Mumbai Court April 2001 Judgments

M/S. Cello thermoware Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When this application for waiver of predeposit etc. was called out, Shri SN Sejpal informs us that two show cause notices were issued to the same importer for the same inputs. It is his submission that one show cause notice was dropped by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, vide his Order No.CAO.No.481 to 482/2000/CAC/CC/M.K.B.29.8.2000 whereas in the impugned order bearing No. 548/2000/CAC/M.K.B, he has held against the importers. We observe that the figures of duty allegedly evaded in these two orders were entirely different Shri S.N. Sejpal however states that estimated value.2. We have seen the grounds of appeal, if the grounds of appeal the same submissions as earlier now are made. It has been clearly affirmed that the modvat credit was not taken when the export gods were manufactured. The Shipping Bills AR4s are enclosed where the verification as it made by the officers of the statement of the exporter that modvat credit had not been taken. In paragraphs 3 of the impugned or...

Smt. Virmatiben R. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This application is filed by Smt. Virmatiben R. Shah on whom a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs was imposed by the Commissioner in the impugned order. Smt. Virmatiben R. Shah was the Proprietrix of M/s. Rajvir Manufacturer. Her son Shri Jayeshkumar, R. Shah was managing affairs of this unit. The commissioner found that Shri Rameshkumar R. Shah used the names of its family members to carry on illegal trading activities and it the processes was responsible for loss of considerable revenue.The proceeding show that this was done by takin benefit of certain notifications to which the units were not eligible. In his order the Commissioner has placed the blame squarely on Shri Jayeshkumar Shah.The present applicant is 68 years old. On a number of occasions when the case was posted for hearing she was not present. We find that she had given Power of attorney to her son Shri Jayeshkumar. Considering this aspect we grant her application and waive the requirement of predeposit of the penalties imposed...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT288Tri(Mum.)bai

1. 1. The following questions are posed for reference to the High Court: (i) Whether the balance of modvat credit lying in RG23A Part II could at all be allowed to be transferred by one manufacturer to another manufacturer in terms of sub rule (6) of Rule 57F of the Rules as it stood then in the event of the former leasing out eh factory to the latter. (ii) Whether the filing of the declaration (which incidentally is not eh key question in this case) is merely a procedural requirement or is of substantive nature. (iii) Whether in facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal could have ignored the ratio of the cases which supported the departments' case.3. As to the first question, the utilisation of the credit by Hindustan Lever Ltd., what the Tribunal had considered was not eh scope or effect of sub rule (6) of Rule 57F. That sub rule permitted transfer of credit in a limited situation, where the factory of a manufacturer shifted to another location. It did not provide for the si...

Ramka Silk House Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs 2.50 lakhs imposed on the applicant under Section 114 of the Act.3. The penalty has been imposed on the ground that the applicant misdeclared the bleached, optically whitened fabrics which it tendered for export to be dyed fabric for the purposes of claiming a higher benefit under Duty Free Replenishment Certificate scheme.4. We are not prima facie able to accept the contention of the counsel for the applicant that the report of the Synthetics and Art Silk Mills' Research Association (SASMIRA) indicates the fabrics to be dyed. It explains that they have been treated with optical whitener. Prima facie this is not dyeing, defined in the Fairchild's Dictionary of Textiles to uniformly cover fabric with solid colour. While the contention that the goods were not liable to confiscation under clause (d) of Section 113 of the Act for wrongly claiming Duty free Replenishment Certificate benefit is prima facie be correct, there was a ...

Vaishnav Fibre Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT592Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of Rs 25,000/-. Although the application seeks waiver of deposit of duty on the goods ordered to be confiscated, and the redemption fine imposed, these are not required to be deposited in the light of the fact communicated to us by the counsel for the applicant that the goods are still in the custody of the Customs.2. The penalty has been imposed on the finding of the Commissioner that the goods were not scrap but serviceable material.3. Having regard to the fact that at this stage there is no clear evidence to show wilful misdeclaration, we waive deposit of the penalty and stay its recovery....

Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. M/S. Biddle Intermediate P. Ltd ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal from the Revenue was argued by Shri JM George, Shri M.A.Patel Consultant appeared for the respondents.2. The proforma credit of Rs.1.21.182.60 claimed under Notification No.432/86 was denied in the original proceedings, on the observation that the benefit was not available where Napthelene was imported and cleared on payment of CVD. The Commissioner reversed this finding Hence this appeal. The grounds of appeal read as under : In the first case the permission was granted specifically for indegenious Napthalene only and not for imported Napthalene, so credit on imported Napthalene was not admissible under Rule 56A of C. Ex. Rules, 1944. As such the credit availed on such imported Napthalene is rightly denied in the OIO. The appellate authority has wrongly allowed the credit even such a case. The assessee had not used the inputs viz. Napthalene falling under Sub-Heading No. 2707.40 for the manufacture of their final product viz. Dye Intermediate falling under Ch.29 but ha...

Plate Wel Process and Chemicals Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC405

1. Shri. N.G. Rao on behalf of the applicant moves the instant application for modification of the order passed by me on 15-9-2000 certified on 20-10-2000, dismissing the appeals E/760 to 762/2000-Mum.By that order I have dismissed three appeals filed against the Order-in-Appeals Nos. 21 to 23 made on 4-1-2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara, denying Modvat credit. It is the case of the appellants that the appellant was a division of Dinesh Mills Ltd. and for that purpose he had submitted before me balance sheet of Dinesh Mills Ltd. which indicated that the appellant was a division of Dinesh Mills Ltd. No other evidence was given to me at that time. Now Shri Rao submits on the basis of legal advice, order of the Gujarat High Court made on 20-4-1991 in company application No. 236/80 and company Petition No. 114/1980 whereunder the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat ordered amalgamation of the two companies, namely the appellant as well as Dinesh ...

Sunrise Stoaps and Chemicals Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT352Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Sunrise Soaps & Chemicals Private Ltd, the appellant in appeal E/647/94) utilises in the manufacture of soap by it of one of the specified minor oil for use of which money credit under Rule 57K was permitted by notification 192/87. The department proposed disallow credit on the ground that one of the conditions in the notification, that if of the oil is hydrogenated elsewhere than in the factory of utilisation of that oil, the procedure prescribed by notification by the Collector should be followed. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Collector finds that the procedure had been followed and that there is no case against the manufacturer on this ground. He concludes that the credit would be available on merits to this manufacturer. However, he holds that, subsequent to the use of the oil, the licence issued to this manufacturer had been cancelled and it is not therefore entitled to the credit.2. The factory of Sunrise Soaps & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. was taken over, by means...

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Tata Unisys Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)82ITD695(Mum.)

1. 1 to 9. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues]. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 91 in respect of full income accrued or arisen outside of India though 50% is only included in the total income and taxed in India.11. Facts of the case leading to this ground of appeal, briefly, are that the assessee earned certain income outside India. However, as the assessee-company was resident in India within the meaning of the Act, its foreign income was liable to assessment in India as well. Such foreign income was included in the gross total income of the assessee.However, before computation of total income, the assessee was given deduction at the rate of 50 per cent on the foreign income in accordance with the provisions of Section 80-O. As the same income had also been subjected to tax outside India, the assessee claimed double taxation relief in r...

Bhagirath P. Gaonkar and ors. Vs. Administrative Tribunal, Goa-panjim ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)1BOMLR102; 2002(1)MhLj478

1. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.2. Shri A. P. Lawande, learned Government Advocate waives notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. Shri M. B. D'Costa, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 1 is a formal party and notice can be dispensed with.3. Heard both sides at length.4. By this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the Order dated 18th April, 2001 passed by the President of the Administrative Tribunal, Panaji, Goa. By this Order, the Administrative Tribunal has granted ex-parte temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from taking charge as Members of the Managing Committee of the Devasthan for the triennium 2001-2004. No doubt the Order is an ex-parte ad-interim Order and show cause has been made returnable on 20th April, 2001 at 2.30 p.m., however, having regard to the peculiar facts of the present case it has become necessary for this Court to intervene and set the con...