Mumbai Court June 2000 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Rajashree Polyfil Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC170

1. The respondent assessee had taken credit on a number of items such as tubes, pipes, fittings, vessels, receivers & tanks, wires & cables, bus duct etc. The Asstt. Commissioner disallowed the credit amounting to Rs. 28,46,771. In doing so, he relied upon certain judgments. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order, examined the function of each equipment, cited the relevant case laws and reversed the lower order and allowed the credit. Against this order, the revenue filed an appeal and this application for stay of operation of this order.2. We have seen the appeal memorandum and have heard Shri Patwari, JDR for the applicant Commissioner. The respondents were not present nor were they represented.3. In the appeal memorandum, the definition of capital goods is reproduced. It has been claimed that all items being control instruments were not used for producing or processing of goods and therefore, the credit is wrongly allowed. On this ground prayer is made for setting aside th...

Bombay Union Dyeing Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC357

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the printing paste manufactured by the appellant is classifiable under heading 3204.20 Central Excise Tariff and is liable to pay duty.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented and by its written submission has contended that its appeal is covered by the decisions of the Tribunal in Phoenix Mills v. CCE (unreported Order 115/99C dated 12.2.1999) and CCE v. Doulatram Dyg & Bleaching Mills (unreported Order 558-559/98-C dated 22.7.98).3. In both these decisions, the question was whether the application to Note 6 to Chapter 32 according to which conversion of unformulated, unstandardised or unprepared dyes into formulated, standardised or prepared form, ready for use in the process of dyeing for reduction of particles size, addition of dispersing agent or dilution amounts to manufacture. The preparation of the printing base by the assessee would amount to manufacture. In the former decision, the Tribunal has remanded the ...

Syntharz Paints (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC549

1. The appellants were manufacturing paints etc. They filed classification list No. 67/82 dated 1-4-81 claiming benefit of Notfn.No. 74/78. The classification list was approved provisionally pending enquiry regarding eligibility of taking exemption. The classification list was finally approved on 10-12-85. In the meanwhile, on payment of duty at higher rate the goods had been cleared. The assessee had filed protest letter on 29-7-81. In the meanwhile, a number of price lists had been filed by the assessee during Feb. 81 to Dec. 82. These were finalised vide order dated 24-8-83 granting deduction of 3% from the wholesale prices. Subsequently, differential duty was quantified vide letter dated 6-9-83 and was paid. These events had no relationship with the finalisation of the classification list. However, this letter dated 6-9-83 gives the impression that the assessment were to be finalised for the entire period. Perhaps, on this presumption, although the classification list was finalise...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Shatrunjay Extrusions Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC155

1. The annexure B stated to contain the grounds of stay of operation of the Commissioner's order is missing and the departmental representative is not able to explain the absence. Apart from this, the ground that the invoice on which Modvat credit was taken, which is in dispute, issued by unregistered dealer is prima facie difficult to sustain. The representative of the applicant has produced copies of the registration certificates of M/s. Jugraj Tejraj & Sons and Associated Aluminium, who are the only dealers who issued the invoices; the other invoices were issued by the manufacturers. It is also seen that these were submitted to the Asst. Commissioner by letter dated 19.11.94, long before the adjudication.2. The other ground that credit was taken on original invoices appear to be settled by the decision of the Tribunal, the issue in any case appear to be more procedural and substantive and does not justify stay of operation of the order. Application is dismissed....

Ajay Industrial Corpn. Vs. Cc (Export Promotion)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(92)LC646Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of penalty imposed of Rs. 13 lakhs under Section 112(a). A prayer is also made for dispensing with the deposit of fine ordered in lieu of confiscation of the goods of Rs. 6.5 lakhs.3. A consignment of steel sheets imported by the applicant has been ordered to be confiscated with option to redeem on fine as indicated above and penalty imposed on the applicant on the finding of the Commissioner that the goods were not covered by the three special imprest licences issued to the applicant. It was explained to us that by virtue of these licences the importer was entitled to the benefit of the notification 36/97 which exempts goods to be used in the manufacture of goods to be supplied to organisation of the United Nations. The steel sheets were used to fabricate pumps supplied to UNICEF. In the impugned order the Commissioner finds that the licences in question were to expire on 31.7.1999. The goods were actually placed on board the vessel which c...

Morarjee Goculdas Spg. Wvg. Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC352

1. The appellant is absent, but by letter dated 10.4.2000 requests withdrawal of the appeal on the ground that the Dy. Commissioner has given effect to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) impugned in this appeal. The department has no objection to it....

Aspy B. Talati Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals filed by the assessee were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. Both the appeals are directed against the separate orders of the CIT(A)-XXXV, Bombay, dt, 28th Feb., 1995, for the asst. yrs. 1990-91 and 1991-92. "1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 received by way of ex gratia payment by the appellant from his ex-employer is in the nature of salary. The appellant states that the same is a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax." 4. The assessee qualified chartered accountant, was employed with M/s Abbott Laboratories (India) Ltd. till 5th May, 1989, as director (Finance) and served the company in various capacities for 17 years.During the two relevant assessment years the assessee received Rs. 1 lakh each in appreciation of personal attributes and qualities, which were over and above his legal dues and claimed the amount for the two assessment years as exempt from tax in view of ...

Maganlal Savani and Another Vs. Rupam Pictures (P) Ltd. and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2000Bom416; 2000(3)ALLMR570; 2000(4)BomCR400; (2000)3BOMLR48; 2001(2)MhLj705

ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. By consent notice of motion is made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides.2. The suit is for the reliefs, inter alia to declare that the plaintiff No. 1 is having the sole exclusive and perpetual owner of copyright in respect of the suit film 'Chupke Chupke' and is alone and solely and exclusively entitled to exploit and/or exhibit and/or broadcast the said film in any manner in any size/sizes throughout the contracted territories including over Television, Satellite Television, Cable Television etc. with some other ancillary prayers in the suit.3. The notice of Motion is taken out by the plaintiff inter alia for an injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, or their servants and agents from in any manner representing that the defendants or any of them are entitled to exhibit and/or exploit and/or broadcast and/or distribute in any manner by any means the suit film 'Chupke Chupke' in any size/sizes by any format and by any means over Telev...

Aspy B. Talati Vs. Ito

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)75TTJ(Mumbai)106

ORDERS. V. Mehrotra, A.M.These two appeals filed by the assessee were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. Both the appeals are directed against the separate orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) XXXV, Bombay, dated 28-2-1995, for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92.3. The ground common in both the appeals reads as under :'1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 received by way of ex gratia payment by the appellant from his ex-employer is in the nature of salary. The appellant states that the same is a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax.'4. The assessee qualified chartered accountant, was employed with M/s. Abbott Laboratories (India) Ltd. till 5-5-1989, as director (Finance) and served the company in various capacities for 17 years. During the two relevant assessment years, the assessee received Rs. 1 lakh each in appreciation of personal attributes and qualities, which were over...

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC363

1. The appellant is absent and requests adjournment on the ground that the requisite certificate from the Committee of Secretaries of the Cabinet Secretariat, which is necessary since the appellant is a public sector undertaking of the Government of India, had not been received.2. We cannot proceed in the appeal in the absence of the certificate.The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The appellant is given liberty to revive the appeal as and when clearance from the committee is received....