Mumbai Court December 2002 Judgments
Gujarat Glass Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT822Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Heard both sides. Under the impugned order, Modvat credit initially allowed by the Assistant Commissioner has been denied by the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of CNC Panel Cooler and split Air Conditioner. The learned Chartered Accountant for the appellants states that both the items are eligible for Modvat credit under the Entry at Sr. No. 5 of the Table in Rule 57Q which allowed components, spares and accessories of the goods specified against Sr. No. 1 to 4. He further cites the following case laws in support of his arguments.C.C.E., Chennai v. Brakes India Ltd. - 2001 (135) E.L.T. 772 (Tri. -Chennai) (2) C.C.E., Bhubaneswar-I v. Ispat Alloys Ltd. - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 903 (Tri. - Kolkata).2. He states that CNC Panel Cooler is to be treated as a part of the CNC Machine in view of the case law at Sr. No. 1 above and credit on the same has to be allowed. He also states that the Commissioner (Appeals) is incorrect in stating that the Air-conditioner is not required for the proper...
Tag this Judgment!Dhimant Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT421Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Of the appellants before us, Standard Drum Manufacturing Co. and Standard Drums and Buckets Co., are manufacturers who had availed of Modvat credit. The other appellants are dealers in excisable goods. The two manufacturers utilised steel coils, sheets or strips in the manufacture of drums and barrels that they undertook after complying with the formalities relating to Modvat credit; they utilised the credit of the duty paid on quantities of these coils on the basis of invoices that were issued by the dealers. The notices issued to the manufacturers and the dealers alleged that the manufacturers availed impermissible Modvat credit. They were in fact receiving hot or cold-rolled sheets in their factories but were taking credit on the basis of duty paid on hot or cold-rolled coils. The notices went on to allege that the manufacturers did not have the facility to cut coils into sheets or strips in their factory premises. While the invoices issued by the registered dealers showed their...
Tag this Judgment!D.K.M. Cassette Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT212Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri Anil Balani, learned Advocate for the appellants states that the appellants are a 100% E.O.U. and the impugned goods are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 13-Cus., dtd. 9-2-1981. He stales that the impugned goods were cleared from the warehouse to the E.O.U.and the appellants have executed a bond under Condition No. 6 of the said notification, He states that under the impugned orders, the lower authorities are demanding duty on the goods on expiry of the warehouse bond but as the goods have already gone to the E.O.U., no such duty is demandable.2. Shri Ishwar Singh, learned J.D.R. appearing for Revenue states that submissions regarding goods having gone to the E.O.U. were not made before the lower authorities. He has no objection t6 case being remanded to the original authority for considering the matter afresh in the light of the aforesaid submissions.3. After hearing rival submissions and perusal of case records, we remand the matter to the Adjudicating authority...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Silk Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT379Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Heard both sides. Shri R.J. Parakh, learned Advocate for the appellants shows the original copies of the impugned invoices and states that the credit was taken on the duplicate copies of the invoices which were lost after taking the credit and hence could not be submitted to the Departmental authorities along with the monthly return. He relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the following cases :- (1) Trishul Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-I - 1997 (92) E.L.T. 249 (Tri.)Bharat Roll Industry (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-IISwastik Castings P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur He draws attention to the following observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order :- "As regards cases cited by the appellants, it is to say that the Tribunal being creature of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is bound by the law mentioned therein and cannot laid down there own law. The legal requirement is that only duplicate c...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT210Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for waiver of deposit of Rs. 10.99 lakhs approx.and a penalty of equal amount The basis for the demand and penalty is that the applicant was required to pay duty on activities that it carried out at the site of the customer on the door and window frames of aluminium that it manufactured at its factory and cleared on payment of duty. These activities are stated to be fitment of panes in these frames and fixing them into buildings.2. Samples of the invoices that the applicant issued, which we have seen, show that it paid duty on the goods applicable to heading 7610.10 of the tariff, which covers doors and windows of aluminium and their frames. We do not find it prima facie possible to conclude that fixing of panes on these frames change their character resulted in a new item.The door and window frames continue to be so, whether is they are fitted with panes or not. Nor can it prima facie be said that fixing of doors on to the walls of the building in which they are...
