Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

M/S Chandra I. Kriplani Vs. Comm. of C. Excise, Mumbai-99

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The file from the Commissioner's office was produced. It appears that the goods were disposed of in terms of the procedure laid under Sec110 (1A.1B and 1C). It appears that the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate has also been secured. DR will place copies thereof on record.2. Shri Kantawala submits that the appellant is in acute financial distress. He submits that the goods were capable of being cleared under licence and in fact the appellant had made the claim. It is his claim that in such situation the confiscation was wrong in law. Accepting the plea of financial hardship, the case is posted for final disposal in September, 2001....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S Neelikon Food Dyes and Chemica ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT177Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an application for condonation of delay. In the letter forwarding the appeal, the statement is made that the appeal was being filed within time. There is a delay of 44 days. An application is made for condonation thereof. The reason is "that the appeal alongwith application could not be presented on the due date because of the delay in obtaining various documents/records and connected papers from Divisional Office/Range Office and as a result, delayed the processing of the file." The only documents that accompany this appeal are the copies of the impugned Order-in-Appeal and the copy of the Order-in-Original. The Commissioner's office is situated in Bellapur and so is the Divisional Office.2. We find absolutely no reasons to condone the delay on the insufficient, inadequate, improper and irresponsible contentions advanced. This application and the appeal are dismissed....

Maharashtra Printers and 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. 3.11 lakhs and penalty of equivalent amount.2. The duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the finding that the printed cartons and pouches of paper that the applicant manufactures were not classifiable under heading 48.17 and 4819.12 of the Tariff as claimed, but under headings 4819.90. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is primarily on limitation. The extended period contained in the proviso under sub-section (1) of Section 11A which was invoked in the show cause notice, was not available for the reason that the applicant had described the goods as pouches and cartons of paper in the three classification lists, each of which have been approved by the department.3. The departmental representative says that the applicant did not disclose to the department that the pouches were used, not to contain stationery as heading 48.17 requires, but contraceptives and the cartons were used to pack ice-cream bars.4. We ...

B.G. Shirke Construction Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Duty of Rs.28.98 lakhs and equivalent penalty are required to be deposited by B.G.Shirke Construction Technology Ltd. Penalty of Rs.1 lakhs is required to be deposited by Vijay Shirke, managing director.2. The duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the ground hat the ready mixed concrete that the first applicant manufactured is liable to duty, being an excisable commodity. The benefit of notification 4/97 has been denied on the ground that the cement was not manufactured at the site of construction as required by the notification.UP State Bridge Corporation Ltd. vs. CCE 2000(40) RLT 833, the Tribunal, relying upon the classification of the Board, has accepted that the term "site" in the notification would apply to place or premises where the goods are manufactured solely for use in the construction work specified in it. By applying this criterion, the fact that the site of manufacture of the cement was about a kilometre away from the site of construction of the hotel where t...

Hatim Glass and Aluminium, NuruddIn Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two applications have been field for waiver of duty of Rs. 29,22,043 and penalty of equivalent amount another application for waiver of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed on the two appellants under rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules.2. The case of the appellant is that Nuruddin Ahmed Modi, the Proprietor of Hatim Glass & Aluminium obtains orders form various customers for providing certain aluminium windows in the customers' premises. The word customer includes builders as well. On receipt of the order N.A. Modi entrusts the job of executing the work to Modi Fabricators which is run by the same person. the case of the department is that out of the aluminium channels purchased from the appellant windows are manufactured and it is fixed on the customers premises. The period in dispute is 1994 to 1998.3. The case of the department is that no material has been shown by the department to come to the conclusion that there has been manufacture of windows at the factory site of ...

