Mumbai Court October 2002 Judgments

Premier Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT197Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner imposing a penalty on the appellant of Rs. 20 lakhs under Section 112 of the Act.2. The facts leading to his order are these. At the relevant time (1992), the law required an importer of any goods to pay interest on the duty assessed on them for the period between the date on which the bill of entry was returned to him after assessment was completed and the date on which he paid the duty, if it was an excess of seven days.The law also required a person who desires to warehouse any imported goods to deposit 50% of the duty before warehousing. An importer of goods which intended to warehouse therefore was required to pay in addition to this deposit, interest at 20% per annum on this amount in case the delay in making this payment was by more than seven days. The appellant filed five bills of entry seeking to warehouse the goods that it had imported in the earlier months of that year. It is not disputed by the appellant that after co...

Star Glass Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT367Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner confirming the demand issued to the appellant proposing to include, in the assessable value of the glass product that it manufactured, the cost of the moulds for making such bottles which were supplied free to its customers and the charges that it incurred for maintaining these moulds, imposing penalty on the appellant.2. The Counsel for the appellant accepts that, these costs are includible in the assessable value, following the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Mutual Industries Ltd. v. CCE - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 578. He contends however that the extended period of limitation invoked in the notice dated 22-4-1993 for clearances made between February, 1988 to January, 1993, alleging suppression would not be available. The notice alleged that the appellant had wrongfully stated in its price list that no consideration other than the price was flowing to it from the buyer of the goods direct or indirect.3. Counsel for the...

Elegan Z. Interiors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(106)LC540Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 12,424/- and penalty of Rs. 12,000/- it appears that the issue being well settled in law the appeal itself could be disposed off. Both sides agreeing this was done.2. The appellants manufactured glass doors and cleared them assuming that they fall under Chapter sub-heading 4410.19 attracting nil rate of duty. On realising that the proper classification was under subheading 7015.00, claiming the benefit of Notification 8/99-CE they voluntarily paid duty. The dispute arose above the quantification of the duty. The show cause notice was issued claiming that duty was payable on the full value shown in the invoice whereas the case of the assessee was that they were eligible for deduction there from of the component of Central Excise duty. After issue of show cause notice the Dy. Commissioner confirmed the additional quantum of duty of Rs. 12,425/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 12,000/- Before the Commissioner...

Electrofronts Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT388Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Each of the appellants received on 20-3-2001, an order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise demanding duty from the assessee, Electrofronts and imposing a penalty on it and under Rule 209A on Sanjay Mehta, its proprietor. The appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against this order was required to be filed, as the law then stood, on or before 20-6-2001, Section 35 of the Act was amended with effect from 11-5-2001, reducing the period for filing an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) from three months to two months, the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay in filing an appeal of three months was reduced to 60 days. The appeal filed by each of these appellants reached the Commissioner (Appeals) on 15-7-2001. If the time limit provided in the earlier section were taken into account, the delay in filing the appeal would be 27 days. If the provisions of the amended section were taken into account, it would be 57 days and beyond the power of the Com...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Mukund Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT63Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal by the assessee is the eligibility to Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the duty paid on ramming mass. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the product falls under Rule 57A and therefore, cannot be capital goods defined in Rule 57Q. The appeal by the Commissioner contends that the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order holding that refractory bricks were capital goods within the meaning of Rule 57Q is incorrect.2. So far as ramming mass is concerned, even if it is held that it is not capital goods within the meaning of Rule 57Q, credit would be available under Rule 57A. The fact that the appellant had not declared this as an input under Rule 57A would not stand in the way of such credit. The decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in CCE v. Modi Rubber Ltd. - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 197 is authority for the proposition that a declaration filed by an assessee in terms of Rule 57Q is sufficient for purpose of...

Western India Bakers (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)87ITD607(Mum.)

