Mumbai Court April 2001 Judgments

Radhekrishna Plastic Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT739Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant manufactures plastic sheets in its factory at Talegaon, Nasik. It delivers these goods to its customers located in areas away from the factory, using for this purpose its own truck and also incurring charges towards octroi, which it recovered from its customers. Seven notices issued to it proposed to add to the assessable value of these goods the charges incurred on these counts. The Additional Collector passed order withdrawing the notices demanding duty. The department appealed this order to the Commissioner (Appeals).The Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that these charges were additional consideration towards the sale of the goods, and hence includable in the assessable value. This is challenged in this appeal before us.2. The value defined under Section 4(1) of the Act is the price at which the goods are ordinarily sold by an assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal where the buyer is not a related pe...

Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. Inox India Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The goods in question have already been cleared, according to Mr. R.Parthasarathy, advocate for the respondent. Hence the stay application is infructuous and accordingly dismissed....

Dgp Windsor (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)84ITD641(Mum.)

1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), Central-VI, Mumbai, pertaining to block assessment for the period from 1st April, 1987, to 26th Sept., 1997. The assessee has raised the following grounds in this appeal : "1. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that provisions of Section 158BC of the IT Act, 1961, are applicable in the case of the appellant-company. 2. The learned CIT(A) further erred in confirming the action of the AO in computing undisclosed income of the appellant-company for the block period at Rs. 11,89,89,975 as against declared by the appellant-company for the block period at Rs. Nil. 3(i) The learned GIT(A) further erred in confirming the action of the AO in computing undisclosed income on account of alleged payment to M/s National Plastic Industries Ltd. of Rs. 25 lakhs under Section 69C of the IT Act, 1961. 3(ii) Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) further erred in holding that addition of alleged payment of Rs. 25 lakhs in cas...

Nisar Abdul Inamdar Vs. M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Greater Bo ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1574; (2001)3BOMLR630

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner who styles himself as the brother of the detenu Mohamad @ Mohamad Kanya s/o Abdul Inamdar, has impugned the order dated 26.8.2000, passed by the 1st Respondent Mr. M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining the detenu under sub-section 1 of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act. 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment-1996), (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.P.D.A. Act').The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 26.8.2000, was served on the detenu on 23.9.2000 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this petition.2. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned order is founded on the C.R. viz. C. R. No. 91/2000 under Sections 387. 34 of the I.P.C. registered at Kurla Police St...

Shri Murlidhar Teckchand Gandhi and ors. Vs. Shri T.D. Joshi, Presiden ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR120; (2002)104BOMLR592

ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. Cries of the slum dwellers for end of the life of drudgery were legislatively responded culminating in the enactment of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearing and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. Very often Executive proposed but the Judiciary had to dispose as the Executive was not strictly within the legislatively prescribed bounds. From 1976 the Executive decisions to declare the present area as a 'slum area' were required to be struck down twice being in violation of the provisions of the Act. The first such declaration dated 16.9.1976 was set aside on 13.9.1983 by the Tribunal. The Second Notification dated 22.10.1986 again met with the same fate in the Tribunal on 19.1.1993. Still the residents living the miserable life of indigence did not lose their heart and continued to pursue their efforts in a hope to see the shadow of the Article 21 and at least the ghost of the Directive Principles through their roofless and holeful huts. This time they have suc...

Dgp Windsor (India) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)74TTJ(Mumbai)291

ORDERJ.P. Bengra, V.P.This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Central-VI, Mumbai, pertaining to block assessment for the period from 1-4-1987, to 26-9-1997. The assessee has raised the following grounds in this appeal :'1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that provisions of section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are applicable in the case of the appellant-company.2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) further erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in computing undisclosed income of the appellant-company for the block period at Rs. 11,89,89,975 as against declared by the appellant-company for the block period at Rs. nil.3(i) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) further erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in computing undisclosed income on account of alleged payment to M/s. National Plastic Industries Ltd. of Rs. 25 lakhs under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3(ii) Without prejudice to...

Balaram Cements Ltd., S.K. Gadhvi Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT421Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Balaram Cements Ltd, the appellant in appeal E/2003/00, is a manufacturer of cement. During the period with which we are concerned, March 1994 to May 1997, it obtained the cement almost exclusively by grinding the clinkers manufactured in its factory. A small portion of the cement (7000 tons, which works out about 5% of the total production) was obtained by grinding clinker which the appellant purchased from other manufacturers. The appellant paid the duty on the total quantity of cement during this period by availing of the provisions of notification 5/94 and its successor notifications 12/95, 8/96 and 4/97. Notice issued to it on 12.3.1999 proposing to disallow the exemption contained in this notification on the ground that part of the cement which was manufactured was out of the clinker not manufactured by the appellant but manufactured by another manufacturer.Adjudicating on this notice, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand for duty issued to the manufacturer and imposed p...

M/S. Apollo Vikas Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT703Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing Shri A.D. Maru, advocate for the applicants and Shri A.K.Jain for the Revenue, it appears that the issue being earlier settled, the appeal itself could be taken up for final disposal. This was done by granting proforma waiver of pre-deposit of the duty confirmed of Rs.4,08,436.19.2. The appellants imported a ship for breaking the cleared it on payment of duty on 11.1.1991. Show cause notice was issued on 2.7.1991 demanding duty of ships gears, stores and bunkers which were not included in the LDT of the ship. On hearing the importers and on perusal of the Oil Trade Organization as contained in CBEC Circular No.37/96-Cus. dated 3.7.1996, the Assistant Commissioner confirmed the duty on the bunkers/oil. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that bunkers were not included in the LDT. Before the Commissioner the arguments were made that all the bunkers/oil were contained in the machinery. The Commissioner observed that the quantified amount was stored in engine room tanks and was...

Ratangiri (India) Ltd Indokem Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Air

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue in both these appeals is identical, and after hearing both sides, we have decided to dispose of the appeals themselves, after waiving deposits.2. Show cause notice were issued to Ratangiri (India) Ltd (appeal C/13/01) and Indokem Ltd (appeal C/15/01) alleging in each case that the benefit of the exemption contained in notification 203/92 will not be available to goods imported by it for the reason that a condition in it, that modvat credit should not have been availed of in the manufacture of exported product, has been contravened. The Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, has in each case confirmed the demand for duty and imposed penalties on each of the appellant.3. The common contention raised by Mr. Grover, the counsel for Ratangiri (India) Ltd and Mr. Menon for Indokem Ltd is that the exemption was availed of, not under notification 203/92 but under notification 204/92. No such contention relating to modvat attaches to this notification. Mr. Grover cites a copy...

Pepsico India Holding Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT468Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs 18.21 lakhs and equal penalty.3. The duty has been demanded by denying the modvat credit of the duty paid on sugar and food pulp used by the applicant in the manufacture of beverages. The impugned order holds that since these two commodities were sent from their manufacturer to the applicant's godown at Mazgaon and thereafter removed from Mazgaon to the factory at Chembur, they were not received in the factory under cover of a duty paying document.Vadilal Industries vs CCE 1998 (99) ELT 513, this Tribunal has held impermissible the denial of modvat credit to Vadilal Industries for the same reason for which the credit has been denied to the applicant before us. The bench found substantial compliance with the provisions of Rule 57G and Rule 57H. Circular No 206/40/96 dated 1.5.1996 of the Board which permits credit to be taken in such circumstances, subject to permission being obtained from the Commissioner, it also in favour of ...