Mumbai Court May 2002 Judgments

income Tax Officer Vs. Shreyas Shipping Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)86ITD556(Mum.)

1. These two appeals filed by Revenue related to asst. yr. 1996-97.Appeal in ITA No. 1703/Mum/2000 is in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3). Appeal in ITA No. 1705/Mum/2000 is in relation to proceedings under Section 143(1)(a). We shall take up Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 1705/Mum/2000 relating to proceedings under Section 143(1)(a) first. Facts of the case in this behalf are that the assessee filed return of income declaring Nil income on 26th Nov., 1996. The AO made an intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 31st Oct., 1997, in which dry dock expenses claimed by the assessee were disallowed to the extent of Rs. 4, 53,61.339 by way of adjustment. On receipt of this intimation the assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A)-XVI, Mumbai, on 20th Feb., 1998, and also filed an application under Section 154 before the AO. Thereafter the AO passed an order under Section 154 on 30th March, 1998, whereby the addition of Rs. 4,53,61,339 made by way of adjustment of...

Dy. Commissioner of I.T., Special Vs. Borosil Glass Works Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. In the appeal filed by the revenue the following ground of appeal was raised:- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that left out losses of earlier years due to application of Section 115J(1) are to be allowed to be carried forward and set off in subsequent years, ignoring the overriding provision of Section 115J(1) shall not effect the determination of amount in relation to Relevant Previous year to be carried forward of the subsequent years and thereby does not permit the carry forward of losses of earlier years." 2. On the difference of opinion between the Accountant Member and the Judicial Member, the issue arising out of this appeal was referred to the Third Member Under Section 255(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The third Member by this order dated 28.1.2003 agreed with the view expressed by the Accountant Member. In conformity with the opinion of the majority, the revenue's appeal shall be treated as allowed. The...

ito Vs. Shreyas Shipping Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)76TTJ(Mumbai)11

ORDERS.C. Tiwari, A.M.These two appeals filed by revenue related to assessment year 1996-97. Appeal in ITA No. 1703/Mum/2000 is in relation to assessment order under section 143(3). Appeal in ITA No. 1705/Mum/2000 is in relation to proceedings under section 143(1)(a). We shall take up revenue's appeal in ITA No. 1705/Mum/2000 relating to proceedings under section 143(1)(a) first. Facts of the case in this behalf are that the assessee filed return of income declaring Nil income on 26-11-1996. The assessing officer made an intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 31-10-1997, in which dry dock expenses claimed by the assessee were disallowed to the extent of Rs. 4, 53,61,339 by way of adjustment. On receipt of this intimation the assessee filed appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XVI, Mumbai, on 20-2-1998, and also filed an application under section 154 before the assessing officer. Thereafter the assessing officer passed an order under section 154 on 30-3-1998, where...

Tainwala Personal Care Products Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC642

1. When the petition for stay came up for hearing it was agreed by both sides that the appeal can also be disposed of.2. The only issue that arises for consideration is whether the effective date is the date of assignment deed under which the Brand was assigned or the date of the certificate of registration. We have no hesitation to accept the contention raised by the appellant that the relevant date is the date of assignment of the brand name is in favour of the appellant. The above position is covered by two decisions of this Tribunal in Charkha Detergents & Soap Enterprises v. CCE, New Delhi(CEGAT-Del.) and Gavs Laboratory (P) Ltd. v.CCE, New Delhi in favour of the appellant. In the light of the above, the appeal stands allowed....

Bharat Paints and Chemicals Indus. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT699Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The main contention raised by the appellant is that the demand is barred by limitation. The appellant is manufacturing Varnish which was initially classified under heading 3208.90. Later by communication dated 2-4-92 the assessee informed the department that more appropriate heading is 3210.90. The department took steps to get the product tested and the test result was received on 23-6-92. Thereafter, by communication dated 25-6-92, the department classified the product under heading 3210.90. The assessee was paying duty on the above basis.2. Subsequently, three and half years later a show cause notice dated 11-3-96 was issued and a demand was made for the period from 1-4-92 to 28-2-93 on the ground that the assessee has mis-classified the goods under 3210.90. The demand was sustained by the Commissioner under order dated 11-3-96 which is under challenge in this appeal. The issue regarding limitation even though raised before the Commissioner was not found favour. The Commissioner ...

