Mumbai Court December 2001 Judgments

Jindal Photo Films Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(103)LC270Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The dispute in this case relates to valuation of photographic film processing machine imported by the appellant. The facts material to the present dispute are that the goods were imported under a contract with M/s Fuji Photo Company Limited. That contract related to import of photographic film machine as well as semi processed raw materials from M/s. Fuji Photo Film. Certain sub clauses of Article 7 of the contract which we read below, have given room for the present dispute about the valuation of photographic film machine. 1. As per Article 7.02 Fuji shall not charge any licence fee related to the know how embodied in the machines as long as Bhimtal continues to purchase semi processed products exclusively from Fuji; 2. As per Article 7.03 In the event that BHIMTAL starts to purchase semi processed raw materials from supplier other than Fuji, the importer shall pay a flat annual licence fee of JY 1,00,000 in consideration of the know how embodied in the machines upon demand by Fuj...

international Impex Bureau Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT143Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed against the decision of the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Ahmedabad, made in Order-in-Appeal No. 343 & 344/92 (33 to 34-KDL) Cus/Collr.A/Ahm. dated 30.4.1992 whereunder he confirmed the orders of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Orders-in-Original No. 20/89 dated 13.11.1989 and 30/89 dated 2.11.1989 regarding duty confirmed on fabrics and refund claim of Rs. 53,858/- respectively.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants were approved for setting up a unit in Kandla Free Trade Zone in the year 1964 for weaving and printing of yarn, fabrics, printing dyeing, crayon etc. and manufacture of mixed fabrics. The appellant after establishing their unit in Kandla, imported several consignments of yarn totaling about 17670 kgs. valued about Rs. 2,31,800/-. It was alleged by the appellants that the manufactured fabrics, using portion of the imported raw materials and exported 710 kgs. of manufactured fabrics. The importation, it is alleged, ha...

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)(81)ECC492

1. The Appellant Company has been ordered to be wound up by Order of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court dated 24.4.2001 in Company Petition No.94 of 1996 and the Official Liquidator attached to the Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble Gujarat H...

Commissioner of Customs and Central Vs. Sunflag Iron and Steel Co. Ltd ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for condonation of delay of 34 days in filing the above appeals is allowed having regard to the contents of the applications, namely that although initially it was felt that no appeal was required to be filed since the issue in dispute appeared to be settled by the decisions of the Tribunal, it was subsequently found on detailed examination that the issue had been referred by the larger bench of the Tribunal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Keshari Steels 2001 (118) ELT 92 and also after noticing that applications for rectification of mistake had been filed by the Revenue in the case of Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited wherein it was held that the item in question was eligible for modvat credit....

income Tax Officer Vs. Barodawala Properties Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)83ITD467(Mum.)

1. This appeal of the Revenue is directed against CIT(A)'s order dt.13th Aug., 1998. The following ground of appeal is raised : "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in directing to allow society maintenance charges out of house property income without appreciating the fact that such charges are not covered under the meaning of term 'Annual charge' as appearing in Clause (iv) of Section 24(1) of the Act." 2. The house properties belonging to the assessee are given on lease to the banks. These properties are situated in the co-operative societies and the assessee is required to pay society's maintenance charges which were claimed as deduction by the assessee. The reason for such claim was that the premises are exclusively us,ed for the purpose of earning rental income and the society's maintenance charges paid are allowable deduction from "income from house properties" under Section 24(1) of the IT Act. The AO observed that the assessee had alr...

Prakash Rohidas Patil Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After waiving pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed upon the Accountant of M/s. Wraplon Industries, against whom the duty demand was confirmed and penalty was also imposed, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides.2. On going through the records I find M/s. Wraplon Industries filed a separate appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the confirmation of duty demand and imposition of penalty and by the order No. KKS/SURAT/69/2001 dated 15/05/2001 the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Joint Commissioner's order and remanded the case for fresh decision keeping in view that SSI benefit can be extended subject to fulfilment of other conditions of Notification 1/93 and that the goods on which duty has already been paid in full by the job worker and received back by M/s. Wraplon Industries have to be treated as duty paid. Since the appeal of the Company has been remanded to the Joint Commissioner the question of whether any penalty c...

Multimodal Transport Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT465Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The show-cause-notice in this appeal was issued to the appellant herein alleging as follows:- "Further, M/s. Multimodal transport Organisation, Bombay and M/s. Marine Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd., Bombay being the concerned delivery agents and ship agents respectively, failed to make true and correct declaration as required to be made and in terms of Section 30(2) of the Customs act, 1962. Besides, not declaring the true identity of the declared consignee, it was also revealed that M/s. multimodal Transport Organization continued to represent the interest of suppliers subsequent to the filing of the menifest in respect of the goods, the import of which are governed by certain restrictions. Hence, by their acts and ommissions, as revealed from the foregoing points which have rendered the abovesaid seized consignment liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, M/s. Multimodal Transport Organization, Bombay and M/s. Marine Transport Co., Pvt. Ltd., Bombay have the...

Poly Plast Chemi Plants (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT761Tri(Mum.)bai

a. Certain Modvat credits were availed on goods imported. These credits were availed during the period of 18.08.88 - 01.02.89 and were reversed in RG32A and by entry in PLA on 23.11.92 and 01.12.92. The appellants thereafter wrote a letter to the Range Superintendent that the reversal of the credit and payment of duty made under PLA, as effected, was not correct and requested the department to treat these debit entries made under RG23A and PLA to be cancelled and the balance to be corrected by reversal of the debit entries. The authorities presumed that the appellants had already did so, and was not correct. The Commissioner found as follows;- "The appellants during the hearing informed that though they had written a letter on 8th may, 1993 for cancelling the entry and for treating the balance enhanced by the cancellation of the amount already debited, the same was not effected to and therefore, the confirmation of the show cause notice was bad, The perusal of the letter indicated tha...

Gangapur Ssk Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 2,50,00/- for non-deposit of which the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee.2. The stay order directing pre-deposit of approximately 50% of the total amount of penalty was passed on 31/01/2001 and 15 days time for pre-deposit was given. Since the applicants did not comply with the order the appeal came to be dismissed by the impugned order. Learned counsel states that due to financial hardship the pre-deposit requirement could not be complied with but no application for modification of the stay order was filed by the assessee before the lower appellate authority.3. Keeping this fact in view and also noting that major part of the demand relates to the period prior to the introduction of Section 11AC of the Act under which the penalty has been imposed along with the provisions of Rule 57U(6), I am of the view that no prima facie case for waiver has been made out and hence direct pre-direct o...

Pra-sun Ferro Alloys and Metal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. By order No. C-I/3345 to 48/WZB/2001 dated 23/10/2001 pre-deposit of Rs. 4 lakhs towards duty by M/s. Pra-Sun Ferro Alloys & Metal Casting Pvt. Ltd., was directed. The application for modification of the above order has been filed on the ground that the Tribunal has not considered all the contents of the annexure to the show cause notice itself which gives details of goods received under Rule 57F(4) from job workers but not accounted. Another ground is that the applicants are undergoing hardship and this was pleaded before passing of the stay order but the Tribunal has not considered the loss of over Rs. 1 crore incurred by the applicant Company.2. On hearing both sides, perusing the stay order and nothing that the aspects of merits and financial hardship have been prima facie considered we see no ground to modify the order. However, in the interest of justice time for deposit is extended by further 8 weeks from today....