Tag this Judgment!M.J. Exports Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: (2004)88ITD18(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee on 17th October, 2000 against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XV, Mumbai dated 10th July, 2000 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for Asst. Year 1997-98.2. In this case, the Assessing Officer made an order under Section 143(3) determining total income at matter setting of brought forward business losses for Asst. Year 1993-94 amounting to Rs. 3,94,57,284.Thereafter the Assessing Officer also made an order under Section 115JA determining book profit at Rs. 2,74,06,748. While computing the profit under Section 115JA, the Assessing Officer increased the net profit as shown in the Profit & Loss account by Rs. 2,54,05,539. Out of this increase, the assessee has challenged the sum of Rs. 2,50,80,539 as not includible in the computation under Section 115JA. This sum comprises of the following amounts :-Provision for doubtful debts/advances Rs. 2,49,73,218Income tax of...
Tag this Judgment!Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: (2004)90ITD153(Mum.)
1. These cross appeals are directed against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-Central II, Bombay and relate to the assessment year 1987-88.Ground No. I of the assessee's appeal is against the disallowance of Surtax liability which was claimed as an allowable deduction under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) or as a business loss under Section 28 of the Act.3. After hearing both the parties we find this issue to be covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smith Kline and French (India) Ltd. v. CIT, 219 ITR 581 (SC).Respectfully following the same, Ground No. I of the assessee's appeal is rejected.4. Ground No. II of the assessee's appeal is against the disallowance of deduction under Section 43B of the Act, amounting to Rs. 33,56,216/-.5. We have heard both the parties and considered the rival submissions.Finance Act, 1987, had introduced a proviso to Section 43B of the Act, with effect from ...
Tag this Judgment!Mafatlal Industries Limited Vs. the Dy. Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: (2004)89ITD448(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-XIV, Bombay. "The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Deputy Commissioner in adopting the "Profits and gains" at Rs. 10,78,21,022/- instead of Rs. 12,40,04,418/- for the purpose of computing the definition Under Section 80HHC. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have directed the Deputy Commissioner not to reduce the unabsorbed depreciation of Rs 1,61,83,396/- from the profits and gains for the purpose of computing the deduction under Section 80HHC." 3. At the time of hearing before us, it is submitted by the learned Counsel that the Assessing Officer while allowing deduction Under Section 80HHC has reduced the profits and gains of the business by the amount of Rs. 1,61,83,396/- being the unabsorbed depreciation of the preceding years. The unabsorbed depreciation is allowed to be set off against the current years income as per Section 32(2). That Section 32(2) is subject to the prov...
Tag this Judgment!Gas Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-30-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT468Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants have obtained clearance from the Committee of Secretaries to proceed with the appeal. We, therefore, take up the stay application for hearing.2. After hearing both sides for sometime, we found that it was possible to decide the appeal itself as the reconciliation statement, non production of which resulted in confirmation of demand, has been shown to have been filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and is also placed before us. Therefore, after waiving the pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 305,52,50,000/-, we proceed to hear and dispose of the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.3. The brief facts are that the appellants have applied for registration of contract of goods in terms of Project Import Regulations, 1986 for assessment of goods covered by the contract under heading 98.01. The contract was registered in June, 1994 and the goods were allowed to be assessed provisionally under heading 98.01 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1975. In terms o...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Kamalesh Ice Industries and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-30-2002
Reported in: IV(2004)BC241
1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellant State Bank of India/Original Applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 23.4.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal Ahmedabad in Civil Misc. Application No. 7 of 2002, arising out of Original Application No. 81 of 1995. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application made by the original defendants (present respondent Nos. 1 to 4) wherein, they had inter alia sought extension of time to make balance payment to the applicant Bank till 30.6.2002 though there were consent terms filed by the parties. This payment was to be made much earlier. In short, the application was made by the defendants praying for directions from the Tribunal that the Bank be directed to accept payment of instalment beyond the time which was fixed between the parties as per the consent terms. This extension was granted by the Tribunal and this is what is hurting the Bank and hence, the present Misc. appea...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »