Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

M/S. Benzo Chem Inds. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded below we waived the predeposit of Rs.30,26,741/- confirmed against the appellants on clearances of various chemicals falling under Chapter 28 and Chapter 29 and penalty of amount equal to duty, and proceeded to dispose of appeals themselves with the consent of both sides. In addition to the penalty upon the manufacturing units penalties of Rs.35,000/- each have been imposed on three directors and one employee. The period of dispute is February 1996 to February 1998.2. The appellants herein used to send the Semi-finished goods to their sister concerned M/s. Gitanjali Chemicals for further processing who returned the same after processing for use in the manufacture of final products to be cleared on payment of duty. While doing so, during the period of dispute they did not follow the procedure laid down under Rule 57F(2) [later Rule 57F(3)] of the Central Excise Rules for movement of goods in such circumstances. It is the contention of the appellants that they ha...

M/S. Morarjee Brembana Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery of duty of Rs.2,36,22,334/- confirmed against the applicants together with penalty of Rs.48 lakhs imposes upon them by the Commissioner of Central Excise Nagpur. The period of dispute is 1.5.1998 to 31.7.1999.2. The demand arises as a result of denial of the benefit of notification No. 8/97 dt. 1.3.97 claimed by the applicants who are 100% EOU engaged in manufacture of cotton fabrics for export, for clearance of cotton fabrics in Domestic Tariff Area, on the ground that the cotton fabrics manufactured out raw materials procured indigenously as well as imported, while the notification benefit is available only if finished products were manufactured wholly from raw material produced or manufactured in India.3. Ld. Counsel Shri D.B. Shroff submits that the items imported by the applicants are finishing agents which are used for stentering, sizing, dyeing and mercerizing and are in the nature of consumables and use of...

C.C. Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizers and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT381Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) extending the benefit of Notification 23/98-Cus., dated 2-6-1998 as per serial No. 221 of the Table annexed thereto to the respondent on import of special purpose motor vehicles for fire fighting and rescue for various fertilizer and chemical plants. It is the submission of the learned JDR that the benefit of the notification has been wrongly extended for the reasons that the respondent is not a fire service nor is it administered either by the Central Government or the State Government, or the administration of any Union territory or a local body for fire fighting operation. The learned JDR draws our attention to the share holding pattern of the respondent company from which it is clear that the State Government holds only 150 shares, while it is the State Financial Corporation, Public Finance Institution companies, nationalised banks, individuals and Cooperative Societies who hold the majority of the shares. Ther...

Bank of Baroda Vs. H.C. Shrivatsava and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2002]256ITR385(Bom); 2002(1)MhLj385

V. C. Daga, J.1. Having heard the parties at length, this petition was allowed for the reasons to be recorded subsequently. We, accordingly, give our reasons for allowing the petition.This petition is directed against the revisional order dated 21st February 1986, passed under Section 264 of the Income tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short), holding that the assessee, the petitioner Bank was not entitled to get deduction under Section 35 of the Act in the assessment year 1975-76, in respect of the expenses incurred outside India, and also on its International Division in India.THE FACTS 2. The facts leading to the present petition may be stated briefly: The petitioner is one of the leading nationalised Banks of the country, engaged in the business, of banking and carries on banking operations from its branches situated all over India as well as abroad. At the material time it had, 32 foreign branches situate outside India, spread over in several countries of the world. The foreign branches at...

Goodwill Electronics Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(142)ELT531(Bom)

ORDER1. A show cause notice dated 31-7-2000 came to be issued to the petitioners proposing to levy duty the on the goods imported by them under the Bill of Entry filed by them on 13-3-2000. The said show cause notice came to be adjudicated and order came to passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) on 27-2-2001 and the proceeding initiated against the petitioners came to be dropped. In view of this, on 4-4-2001, the petitioners for the first time wrote to the Commissioner of Customs (Import) to release the goods in compliance of the adjudication order passed. However, till today, they have not been released. The said order is not even challenged. Hence this petition.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Mumbai Port Trust is right in pointing out that under Section 58 of the Mumbai Port Trust Act, 1963, the Port Trust is entitled to recover the demurrage charges before release of the goods. The question is, who is responsible for the same, Prima facie, in view of the judgm...

