Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

ito Vs. S.G. Jhaveri and Co.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)89TTJ(Mumbai)895

ORDERPradeep Parikh, A.M.These cross-appeals are directed against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dated 14-10-1996, for assessment year 1992-93. As the appeals relate to the same assessment year, we find it convenient to dispose of both of them together by this combined order. The appeal of the department is taken up first.1. ITA No. 73741Mum/1996 (departmental Appeal)2. Following ground is raised in the appeal :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in allowing the expenditure out of interest earned by the assessee. ',3. Assessee-firm is in the business of import and export of cut and polished diamonds. For the year under consideration, it returned a total income of Rs. 285 which was assessed to Rs. 3,50,440 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). During the year, assessee had paid total interest of Rs. 28,89,618 on borrowed funds and had received Rs. 3,50,158 as interest on moneys advanced. While comput...

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Conway Printers Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the order impugned in this appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the importer, Conway Printers Pvt. Ltd., the respondent to this appeal, was entitled to there fund of duty which was paid in excess, without having to show that the incidence duty had not been passed on.In coming to his conclusion, the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Solar Pesticides Vs.Union of Indian 1992 (57) ELT 291, the ratio of which was that the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the Act would not apply to goods captively consumed.2. That judgment is no longer law, having been reversed on appeal by the Supreme Court[2000 (116)ELT 401]. The provisions of sub-section (2) would apply, and for the importer to get the refund it would have to show that the incidence of duty has not been passed on.The Commissioner (Appals)'s order therefore is set aside.However, since the appellant did not earlier have an opportunity to establish that the inciden...

Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. Ruby Mills Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The departmental representative states that the amount of duty involved in this matter is Rs. 482/- relating to modvat on endorsed invoices. Having regard to the amount involved and the nature of the case I decline to admit the appeal....

Attar Ahmed Dawood Vs. Commissioner of Customs Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner(Appeals) confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner confiscating under caluse (d) of Section 111 of the Act polyester fabrics valued at Rs.38,888/- imported by the appellant on the ground that import licence which was required for its clearance was not produced, and imposing penalty on him.2. The matter was adjourned on the last occasion at the request of the appellant. Today the appellant is absent and unrepresented despite issue of notice. Therefore, after reading the memorandum of appeal and other papers and hearing the departmental representative, I proceed to decide the appeal.3. The appellant does not deny that a licence was required and that such licence was not produced.It is, however, contended that the fabrics were supplied by a foreign party in accordance with a contract whereby the appellant was t embroider the fabrics and re-export them. A copy of the contract dated 12.7.1993 with the foreign buyer, and two sh...

Steven D'Souza Vs. Commissioner Of Customs Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for condonation of delay is vague and unclear. It is stated that the order impugned in this appeal was received on or after 30.1.1999. The appeal has been filed on 5.5.1999. The Commissioner (Appeal) reports that the order was sent by registered post on 11.1.1999. The applicant was asked, on the last occasion, by notice issued to it to file an affidavit in respect of this contention. No such affidavit is filed. No reason has been taken advanced for the delay.2. I therefore decline to condone the delay. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation....

Jayaswals Neco Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for wavier of deepest of redemption fine of Rs.2 lakhs in respect of goods ordered to be confiscated, which had earlier been provisionally released, and penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.2. Counsel for the applicant contends that subsequent to the issue of show cause notice the manufacturer had file a declaration under the Kar Vivadh Smaadhan Scheme, 1998. This declaration has been accepted and orders of full and final settlement has been passed. Therefore, the Commissioner has no authority to adjudicate upon the notice. He relies upon the decision of the Tribuna in Kedia Great Galleon Ltd. Vs. CCE 2000 (40) RLT 671 which has been relied upon by the court No.2 of this bench in Rajan Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. Vs.CCE, appeal C/3580/99-Bom.3. The Departmental representative contends that the facts in 2000 (40) RLT 681 are not clear and do not show, that there was an action for confiscation of goods on which no duty has been demanded in addition to the duty that has been demanded ...

M/S. Jaysynth Dyechem Ltd., Shri Vs. Commissioner of Customs (E.P.),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. M/s. Jaysynth Dyechem Ltd. (hereinafter called as JDL) manufacture dystuff. These are exported as well as are sold locally. Notification No. 204/92-Cus dt. 19.5.92 as amended permits importation of materials free of duty on production of a quantity based exemption entitlement certificate. M/s. JDL were in possession of 16 advance licences under which they had imported certain raw material and had exported resultant final products. M/s. JDL have three factories in which Dyes and Dye-Intermediates are manufactured. The jurisdictional Excise Officials searched the factory and office premises and recovered number of documents. They recorded this statement of the Technical Personnel of JDL. In these statements the detail of the inputs and final products were brought out. Statement of the directed Shri M.K. Kothari were also recorded. The inquiry revealed that the products manufactured were highly standardised and the documents maintained showed exact quantity ratios between the raw mate...

M/S. Rajan Prints and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT193Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat-I vide his order dt. 31.3.2000 had confirmed demand of Rs.31,01,851/- from M/s. Rajan Prints, Surat Penalty of equal amount was imposed. Penalty of Rs.5 lakhs was imposed in Shri J.K. Vakharia partner of the assessee unit and varying amounts of penalty were imposed on 59 traders. Against this order 61 appeals were filed along with 61 applications for waiver of predeposit of duties and/or penalties. These applications were dealt with by the Tribunal in a single order No.C-II/3466-3527/- WZB/2000 dt.28.11.2000, Directions were made that M/s. Rajan Prints should deposit entire duty confirmed and also a sum of Rs.5 lakhs towards penalty.Shri J.K. Vakharia was directed to deposit Rs.2 lakhs towards the penalty imposed upon him. Each of the 59 traders was directed to deposit 10% of the penalty imposed upon them. The period of 12 weeks was given for compliance from the date of receipt of the order. The order was dispatched on 11th De...

Babulal Lath Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)83ITD691(Mum.)

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against CIT(A)'s order dt.10th March, 1994. The following grounds are raised in this appeal : "1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned AO has erred in law as well as in facts in making following additions and the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same : (a) Rs. 2,59,725 and Rs. 29,400 aggregating to Rs. 2,89,125 on account of unexplained cash credit raised by the appellant on 19th Nov., 1988, and 25th Jan., 1989, in cash. (b) Rs. 1;50,000 peak of unexplained cash credit in the name of M/s Bharat Impex, and interest thereon, and (c) Rs. 10,00,000 on the basis of promissory note seized and treating the same as unaccounted loan given to one Shri Raju Doshi and interest thereon. 2. That the assessing authority and appellate authority both have failed in considering properly the information and explanation, filed and material available on record. 3. That in case of cash credit the appellant assessees has discharged...

Abdul Fakirsaheb Mamtule Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Police Sub- ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)2204; (2001)3BOMLR33; 2001CriLJ3396

A.S. Bagga, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 17th November, 1986 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ratnagtri, in Sessions Case No. 33 of 1986, thereby convicting the Appellant (Original Accused) for the offences punishable under Sections 489-B and 489-C and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the Appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each for the offences punishable under Sections 489-B and 489-C and three years for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows :On 20.2.1986, one Manisha Mohan (P.W. No. 3) had gone to Ratnagiri District Central Co-operative Bank (hereinafter, for short, referred to as the Bank) at its Dabhol Branch for depositing a sum of Rs. 4000/- in the account of her husband Mohan Jagannath (P.W. No. 4). Krishnakant Gadekar, Accountant of the Bank, examined as P.W. No. 2. while counting the notes,...