Mumbai Court November 2001 Judgments

Aryan Fine Fab Ltd. and P.D. Rai Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT99Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Appellant Company has been ordered to be wound up by Order of the Honourable Gujarat High Court dated 24/4/2001 in Company Petition No. 94 of 1996 and the Official Liquidator attached to the Honourable Gujarat High Court appointed Liquidator under the Companies Act, 1956.On record, there is a letter from the Official Liquidator requesting leave to be obtained under Section 446(1) of the Companies Act to make the Official Liquidator party to the proceedings. Rule 22 of CEGAT Procedure Rules provides that where in any proceedings, the Appellant is a Company which is wound up, the appeal shall abate unless an application is made for continuation of proceedings by the Liquidator.However, the Official Liquidator appointed by the Honourable Gujarat High Court is required to make the necessary application for pursuing the above appeal, failing which the appeal filed by the Company will abate.2. Registry is directed to send copy of this letter to the Official Liquidator of the Honourab...

Hathising Manufacturing Company Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for restoration of the appeal now made on the same ground as the earlier application, that the applicant is suffering from financial hardship. In its earlier order dismissing the application, the Tribunal while noted the claim of the applicant that it is not in a position to deposit the amount demanded in the Tribunal's order, the case is being considered by the Appellate Authority constituted under the Sick Industrial Company (Special Provision) Act, 1985. It had however noted that both stay order and the order on modification that was subsequently filed had noted that financial hardship has not ben established, and that no evidence was produced in support of the claim that the applicant was a sick industrial company. What is now produced before us is a copy of the notice of the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction issuing for demand. It has therefore dismissed the application 2. The applicant now produces what is stated to be a copy o...

Cadell Weaving Mills Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)78TTJ(Mum.)369

1. This appeal has been posted for hearing before the Special Bench since while delivering judgment in the case of assessee in IT Ref. No.123 of 1996 on 6th Feb., 2001, Cadell Wvg. Mill Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT and other connected writ petitions and income-tax appeals, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court have answered the question (p), "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, was the Tribunal justified in not dealing with the ground relating to the determination of Book profit under Section 115J of the Act?" as under: "In the light of our judgment, the Tribunal is directed to decide the ground relating to the determination of book profit under Section 115J of the IT Act." 2. Questions (a) to (o) have been answered by Their Lordships as indicated below: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, was the Tribunal justified in holding that the receipts of Rs. 1,40,00,000 by the applicant on the surrender/termination of the tenancy rights/pos...

Dr. Writers Food Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise, Pune

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)LC1039Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These two appeals have same facts and arise out of the same order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune. These are, therefore, dealt with vide this common order.2. The appellants manufacture chocolates on job work basis for M/s.Cadbury India Ltd. M/s. Cadbury India Ltd. purchased cocoa beans which were sent to the present appellants. The appellants manufactured cocoa liquor therefrom after roasting the beans and grinding them in a mill.This liquor was sent back to M/s. Cadbury India Ltd. who made milk crumb therefrom. This milk crumb again came back to the present appellants for manufacture of chocolate. The present proceedings involved the quantum of duty payable on cocoa liquor. In their classification declaration, the appellants had declared the same as falling under heading 1804.00 as " other food preparation containing cocoa". The assessable value was determined in terms of Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules duly certified by the Chartered Accountant. Six sho...

Angadpal Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Commissioner(Appeals) had dismissed the assessees' appeal filed against the confirmation of duty demands raised in 8 show cause notices covering the period from February, 99 to September, 99 on account of inclusion of length of galleries attached to the chambers of stenters installed in the premises of the applicants who are governed by the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1996 and imposition of penalty, on the ground that the assessee had not complied with the pre-deposit requirement contained in his stay order.2. However, since the matter is covered by the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd v. Commissioner of Cen. Excise, Jaipur p 20001(127) ELT 579 (Tri-LB), we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and proceed to take up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both the sides. We find that the Larger Bench in the decision cited supra has held that the length of galleries is no...