MartIn Nirmal S/O Moresh Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR420; 2001(4)BomCR653

R.M. Lodha, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Mrs. Dangre, learned A.G.P. waives service for respondent No. 1. Mr. Dubey, learned Counsel waives service for respondent No. 2. Mr. Raghute, learned Counsel, waives service for respondent No. 3.2. By consent of learned Counsel for parties, we dispose of the Rule finally at this stage.3. The petitioner is an elected Councilor/Corporate from Ward No. 23 of Nagpur Municipal Corporation, which is reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. In the election held on 23-12-1997 the petitioner was elected defeating one Sheshrao Wasnik and Rajendra Tembhurne. Sheshrao Wasnik has filed Election Petition No. 73 of 1997 questioning petitioner's election as corporator from Ward No. 23. It appears that on the complaint of other defeated candidate, namely Rajendra Tembhurne respondent No. 3 herein the Divisional Social Welfare Officer (Caste Scrutiny Committee), invalidated petitioner's caste claim. The said order of Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating petit...

Bank of Baroda Vs. H.C. Shrivatsava

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2002]122TAXMAN330(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.Having heard the parties at length, this petition was allowed for the reasons to be recorded subsequently. We, accordingly, give our reasons for allowing the petition.This petition is directed against the revisional order dated 21-2-1986, passed under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), holding that the assessee, the petitioner-bank was not entitled to get deduction under section 35 of the Act in the assessment year 1975-76, in respect of the expenses incurred outside India, and also on its International Division in India.THE FACTS2. The facts leading to the present petition may be stated briefly :The petitioner is one of the leading nationalised banks of the country, engaged in the business of banking and carries on banking operations from its branches situated all over India as well as abroad. At the material time it had 32 foreign branches situate outside India, spread over in several countries of the world. The foreign branches...

Plastichemist Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. A visit to the appellant's factory by the departmental officers showed excesses and shortages in various types of masterbatches for plastic that the appellant manufactures. The department issued notice proposing confiscation of the excess, demanding duty on the shortages, and proposing penalty. The order of the Commissioner, adjudicating on this notice, confirming the proposal in the notice is in appeal before me.2. The counsel for the appellant contends that the Commissioner has not considered various explanation that the appellant put forth by it 3. The Commissioner records detailed submission that the appellant has made, but does not deal with them, after saying that he does "not agree with the plea of the assessee." This is no way of dealing the points raised in the reply to a notice. The Commissioner's order is not a speaking order and cannot be upheld.4. The appeal is accordingly allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The Commissioner shall adjudicate on the merits of ...

M/S Modern Paper Converters Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question involved in this appeal is about the legality of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai.2. The appellants challenged the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Div. K-III, Mumbai. I, before the appellate authority. Along with the appeal the appellants also filed an application for stay which is mentioned as Exhibit 'E' and it is dated 12.7.1995. It also bears signature of having received on 28.7.1995. The impugned order has been passed by the appellate authority stating that the appellant did not file any application for stay and waiver of the duty amount. This is factually wrong. The appellate authority has not considered the stay application. The matter is therefore remanded back to the appellate authority after I set aside the impugned order for fresh consideration including the stay application....

M/S Jayant Extraction Inds. Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT92Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an application for condonation of delay for filing the appeal. The impugned order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot, was received by the appellant on 2.2.1989. The appeal has been filed on 27^th September, 1989. It would appear from the application in paragraph 3 thereof that this order was received by one D.M. Rana. The said Rana has forwarded the same to the Vice President, Shri L.R. Agarwal. It would appear that Shri Agarwal did not have goods relation with the company and he left in June, 1989. In terms of the provisions of section 35B appeal ought to have been filed on or before 1^st May, 1989. The disgruntled Vice President, Shri L.R.Agarwal did not take any action. it is stated in the application that in terms of the company's procedures, Agarwal ought to have forwarded the Order-in-Original to S/Shri G.K.Maheshwari, Anil Jain, J.B. Jani and D.V. Sheth or to any department head in the factory or to anyone of them. There was a failure on the...