Cce Vs. Gujarat Telephone Cables Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(104)LC417Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is at the instance of the Revenue challenging the order No. 529 to 593 (283 to 284-Ahd) CE/Commr. Ahd. Dated 20.2.1996 passed by the Commissioner of CE(A), Ahmedabad.2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of underground telephone cables. They have availed modvat credit under Rule 57Q on Godrej Diesel Fork Lift Truck involving duty of Rs. 1,41,062.50 and cable measuring system for low/high frequency parameter involving duty of Rs. 12,94,536/-. The appellants were served with a show cause notice proposing to recover the duty already availed as modvat credit for the reason that these items were found ineligible for benefit of modvat credit as capital goods' as they were not covered within the definition of explanation Clause (d) of Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand.3. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) in arriving at the above co...

Taru Lalwani Engineering Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)LC420Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant manufactures bulk meters/flow meters. These are installed in wending machines. Machines which are sold in Maharashtra are required to be inspected by State Government authorities in terms of the provisions under Weights & Measures Act. For such inspection, the State Government authorities charge a fee from the appellant. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether this 'fee' should form a part of the assessable value of the goods. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant points out that the requirement for testing exists only in respect of sales in Maharashtra. As a matter of fact, the appellants sold more machines outside Maharashtra than in Maharashtra and in the case of those machines there was no test. He therefore/ submitted that the fee did not form part of the normal cost of manufacture of normal price of the machine. He clarified that whenever the machine was sold without testing outside Maharashtra, no testing fee was paid or reco...

Mina Fusade L/H of Late Sayajirao P. Gaekwar Vs. Wto

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)86TTJ(Mumbai)278

ORDERBY THE BENCH:All the above appeals are directed against the CWT(A)'s consolidated order dated 29-12-1998. These appeals of the assessee are grouped and heard together as the identical issue is involved and they stand disposed of by this consolidated order. Appeals in WTA Nos. 20, 21 and 31 pertain to levy of penalty under section 18(1)(a) of Wealth Tax Act. The appeals in WTA Nos. 22 and 23 pertain to the orders passed under section 16(5) of Wealth Tax Act, WTA Nos. 28 and 32 pertain to penalties levied under section 180(1)(c) of Wealth Tax Act and WTA Nos. 29 and 30 pertain to penalties levied under section 18(1)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act.2. The assessee had sought the condonation of delay in filing the appeals before CWT(A) on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the delay. However, the learned CWT(A) rejected the request for condonation of delay and did not admit the appeals on the ground that had the assessee taken due care and attention, the delay in (filing) the app...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Rex Rubber Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT573Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue in dispute in the above appeal of the Revenue is the correct classification of moulded plastic wheels; manufactured by the respondents herein - whether under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 3926.90 as articles of plastic as claimed by the manufacturers or under CET sub-heading 8716.00 as parts of trailers and semi-trailers and other vehicles not mechanically propelled as contended by the department.2. We have heard both sides. The HSN Explanatory notes under Heading 87.16 (page 1441) makes it clear that only wooden or steel wheels and parts thereof identifiable as parts of trolley, trailers etc. fall under Chapter 87. Further Note 2(b) to Section XVII under which Chapter 87 is covered makes it very clear that the expression "parts" does not apply to parts of general use of plastic. The Commissioner (Appeals) has given a categorical finding that the wheels manufactured by the respondents herein are not iron or wooden but are of plastic and further they are used for troll...

Goldensun Laboratories Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT430Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat, made in Order in-Original confirming demand of duty of Rs. 5,37,553/- and denying exemption claimed by the appellants under Notification 175/86.2. The appellant is a partnership firm consisting of the following Partners :- 3. The above partners continued to be same for the period 31st March, 1992 to 30th April, 1992. They were all related with each other. Today partners of the firm are Jyotin Navinchandra Shah, Anup Mukundlal Shah, Smt. Rina Surendra Shah and Bakula Jyotin Shah.4. The assessee is manufacturing excisable goods falling under Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, and is carrying on business at Vapi, Dist. Valsad in the State of Gujarat. A show cause notice was issued on 29th March, 1994 by the Collector of Excise and Customs, Surat calling upon the assessee to show cause why exemption given under Notification 175 of 1986 should not be denied fo...