Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

Sharad Kumar P. Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC487

1. This application seeks condonation of delay of 620 days in filing of the appeal. I have heard Shri Vipin Kumar Jain, C.A. for the applicant and Smt. Reena Arya, SDR for the Revenue.2. This application has a very interesting history. 800 tolas of gold was seized from the applicant's custody by the police. The gold was later transferred to the Customs and was confiscated. On 12.6.68, the Central Board of Excise and Customs in their Appellate capacity set aside the confiscation and granted relief. The department had offered release of the gold in August, 68. For reasons best known to himself, the owner filed the application for release of the gold only in December 1997 i.e. nearly 30 years after the offer of release. Within a week, the Customs replied to the effect that the particular gold had been sent to the Mint with the observation that "further action for delivery of the said gold is under progress". On 10.6.99, however, a letter was issued under the signature of the Asstt. Commi...

M/S. Royal Cushion Vinyl and M/S. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise a ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC108

1. In these two appeals stay applications have been filed and they have been posted for hearing today. The question involved in these matters is both eligibility of modvat credit in respect of cables and wires under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.The matter has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Larger Bench in five Members in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Indor Vs.Surya Roshni Ltd.[2001 (42) RLT 817 (CEGAT-L.B.)].Therefore the appeal was taken up for disposal after granting waiver of predeposit and with consent of the parties.2. As stated above, the question involved is about eligibility of the modvat credit as capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules 1944, in respect of cables and wires.The Larger Bench of the Tribunal consisting of three Members in the case of Jawahar Mills V/s.Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore, [1999(108)ELT 47] held in favour of the assessee.The said judgment of the Tribunal decided in Jawahar Mills Lt...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Lalita Group of Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT928Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this case show cause notice was given to the appellant Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise Surat-I for production of original authorisation that is enabling the Deputy Commissioner to file the appeal. In original appeal filed on 30.3.2000, the Commissionerate filed arrested copy. Since original was asked for, the same had been furnished bering the date as 16.11.2000. The appeal having been filed on 30.3.2000, the Commissionerate ought to have filed the same along with the original authorisation. In this case the original authorisation dated 16.11.2000 is subsequent to the filing of the appeal namely 30.3.2000. Hence the rules of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules have not been followed. The appeal stands dismissed....

M/S. Chandralok Fabrics Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 115 days in filing of the appeal. The ground is that they had filed an appeal before the wrong Appellate forum ie. Government of India. On going through the documents and on examining the claim made by the applicants, the delay is condoned.2. On hearing Shri Grover, advocate on the stay application and Smt.Reena Arya , SDR for the Revenue, I find that the issue involved in the present appeal is prima-facie covered by the following judgements of the Tribunal:- (2) 1998(102)E.L.T.33 (Hotline Teletube & Components Ltd. vs. CC, Indore).Waiver of pre deposit of Rs. 20,459/- and stay of recovery thereof is, therefore, granted....

Rishabh Instruments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT299Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both the sides, the appeal was taken up for disposal after granting waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 16,737/- confirmed on reversal of the modvat credit and penalty of Rs.21,737/-.2. The appellants imported certain goods and filed an into bond B/E at Mumbai. They applied for re-warehousing at Nashik and filed a bond. In terms of the bond, the re-warehousing certificate was to be produced within three months. However, it appears that the goods were lost/misplaced by transporter and ultimately reached the destination in October, 1990. It appears at the CWC authorities at Nashik refused to accept the consignment on the ground of delay.the importer retained the goods and approached the Customs at Mumbai. The duty was paid by a challan and the certificate dated 6.7.93 was given by the Customs certifying the amount of basic duty as well as CVD mentioning the number and dated of the transit bond. The importer assessee then took the credit of the additional duty paid. Later on 15.1....

Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. M/S. Moontex Dyg. and Pvt Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC403

1. In this case the appeal was file originally on 6th June 2000 along with authorisation of the same bearing the date 5.6.2000.The said authorisation dt. 5.6.2000 was only a copy which was attested by the Superintendent office.When notice was given for production of the original, the Commissionerate has filed the authorisation dt.5.2.2001.The appeal has to be filed by the Commissioner along with the original authorisation.In this case the authorisation in original bearing the date as 5.2.2001, but appeal was filed on 6.6.2000.The authorisation in original should be filed along with the appeal, whereas in the instant case the authorisation in original has been filed on 5.5.2001. Hence the appeal is dismissed for non compliance with the CEGAT...

M/S. Rishabh Instruments Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The modvat credit in this case was denied and the resultant duty was confirmed on the ground that the assessee had not produced the triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry. The claim of the appellants is that they have produced an EDP copy which should have become modvat document. During the hearing, it appeared that there are certain instructions from the Ministry as to the particular copy which qualified on introduction of EDP. The waiver of pre-deposit of the duty confirmed of Rs.1,13,478/- and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- is granted and its recovery is stayed. Both sides are directed to procure the Ministry's order and make a mention before the Court so that the main appeal could be taken up for disposal....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Tainwala Chemical and Plastic ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(123)ELT593Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this matter the authorisation has been signed by the Collector not in terms of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act 1944. In omitting the words "not legal and proper". This is a mandatory words as provided under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act. This is what Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara Vs. Rohit Pulp Paper Mills [1998(101)ELT.5 (S.C.)]. hence the appeal stands dismissed....

Arvind Gore Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)82ITD258(Mum.)

1. We find it convenient to dispose of these two appeals of the assessee for asst. yr. 1994-95 by this consolidated order. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused.2. We first take up the appeal in respect of an order under Section 143(1)(a). The relevant facts in this case are that the assessee was an employee of Cadbury India Ltd. He had availed of voluntary retirement scheme benefits during the previous year relevant to asst. yr. 1994-95 and had received a sum of Rs. 4,64,402. The certificate issued by the employer company in Form No. 16 granted exemption in respect of sum of Rs. 3,79,965 and deducted tax inter alia in the sum of Rs. 84,437.However, the assessee while filing the return of income claimed exemption in respect of the entire sum of Rs. 4,64,402 under Section 10(10C). The AO made an adjustment of Rs. 84,440 disallowing the claim of the assessee. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) but did not succeed before him.3. The learned counsel for the assessee claimed...

Gulabrao Bhaurao Kakade, Since Deceased by His Heirs and Legal Represe ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR518; (2001)2BOMLR664; 2001(4)MhLj31

R. M. Lodha, J.1. The order passed by the Settlement Commissioner on 2.1.1989 whereby he ordered variation of scheme finalised in the year 1973 under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation & Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (For short 'the Act of 1947') is under challenge in this writ petition.2. The case of the original petitioner set up in this writ petition is that land Survey No. 95/4 admeasuring 5 acres and 25 gunthas was originally owned by Raghunath Anandrao Pawar and the said land was being cultivated by the original petitioner's father as tenant and the respondent No. 2 - Bhausaheb Kushaba Kakade (since deceased) as well as the original respondent No. 1 - Nivrutti Krishna Bhilare (since deceased). The agreement of sale was entered into between the father of the original petitioner and original respondent No. 1 on 21.12.1956 for a consideration of Rs. 3,500/-. It is stated that the original petitioner and respondent No. 1 paid their share of amount. The land in question was ...