he contends that duty was not leviable and penalty not imposable.3. The notification itself contains the provision that goods which are not utilized in the manufacture of export goods, which are not shown to have been deteriorated or damaged by reas...
Metaltone (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT607Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The dispute in this appeal revolves around whether the goods imported by the appellant are zinc ash or zinc dross. The supplier of the goods described them in its invoice as galva-niser zinc ash. A test by analyst in West Germany, where the goods were shipped (being of a Swiss origin) indicated the metal content to be 78.9%. On their arrival, a test by the Deputy Chief Chemist of the department, who tested the goods, found the zinc content to be 82.8%. The importer was reluctant to accept the test report and asked for retest. Retest was done by the Chief Chemist of the Central Revenue Chemical Laboratory at New Delhi, which showed the zinc content to be 94.8%. Based on this report, the Collector (Appeals), confirming the order of the Assistant Collector, has concluded that the goods which were imported were zinc dross, and not zinc ash as claimed by the importer, and confirmed the demand for duty issued in the course of finalisation of assessment of the goods, which were cleared af...
Mirambika Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT373Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The facts of the case in this matter are as follows : Under cover of an advance licence, the appellants imported goods described as synthetic waste weighing 18.217 MTs. On weighment the goods were found to be 20.213 MTs. The sample of the goods drawn was sent to the SASMIRA who opined as under: "The sample sent was tested and our findings are as follows : (1) The sample sent was found to be short length of tow which can be considered as waste for synthetic tow/staple fibre manufacturers (2) The material is found to be 100% polyester. (3) From the denier and tensile properties tests carried out of the fibres from the tow supplied it was found that there was no significant variation and, therefore, the fibres can be called prime quality." 2. On importers waiving show cause notice, the Addl. Collector passed the orders confiscating the entire consignment on the ground of misdeclaration as also on the observation that the goods being prime quality were not under the phrase "waste" whic...
Rakesh B. JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT563Tri(Mum.)bai
1. I have heard Shri Sonawane, Consultant for the applicant and Smt.Arya for the Department.2. Two pieces of primary gold, the gold chains weighing 51.500 gms. and Indian currency of Rs. 20,000/- were seized from the possession of the applicant on 27-10-97. In his statement recorded on 28-10-97, the applicant claimed to have purchased the gold for cash without any document for conversion into gold chains. The applicant was summoned to appear on the next day but he did not appear. On 31-3-98 he wrote a letter to the Customs claiming local purchase of the gold and enclosing therewith an invoice given by a dealer. The contents of the above statements were retracted. On the same date, on his behalf, another letter was written making similar claim. This letter was duly received by the Supdt. Hqrs. of the Commissionerate. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued on 20-4-98 in which cognizance of these two letters was not taken. After hearing the Consultant, the pieces of gold and the chains...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »