Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

Visnagar Taluka A.S.M. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded herein below we dispense with the pre-deposit requirement and proceed to hear the appeal itself with the consent of both sides as the issue involved falls within a very narrow compass.2. Show cause notice alleging contravention of notification 203/92 applicable to value based advance licence, namely, that input stage credit had been availed of, was issued to the appellant. They responded to the show cause notice but the reply was addressed to the Additional Commissioner instead of to the Commissioner who had issued the show cause notice. The notice for hearing was also issued but for some reasons they could not appear and did nt appear before the adjudicating authority.3. It is submitted before us that the appellants held a quantity based advance licence. This is borne out from the perusal of the licence in question, licence No. 0539495. Hence the applicable notification will not be notification 203/92 but 204/92. Since both sides have proceeded on the basis th...

Maniyar Plast Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The sole ground advances by the counsel for the applicant for waiving deposit of duty of Rs 2.95 crores approx, and a penalty or Rs. 1.48 crores approx is financial hardship. The application filed by the applicant to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction in March 2000, has been registered under section 20 of the Sick Industries Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. It is on this basis that the Tribunal in its order in Navpad textile Industries Ltd & other vs CCE, Surat I in applications 2711 to 2713 we waived deposit of the duty demanded from Maniyar Plast Ltd. The counsel for the applicant makes a statement before that the position between passing of that order and now so far as the applicant is concerned continues unchanged.2. Accordingly, we waive deposit of the duty and penalty and stay their recovery....

Usv Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT641Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the liability to duty of glipizide, a bulk drug, manufactured by the appellant. The appellant used this drug in the manufacture of glynase, which it sold as a patent and proprietary medicament. Glynase was exempt form duty by notification 30/88. Therefore, glipizide captively consumed by the appellant in the manufacture of glynase was required to pay duty. In determining its value, therefore, the department has to resort to the provision of Rule 6(1)(b) of the Valuation Rules. The question that arises of consideration is which of the different prices, at which the appellant sold the glipizide to buyer, should be applied.2. The department has applied the prices at which the appellant sold the goods for the quantity cleared during that period. For the sales from March 1993 till February 1994 the department applied the price of Rs.51,000/- per kilogram, which is the price at which the appellant sold the two kilogram of the goods to Torr...

Ameya Cosmetics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs 12,596/- and a penalty of Rs 5000/-.2. We have heard the departmental representative, the applicant being absent and unrepresented despite notice.3. The duty has been demanded and penalty imposed, on the ground that the applicant had not taken into account revised maximum retail price from which the assessable value declared of the soap manufactured by it in determining the duty amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal before him following failure of the applicant to deposit the entire duty and penalty.4. Having regard to the issues involved and the amount of duty we take up the appeal for disposal.5. On the applicant depositing, within two months from to day, Rs 7000/-, and producing evidence thereof to the Commissioner r(Appeals), this appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside and the matter remanded to him for disposal of the appeal before him. In the event the applicant fails to do so, the appeal...

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The representative of the appellant says that the clearance of the Committee of Secretaries still has not been issued and has no information about the present status of the proceedings.2. In these circumstances we dismiss the appeal for non-compliance, giving the appellant liberty to revive if and when such clearance is received....

M/S. Datar Switchgear Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. By the impugned orders the Commissioner of Central Excise has disallowed modvat credit amount of Rs. 1,14,67,428/- + Rs. 26,75,587/- availed on capital goods and ordered recovery of the same under Rule 57U(2). In addition he has directed payment of interest under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act and imposed penalties of amount equal to duty under Rule 57U(6)/Section 11AB of the Act read with Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. The ground of disallowing the credit is that the applicant had filed a declaration in terms of Rule 57R that they will not be availing of depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act while it was found that in addition to availing modvat credit they had also claimed depreciation under the Income Tax Act.2. The arguments of Mr. D.K. Subhedar are, firstly that the order has been passed in contravention of principles of natural justice since no opportunity of personal hearing was granted by the Commissioner.Secondly he submits that Rule 57R is not ap...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shree Warana Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)MhLj96

V.C. Daga, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 12-7-1999, the Department has filed the present appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961('Act' for short). The respondent herein is a Co-operative Society running sugar factory. The appeal relates to the Assessment Year 1990-1991. The Issue 2. The question of law placed for consideration reads as under : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the I.T.A.T. was justified in holding that the Government audit fees payable by the respondent is not a duty, cess or tax as envisaged in Section 43-B, when ultimately such payment goes to the State Treasury?' The facts:3. The essential facts are straight forward.In the Assessment Year in question, the Assessing Officer made disallowance under Section 43-B of the Act, in respect of outstanding Government Audit Fees amounting to Rs. 1,63,925/-. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Co...

Permanent Magnets Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Vinod Vishnu Wani

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR797; 2002(1)BomCR310; (2002)4BOMLR6; [2002(93)FLR32]; 2002(3)MhLj413

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties, Perused the records.2. Since a common question of law arises in all these five petitions, they are being heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.4. The petitions arise from the judgments and orders dated 6th April, 1999 passed by the Labour Court, Jalgaon in Complaint (ULP) Nos. 152/1995 138/1995, 134/1995, 153/1995 and 135/1995 and confirmed by the Industrial Court, Jalgaon in Revision Application (ULP) Nos. 778/1999 by judgment and order dated 16-1-2001. No. 782/1999 by judgment and order dated 19-1-2001, No. 779/1999 by judgment and order dated 23-1-2001, No. 781/1999 by judgment and order dated 25-1-2001, and No. 780/1999 by judgment and order dated 29-1-2001. The challenge to the impugned judgments and orders is on the ground that the petitioner-employer was not given an opportunity to lead evidence in support of disciplinary action by the ...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shree Warna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhan ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Bom)188

V. C. Daga, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 12.7.1999, the Department has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). The respondent herein is a Co-operative Society running sugar factory. The appeal relates to the Assessment Year 1990-91.THE ISSUE The question of law placed for consideration reads as under : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the I.T.A.T was justified in holding that the Government audit fees payable by the respondent is not a duty, cess or tax as envisaged in Section 43B, when ultimately such payment goes to the State Treasury?'THE FACTS The essential facts are straight forward.In the Assessment Year in question, the Assessing Officer made disallowance under Section 43B of the Act, in respect of outstanding Government Audit Fees amounting to Rs. 1,63,925/-. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner ...

Synco Industries Ltd. (Formerly Known as Synco Textiles Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Bom)1; [2002]254ITR608(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia. J.1. Although several questions have been raised in the Memo of Appeal, the point which arises for determination by this Court in the present Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is as follows :'Whether the Assessing Officer was right in rejecting the claim of the assessee on the ground that the gross total income of the assessee, computed as per the provisions of the Act before deductions under Chapter VI-A, was NIL..?'2. For the purposes of deciding these Appeals, the relevant facts are as follows :In these Appeals, we are concerned with the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92. Since both the Appeals raise common question of law and fact, they are disposed of by this common Judgment. However, for the sakeof convenience, the facts in Appeal No. 591 of 2000 are mentioned herein-below.3. The assessee is engaged in the business of oil and chemicals. It has a Unit for Oil Division in Sriphi District, Rajasthan. It has a Chemical Division at Jodhpur. The as...