Mumbai Court November 2002 Judgments

Cit Vs. Bombay Burmah Trading Corpn. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2003]126TAXMAN403(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J.All the above four References have come to this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act for assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1978-79, 1980-81 and 1981-82. Since all the four References raise common questions on facts and law, they have been disposed off by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, we have reproduced hereinbelow the facts in ITR No. 712 of 1987.Facts2. For the assessment year 1978-79, the Tribunal has referred to this court the following question under section 256(1) of the Act :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled for double Income-tax Relief under section 91(1) in respect of income from Tanzania without adjusting the losses from Thailand Branch ?'The assessee-The Bombay Burmah Trading Corpn. Ltd. had its business in India, Tanzania and Thailand. During the assessment year in question, the assessee suffered a loss from Thailand Branch. Whi...

Rapicut Carbides Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT576Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant imported 22 consignments of cobalt metal powder and, after filing bills of entry for warehousing, removed them under bond to the public bonded warehouse at Ankleshwar, in order for the goods to be utilised in its factory at Ankleshwar. When the goods were assessed prior to warehousing, the claim made by the importer for partial exemption from duty contained in the table to Notification 64/86 to unalloyed unwrought cobalt was granted. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Customs, Vadodara, issued two notices to the appellant demanding duty and proposing penalty. Notice dated 1-9-1993 was in relation to goods importer between September and December, 1988 and the notice dated 19-1-1994 was in relation to goods imported in January and February, 1990. The common basis for the notices was that the goods were neither unalloyed nor unwrought cobalt and hence the exemption was not available. Adjudicating on these notices, the Commissioner confirmed proposal for duty and imposed p...

Ashok Brothers and Ashok Organics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals have been filed against the decision of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara wherein the Commissioner has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 66,71,117/- in respect of excisable goods "PARACETAMOL" and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on each of the appellant in respect of appeal Nos. 1704/96 and 1715/96 in respect of other appeal No. 2317/96 the duty demand is Rs. 47,83,311/-+ modvat credit availed on various amounts.2. The adjudicating authority had held that the duty is demanded on the ground that the dutiable items and the raw materials have not been properly intimated to the adjudicating authority by the job worker who was manufacturing the goods under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules. He has also in the impugned order justified invocation of the larger period of limitation that the job worker Ashok Brothers did not invoke the same against the present appeals.3. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has stated that the assessee vide letter dated 23.0...

Philips India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT792Tri(Mum.)bai

2. Shri. M.P. Sendo, learned J.D.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that the appellants have failed to comply with the condition as given in Notification No. 88/94-Cus., dated 1-3-94. Therefore, his submission is that there is no merits in the appeal filed by the appellant and the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly dismissed the appeal filed before him on the limited ground that benefit under Notification No. 88/94 is conditional, requiring an undertaking to be given by the importer at the time of import, that the imported goods would be used for manufacture of the listed item i.e. Graphite of Resistive Composition. The exemption is available on that precondition.As the catalogue was not submitted at the material time, the characteristic and the nature of the goods could not be determined.This was a pre-condition to the benefit which have been forfeited by not fulfilling the condition at the time of clearance itself.Therefore, the appellants have no case in their favour.3...

Asmaco Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether process undertaken by the Appellant for making masking tape by slitting of scrape paper will amount to manufacture or not. In the order impugned the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed findings of the Deputy Commissioner that such process amounts to manufacture.2. The appellant is absent despite notice, and his request was for a decision on merits.3. The appellant marketed masking tape among other products. The masking tape was obtained by slitting of crape paper/masking tape of 750 mm width. The appellant imported crape paper of 750 mm width and slit them into smaller sizes of 12 mm, 18 mm, 24 mm etc. and marketed them as masking tape. By a letter dated 30.06.99 they informed the Assistant Commissioner the process carried out by them, was not a manufacture. The show cause notice dated 29.02.2000 was issued asking the appellant as to why slitting should not be treated as manufactured and demanded duty from the appellant. The...