1. These four appeals by the assessees rotate around the identical issues. For the sake of convenience these are consolidated and disposed of by a common order.2. A search action under Section 132 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) was conducted on 20th Nov., 1995 at the office and residential premises of K.P. Irani Group. Appellants belong to this group. The business of the group was production of bread and its sale under the trade name "Wibs". Among other things, unaccounted cash purchases and sales were also found at the time of search. The assessee-group offered the undisclosed income at Rs. 228.94 lakhs on account of profit on undisclosed sales of Rs. 829.75 lakhs and undisclosed purchases of Rs. 600.81 lakhs. The undisclosed purchases/ expenses amounting to Rs. 600.81 lakhs were incurred by the assessee in cash.3. As per the assessment order and details filed during the course of assessment proceedings, the total unrecorded expenses as per loose leaf papers were as...

Parvez Rustom Nekoo Vs. Rustom Ardeshir Nekoo

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR436; 2003(3)BomCR86; 2003(2)MhLj236

V.C. Daga, J.1. The petitioner in the present Civil Application is seeking restoration of the writ petition No. 2581 of 1991 which was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by setting aside the order of abatement dated 21-12-2000, whereby writ petition was dismissed as abated for the reasons recorded therein.THE FACTS:The facts giving rise to the present Civil Application in nutshell are as under:2. The dispute relates to a shop premises located on the ground floor of House No. 259/260, M. G. Road, Pune. The original plaintiffs Mr. Phiroz Dara Suratia and one Mrs. Dina Dara Suratia claiming to be landlords, filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 5998 of 1981 for recovery of possession and mesne profits against their tenants M/s Mazda Electric Stores, of which Mr. Rustom Ardeshir Nekoo and Mr. Dara Phiroz Suratia were the partners. These persons were shown as defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The detailed reference to the status of other defendants viz. Defendant No. 4- Abdul Kadar Moha...

Forum for Fairness in Education and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR79

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. In the present petition, the grievance voiced by petitioner No. 2, party in person appearing for Forum for Fairness in Education, in public interest litigation, is that the respondent-authorities may be directed by issuing an appropriate writ, direction or order , so that the students strength in each division in a college should not exceed 80, contrary to the instructions issued by the University Grants Commission.2. According to the petitioners, the University Grants Commission has been established under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is a statutory authority under the Act, and it has issued certain instructions. One of such notifications issued on December 4, 1998 has been placed on record. Clause (2) of paragraph 6 deals with Physical facilities, and it states;'The lecture-classes shall normally not exceed 80 students, unless in special cases, the University has accommodation for larger classes and makes su...

Kellog India Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(107)LC65Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs imposed on the applicants under Rule 57U(6) and Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise. The duty demand totalling to Rs. 28,77,899/- has already been paid by way of debit of credit and PLA entry.2. Bulk of the demand, Rs. 27,99,394/- has been confirmed on the ground that the applicants did not properly and fully account for modvat input quantities. Smaller amounts of duty have been confirmed for certain other reasons, namely, that credit had been wrongly availed on trolley bin proper which is not capital goods and the inadmissible credit on this ground is Rs. 25,200/-. Duty demand of Rs. 50,400/- has been raised on quality control samples and a sum of Rs. 2,905/- has been confirmed as duty on unexplained shortages of modvat inputs.3. Learned Counsel Shri Patil submits that in the absence of any charg...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Atam Manohar Ship Breakers Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeal taken up for disposal today along with other appeals involving identical issue which has been listed for hearing.2. The common issue for consideration in these five appeal sis the determination of value of a ship imported by each of the respondents for breaking up. In each case, after the vessel arrived at the port, some defects or short coming was noticed by the buyer which led them to renegotiate the price. The details of the defects and short comings, the date of having them noticed and the reduction in price are summarised in the annexure to this order.3. The bills of entry which were filed for clearance of the goods has indicated as the basis for valuation the reduced price. These reduced prices were not accepted by the department on the view expressed in the orders of the adjudicating authority that the reduction in the prices after the goods arrived in India cannot be accepted. The provisional assessments, under which the goods were cleared on arrival were finalised b...