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Shev ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT674Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs imposed under Section 112 of the Act on the appellant. The Commissioner had imposed a penalty on the finding that Oil and Natural Gas Commission (as it then was) used as a base for loading and unloading for storage of imported goods and goods to be sent to offshore drilling rigs located outside India, an area at Nhava which was not notified as a customs port under Section 7 or Customs area under Section 8 of the Act.2. The Commissioner has concluded in his order that the charge against the Commissioner, that it used the concerned area at Nhava without the permission required by law stands established. It has noted the ground that was taken by the appellant before him that when it commenced using the area as a base, it wrote a letter on 25.3.88 to the department to use the base on the same footing as it had earlier used the shed at 12, Victoria Docks, and that the department did not raise any objection.The same argument is raised bef...

Aleli and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is against the Order-in-Original dated 21.4.95 which pertains to the period September 1985 to December 1986 confirming Additional Central Excise Duty of Rs. 2,18,394.98.2. The appellants were independent processors doing job work. They were receiving grey fabrics for processing from various who gave them the description of the goods namely textile composition etc. Classification lists were filed by the appellant. In the classification list, it is claimed that the contents of the yearn in the warp and weft were as per the declaration given by the merchants. Certain samples were drawn of the goods and sent for chemical examination. The reports were given which were in favour of the appellants. The present show cause notice dated 12.6.87 proceeds on the basis that 31 merchant manufacturers had given the grey fabrics out of which 14 were questioned. In the show cause notice, it is stated that in respect of GP1 issued, most of them showed their willingness to pay differentia...

Late Shri Mukund V. Kapadia Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)82ITD489(Mum.)

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) by which he confirmed the computation of the assessee's income at Rs. 1,87,000 as against the returned income of Rs. 51,900.2. The assessee is Mukund B. Kapadia, who is now no more. He filed his return of income on 30th Nov., 1987, declaring a total income of Rs. 51,900. This return was filed under Section 139(2) of the Act. While completing the assessment, the AO noted that in the course of certain enquiries, the assessee had given a statement under Section 131 of the Act confessing that during the accounting period ended 31st March, 1987, he had earned extra income of Rs. 1,70,000. This extra income was not found to have been declared in the return filed by the assessee.When asked to explain, the assessee submitted that the statement had been given by him before the ADI on 10th Aug., 1987. In response to summons, that due to ignorance and the insistence of the ADI and because of lack of legal assistance he ha...

N.D. Shroff (Smaller Huf) Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)82TTJ(Mum.)626

1. The appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dt. 13th Nov., 2000 of the CIT(A)-IX whereby he confirmed the penalty of Rs. 68,78,095 imposed by the AO under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the asst. yr. 1998-99.2. The assessee is an HUF. It enjoys income from property and income from interest. It filed return for the asst. yr. 1998-99 on 30th Sept., 1998, declaring income of Rs. 30,80,030. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny.3. The AO found that the assessee had shown long-term capital loss of Rs. 34,12,000 on account of sale of property being land and building known as Jekison Niwas, 220 Walkeshwar Road. Mumbai. Assessee had 1/4th share in the said property. Assessee's share in the property was sold for a consideration of Rs. 8 crores. The AO noted that the assessee had adopted the cost of acquisition as on 1st April, 1981 at Rs. 2,52,00,001 as per the valuation report dt. 25th June, 1996, of the registered valuer Shri Uday Chande. The indexed cost was w...

Philips India Ltd., Mumbai Vs. H.H. Surana and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ937Bom; 2002(2)MhLj150

Nishita Mhatre, J.1 . The petitioners challenge the order of the Labour Court passed in an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act whereby the petitioners were directed to pay certain amount to the 1st respondent. A few relevant facts are as follows :The 1st respondent was appointed in the petitioners Pela factory on 26th May 1972. Under the appointment order, the 1st respondent was informed that he would be transferred to any department of the petitioners' establishment. He was also informed that at the time of transfer he would be placed in the appropriate grade and scale applicable at the place of transfer keeping in view the existing grade. He was assured that his total emoluments will not be reduced. The 1st respondent was confirmed on 26th November 1973. The 1st respondent was transferred to the petitioners' factory at Pune. On 12th July 1978, the 1st respondent made an application for a transfer to the Head Office at Mumbai. While his case was being cons...