ispl Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT121Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These 7 appeals have common facts and arise out of the same order.They are therefore being disposed of vide this common order.2. M/s. ISPL Inds. Ltd. manufactured excisable goods from their factory in Thane. This activity was stopped in 1983. M/s. Uchit Investments & Traders P. Ltd. was a factory which came in existence in 1982. M/s.Vishrut Investments & Traders Pvt. Ltd. was a factory which came in existence in 1984. Excisable goods were not manufactured by M/s. ISPL Inds. Ltd. but by M/s. Vishrut and Uchit. There were no formal agreements entered into, but that the goods were got manufactured on job work basis. The raw materials were supplied by M/s. ISPL Inds. Ltd. and the goods were despatched to M/s. ISPL Inds. Ltd. or to their customers. The two job workers, M/s. Vishrut Investments & Traders Pvt.Ltd. and M/s. Uchit Investments & Traders Pvt. Ltd. had their own registrations under the Central Excise law as well as under other laws such as Shop and Establishmen...

Anil Tibrewala Vs. Ito

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)89TTJ(Mumbai)24

ORDERD. Manmoham, JMThis appeal filed by the assessee raises several interesting issues.2. The facts concerning the issues in dispute are briefly stated. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1992-93, the assessee claimed to have received gift of Rs. 5,14,000 in foreign exchange from Shri Vinod Goyal, under the Foreign Exchange and Investment in Foreign Exchange Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1991 (hereinafter called 'Immunity Act'). Return of income was filed on 28-10-1992 declaring total income at Rs. 51,939. In the capital account filed alongwith the return of income the assessee has credited amount of gift received under Immunity Act. The income of Rs. 51,939 consists of interest earned from deposits made with the banks, etc. The assessee has enclosed with the return the letter of ANZ Grindlays bank certifying that the assessee received a sum of Rs. 2,56,800 and another sum of Rs. 2,57,200 by cheque Nos. 734800 and 734797 respectively through Non-resident...

Raghuvanshi Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT703Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the liability to duty of the yarn that the appellant manufactured by twisting polyester yarn with cotton yarn. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Collector (Appeals) has held that this yarn is liable to duty as a new product, and said that the rate of duty that would apply is the one applicable to Heading 5403 of the tariff in which the yarn was classified as claimed by the manufacturer.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have read the contents of the memorandum of appeal.3. We are not able to accept the first ground that doubling of yarn does not amount of manufacture because a new product does not come into existence.4. In cases where yarn of two different kinds is twisted together, as in this case, what emerges is neither one or the other but a completely new product. Doubled yarn that the appellant manufactured is commercially neither known as polyester yarn nor cotton yarn. Nor is it technically...

Cello Household Appliances Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 28.65 lakhs, and penalty of equal amount of Cello Household Appliances Ltd., the assessee, and penalties under Rule 209A of Rs. 5 lakhs on P.J. Sharma, its director, and of Rs. 1 lakh on Anil Das, its authorised signatory.2. The duty has been demanded, and penalty imposed, on the finding of the Commissioner that the goods described as "Singapore shelf", "Hong Kong shelf", "Tokyo shelf" and "Japan Shelf" are articles of furniture classifiable in heading 9403.00 and not, as claimed by the applicant, as articles of plastics under heading 3924.90.3. We have heard representative of the applicant and also seen a sample of the Singapore shelf in question. The representative states that the other shelves are similar in design and functioning, the only difference being the dimension of the article and the number of shelves. He states that these articles are meant to be placed on the tops of tables, kitchen counter etc. to be used for k...

VipIn Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT164Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has directed payment of duty in accordance with the value he has determined of the imported goods, imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112 of the Act "as an alternative for fine in lieu of confiscation of goods" which he holds liable to confiscation under Clause (m) of Section 111 of the Act, which had already been released, and another penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Section 112 on the importer.2. The contention of the counsel for the appellant that sum of Rs. 10 lakhs has been recovered (Rs. 5 lakhs by adjustment to bank guarantee by the importer, Rs. 5 lakhs deposited by the importer) is not disputed. The penalty of 5 lakhs specifically imposed on the importer has already been paid. We are not abe to understand the legal basis for penalty as a substitute for fine in lieu of confiscation, which is what Rs. 40 lakhs appears to be. The question of fixing redemption fine would arise if the goods have been ordered to be confiscated by ...