Mumbai Court November 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Camco Colour Co.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2002]254ITR565(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act' for short), raising a question with respect to the claim for deduction under Sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act which was allowed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal' for short) vide its judgment dated December 28, 1999, for the assessment year 1990-91.At the outset, Shri Jasani, learned counsel for the respondent, contended that considering the tax effect, this is not a fit case wherein the court should entertain the appeal for consideration. Mr. Jasani, learned counsel for the respondent, relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of CWT v. Executors of late D. T. Udeshi : [1991]189ITR319(Bom) , wherein the appeal was disposed of on this count alone. He pointed out that the tax effect, if at all the Revenue succeeds, is going to be in the sum of Rs. 46,410 for the assessment year 1990-91. He took us through Instruction No. 1979, issued by the Central Board of Direct T...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Camoo Colour Co.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)MhLj278

V.C. Daga, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) raising a question with respect to the claim for deduction under Section 80-HH and 80-I of the Act which was allowed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) vide its judgment dated 28th December 1999 for the assessment year 1990-91.2. At the outset, Shri Jasani, learned counsel for the respondent contended that considering the tax effect, this is not a fit case wherein the Court should entertain appeal for consideration. Mr. Jasani, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of C.W.T. v. Executors of Late D.T. Udeshi, : [1991]189ITR319(Bom) wherein the appeal was disposed of on this count alone. He pointed out that the tax effect, if at all the revenue succeeds, is going to be in the sum of Rs. 46,410/- for the assessment year 1990-91. He took us through the Instruction No. 1979 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Panchganga S.S.K. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2002]258ITR119(Bom)

1. Heard parties.Admit.Shri Vaidya for the respondent waives service.By consent of parties, appeal be taken up for final hearing.The three questions sought to be raised in this appeal have already been covered and answered by two different judgments of this court. The substantial questions of law raised are as under :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Tribunal relying upon the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Shri Chatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [1992] 198 ITR 78, was right in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of non-refundable deposits, interest paid/payable on non-refundable deposits by holding that various funds/deposits collected by the assessee-society out of sugarcane purchase price payable to the cane growers are not the trading receipts of the assessee ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the...

Cit Vs. Camco Colour Co.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Bom)255

V. C. Daga, J. This appeal is filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), raising a question with respect to the claim for deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act which was allowed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') vide its judgment dated 28-12-1999, for the assessment year 1990-91.2. At the outset Shri Jasani, learned counsel for the respondent (assessee), contended that considering the tax effect, this is not a fit case wherein the court should entertain appeal for consideration. Mr. Jasani, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of CWT v. Executors of Late D.T Udeshi : [1991]189ITR319(Bom) wherein the appeal was disposed of on this count alone. He pointed out that the tax effect, if at all the revenue succeeds, is going to be in the sum of Rs. 46,410 for the assessment year 1990-91. He took us through the Instruction No. 1979 issued...

Commissioner of Customs, Kandla Vs. Indo Nissan Oxo Chemicals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT490Tri(Mum.)bai

2. This is an appeal filed by the department against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad made in Order-in-Appeal No.581/97 made in filed No. (24-KDL) CUS/COMMR/(A)/AHD dated 8.10.1997 whereunder he had held that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Custom, Kandla made in Order-in-Original No. KDL A.C./04/96 APPB. G.R.I dated 29.11.1996 confirming the duty short levied amounting to Rs.22,57,65,172/- demanded under show cause notice dated 30.10.1996 was wrong and allowed the appeal of the respondents.3. Respondents had been regularly importing heptene/nonene at Kandla.They were using these chemicals for manufacture of oxo chemicals at their factory. There was a dispute with regard to the classification as to whether heptene/nonene could be classified as "AIF/Motor Spirit" or "otherwise". According to the opinion of the Chief Chemist, C.R.C.L., New Delhi, if end use and flash point criteria are taken into consideration, then he...

Jai Bhavani Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On the last occasion, the counsel for the applicant was asked to furnish full details of the appeals stated to have been filed before the Tribunal against the Commissioner. He is to day absent and applicant is unrepresented.2. We are therefore left with no alternative but to proceeds on the basis of the document on record.3. The Commission (Appeals) dismissed the appeal before him for failure by the applicant to deposit Rs. 70,000/- representing the entire duty of Rs. 65,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 5000/-. The duty was demanded by the Additional Commissioner on the ground that the assessable value of the molasses that the applicant manufactured and cleared should be Rs. 1000/- per ton.4. In the order, the Additional Commissioner records that he was adjudicating the case afresh on a remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) who had ordered the amount taking into consideration the price of comparable goods and if such prices are not available to decide the price on the basis of cost of pro...

Dilip A. Goplani Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT209Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for condonation of delay in preferring the Appeal is allowed in view of the fact that in January, 2001, there was an earthquake in Gujarat and the applicant's office was severely damaged as it was situated in Gujarat which was affected by the earthquake.2. The application for early hearing of the appeal filed on 19/4/2001 is also allowed, since the issue is covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Freightwings and Travels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2001 (129) ELT 226 (Tri - LB)].3. By the impugned order dated 11/12/2000, the Commissioner of Customs in exercise of powers under Sub-Regulation (2) of Regulation 21 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 suspended the CHA Licence held by the appellant with immediate effect. We find that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case cited (Supra) has held that a person against whom punitive or damaging action is taken by any authority in its quasi-judicial ca...

Jayshree N. Patel Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The miscellaneous application filed by the Widow of Late Shri N.B.Patel is allowed. Smt. Patel being the sole legal heir, she is permitted to continue and pursue the appeal.2. On hearing both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on Shri Patel, we find that Stay Application filed by other Noticees aggrieved by the common adjudication order of the Commissioner were heard and allowed by the Order No. CII/2911-18/WZB/2001 dated 5/11/2001. We, therefore, follow the same course in the present application also and waive the pre-deposit of the penalty imposed on Shri Patel and stay recovery thereof pending his appeal.3. We also find that the Appeals of the Co-Noticees have been fixed for hearing Court II on 13/12/2001. This appeal is also directed to be listed alongwith the other appeals; namely Appeal No. C/648 to 652, 676, 654 and 655/2001-Bom on 13/12/2001....

Pefco Foundry Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Pune

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT370Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeal arises out of Order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), who while remanding the issue of classification of castings manufactured by the appellant herein for fresh decision by the Assistant Commissioner in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shivaji Works Ltd. [1994 (69) ELT 674 (Tribunal)] has denied the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification 275/88 to the goods in question. The benefit of the notification has been denied on the ground that the benefit is available to unmachined castings, while appellants carried out proof machining on the goods in dispute and therefore, the disputed goods are not unmachined castings.2. We have heard both sides. It is the contention of the appellants that proof machining castings will not take them out of the category of unmachined castings and in support of this contention he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shivaji Works Ltd. v.Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad. H...

Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 31,49,434/-. The applicants are a 100% EOU. They cleared certain goods as rejects into the DTA on payment of duty calculated @ 50% of the Basic duty of Customs. Several Show Cause Notices were issued alleging that in computing the duty for clearance into the DTA, not only the Basic Customs Duty, but also that the other duties such as CVD, SAD, etc. should also be taken into account. The total duty allegedly short paid was claimed to be Rs. 3,03,91,959/-. The Commissioner in his order referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hyderabad Industries v. UOI [1999 (108) ELT 321] and held that the provision of Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 did not permit computation of duties impugned except under the Customs Act in calculating the impost thereunder. He further noted that the proviso to the said Section was amended by Finance Act, 2000 with retrospective effect, permitting the computati...