Mahesh Inds. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(106)LC536Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Appellant is a job worker processing gray fabrics. A number of show cause notices were issued. The common allegation was that the assessee had not taken into account the fact of shrinkage in the fabrics after conversion. It was alleged that this had resulted in short levy. Total Duty amounting to Rs. 17,34,761.85 was demanded and it was alleged that the assessees were liable to penalty.2. Before the Commissioner the assessee argued that the Proforma for declaration was to be made by Merchant Manufacturer, which did not provide for the fact of shrinkage. It was claimed that the fact of shrinkage was mentioned in the Quarterly Returns in the R.T. 5 format.It was claimed that the Show Cause Notices were hit by limitation in as much as the Notices made on identical grounds earlier were pending disposal.3. The Commissioner passed Orders. He held that shrinkage of the fabrics during the course of processing amounted to 'manufacturing expenses' and became addable to the values in term...

Rashtriya Chemicals and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is taken up for disposal with the consent of both parties.2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand issued to the appellant proposing to recover duty on quantities of law sulphur heavy stock and furnace oil received by it duty free in terms of entries 15 and 21 of the table to notification 5/98 on his views that the goods were not utilised, as provided in the notification, in the manufacture of fertilizer. He has also imposed a penalty.3. Entries 15 and 21 of the table to notification 5/98 exempted respectively furnace oil and low sulphur heavy stock intended for otherwise than use as feedstock in the manufacture of fertiliser. The notice issued to the appellant demanded duty on quantities of these goods which it alleged had been used to manufacture, which was used not in the manufacture of fertiliser but for other purposes.4. In the reply to the notice, the appellant had raised various issues.It had contended that the steam boiler...

Bayer Diagnostics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal has been filed against an order dtd.31.3.1997 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai confirming the Order-in-Original passed by the Asstt. Collector (Refund) Customs, Mumbai. In the order impugned after going through refund of customs duty claimed by the appellant which was filed by way of lodging single refund claim in respect of several imports under Notification No.198/1-Cus dated 17.9.1977 and to show that the incidence of duty paid have not been passed on to the customers.2. The appellant is absent in spite of notice being issued. The Ld.Advocates for the appellants M/s. Crawford Bayley & Co. vide their letter dated 18.11.2002 requested decision on merit.3. Adjudicating authority held that the imported goods, Chemical Reagent Stripes, could not be called base paper for the manufacture of impregnated filter paper covered under Notification No. 198/17. Further the assessee failed to show that the incidence of duty was not passed on to customers. T...

Morarjee Brembana Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT167Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri S.S. Gupta, learned C.A. states that the appellants are a hundred per cent E.O.U. and brings to our notice that in respect of the same unit this Bench has passed order in another case to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 60 lakhs. He fairly concedes that the department's stand to deny the appellants the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 8/97 has been upheld by CEGAT as well as the Apex Court. However, he claims that the exemption under Notification No.2/95 is applicable to the appellants and the Commissioner in his impugned order has also allowed the same. However, he states that the Commissioner has wrongly computed the duty demand inasmuch as he has taken the sale price as the assessable value without taking it as the cum-duty price and without allowing the deductions permissible under Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules, he has added full customs duty to such value instead of adding 50% for calculating the additional duty component, and he has also added the duty under ...

Govindbhai B. Patel and Standard Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Standard Agro Engineers, the assessee, was engaged in the manufacture of corn grinding mills all of which, it is stated, were exported. The assessee had not applied for a licence under the Central Excise Act or Rules. The notice that was issued to the assessee and to Govindbhai B. Patel, its partner, demanded duty on the mills that it was alleged to have been manufactured and cleared without payment of duty thereupon and proposed penalty on the assessee and the partner.The assessee, in reply, contended that since all the goods have been exported, no duty was payable and submitted documents to substantiate its contention of export. The Commissioner, after considering these documents, did not find it possible to conclude that the goods had in fact been exported, confirmed part of the duty that was demanded, and imposed penalty. Hence these appeals.2. The contention of the counsel for the appellants is that the goods are correctly classifiable in Heading 84.37 and therefore entitled t...