Mumbai Court October 2003 Judgments

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Royal Metal Printers (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)93TTJ(Mum.)119

1. The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-XV, Mumbai, dt. 27th Feb., 1996, for asst. yr. 1991-92, on the following ground : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in cancelling the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 7,74,312." The assessee has filed return of income on 23rd Dec, 1991, declaring loss of Rs. 8,26,109. A survey action under Section 133A was undertaken for the limited purpose of checking the installation of stenter machine purchased from M/s Gujarat Stenmech (P) Ltd. The machine was dispatched to the assessee on 28th March, 1991. As the machine was 30-40 ft. long, there was suspicion that the machine could not be installed and put to use before 31st March, 1991, as it required special foundation for installation. During the survey under Section 133A, Shri M.K. Agarwal, director, in his statement under Section 131, stated that the depreciation on this machine was inadve...

Shri Nibilal Fakirahamad Shaikh Vs. Shri Shankarrao Channavirappa Kiga ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR12; 2003(6)BomCR484

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the Respondent waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. A decree for eviction under the Rent Act has been passed under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(1)(1). The judgment of the trial Court was confirmed in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Solapur.3. The question as to whether a ground for eviction under Section 13(1)(1) has been made out can be taken up first. Section 13(1)(1) operates where the tenant after coming into operation of the Act has built or acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a suitable residence. The alternative accommodation in the present case admittedly stands in the name of the tenant's wife. The Trial Court recorded that the tenant has admitted that he was residing with his wife in a joint family and that his wife was 'doing nothing' Presumably by the expression 'doing nothing' (which to my mind is inappropriate) what the learned trial Judge meant is that t...

Ventron Polymers Limited and Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT753Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 48,30,800/- and penalty of equal amount on M/s. Ventron Polymers Limited and duty of Rs. 42,47,020/- and penalty of equal amount on M/s.Ventron Chemicals Limited arise out of two separate orders involving identical issue, namely, classification of "dimethicone" manufactured and cleared by the applicants herein under CETA sub-heading 3910.00 as "silicones in primary forms" rejecting the assessee's claim for classification as medicaments under CETA sub-heading 3003.20. The period of the demand in the first case is September, 1996 to April 1998 while in the second case it is April, 1995 to September, 1996 and the show cause notice in each case is dated 27/04/2000.2. The classification under Chapter heading 39.10 has been confirmed on the basis of the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE, Calcutta v.Metroark Private Limited 1999 (109) ELT 282 wherein the classification of dimethicone is held to fall under CETA sub-heading 3910...

Sterlite Optical Technologies Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide stay order No. CII/2007-10/WZB/2003 dated 25/07/2003, the first appellant M/s. Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd., was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.20 lakhs within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter, the appellant filed a miscellaneous application for modification of stay order on the ground that out of the total duty demand of Rs.1.54 crores, an amount of Rs.89.55 lakhs was deposited by them even before the adjudication order. The direction to deposit an amount of Rs.20 lakhs by the Tribunal was out of the balance amount of Rs. 66.31 lakhs. The said direction was made on the prima facie observation that the appellant does not have a good case on merits. Shri Vipin Jain, Ld. CA appearing for the appellants submits that subsequently the Tribunal in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd., v. CCE, Indore {2003 (155) ELT 200 (Tri. - Del)} has taken a view on the disputed issue in favour of the appellants.2. He further submits that there is a...

C.C.E. Vs. Mek Engineering and Construction

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT157Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The short point, involved in the present appeal by Revenue, is as to whether impugned order passed by the authorities below granting refund of duty to the respondent is in accordance with the law or not.Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order has rejected the application filed by the Revenue on the grounds that Boards Circular Number 53/90, dated 26-9-98 is very relevant, vide which the Board has observed that earlier Telex instructions dated 24-8-90 withdrawing instruction vide Telex dated 21-3-1990 inter alia mentions and lays down that wherever duty was collected from customers, refunds should not be given. This Telax dated 26-9-1998 is reported to be prospective.It mentions that no action need to be taken to recover the refund already allowed by the competent authorities unless such refund was otherwise considered erroneous. The present refunds being given by cheque therefore cannot be re-opened. Revenue does not dispute the above circular of the Board but submits that t...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Kalpataru Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC364

1. The issue involved in the present appeal of the Revenue is as to whether the respondents, who are the manufacturer of laminated jute products are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 53/65 dated 20/03/65, as amended. The said notification grants exemption from the entire duty of excise, inter-alia, to laminated jute products. The Commissioner (Appeals) has given the benefit to the respondents by observing that undoubtedly the respondent's products are laminated jute fabrics classifiable under heading 5903.90 and the fact that the process of lamination has been done with the help of a bonding agent bitumen, will not take away the product from the benefit of the notification, 2. The above view of the Commissioner (Appeals) has been challenged by the Revenue on the ground that the lamination has taken place not by the process of thermosetting but by melting the bitumen and bonding polythene and jute fabrics by placing bitumen in between the two.3. After hearing both sides duly ...

Prashant India Limited and Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Arguing on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 1,37,401/- imposed on M/s. Prashant India Limited, who are engaged in the manufacture of textured yarn and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on its Director, the learned Chattered Accountant submits that the duty demand of Rs. 1,37,401/- (which has been deposited by the applicant) was confirmed on the ground that transportation charges collected by them from their customers were required to be included in the assessable value. He submits that the applicants had produced sufficient evidence for payment of transportation charges for transportation of their excisable goods to the carriers which plea has been rejected on the ground of lack of co-relation between the goods transported and the transportation bills. He submits that the material produced by the applicant should have been held to be sufficient to establish payment of transportation charges and therefore the demand ought not to have been confirmed and for ...

B.P.C.L. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT544Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is taken up for final disposal after hearing both sides and waiver of pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The short point to be decided and determined is whether interest under Rule 57U(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 would be levied and recovered from the appellant, for which having taken an ineligible Modvat credit of Rs. 12 lakhs which has not been utilised and reserved before a Show Cause Notice had been issued.2. On reading the provisions of Rule 57U(3) and (5) we find that the meter for interest, would start ticking after three months, from the date of receipt of the demand determinations. In the present case, the appellant have reversed amounts even before the Show Cause Notice was issued and without utilising the same. In that view of the matter, we find that the time period for which interest should be levied would be zero. Therefore, the amount of interest would be zero. We would, therefore, allow this appeal, as reg...

Ronak Dyeing Ltd. and Indian Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)LC153Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The present two miscellaneous applications have been filed for extension of the stay order passed by the Tribunal in as much as a period of 180 days has expired since the passing of the said stay order.2. Shri D.H. Nadkarni, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of first appellant and Shri A. Chopra, JDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue.Nobody appears for the second applicant.M/s.Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad (1) reported in 2002 (146) ELT 438 (Tribunal - Mumbai), wherein it was held that the Tribunal has the power to extend the Stay beyond the period of 180 days. We also take note of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Himalaya International Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh {2003 (56) RLT 610} (CEGAT - L.B.) wherein after hearing both sides, the interim Stay was extended till the disposal of the appeal.4. However, Ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue draws our attention to the recent decision passed by the Tribunal in the cas...

Tetra Pak India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT818Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this case duty demand of Rs. 2,87,952/-, waiver of pre-deposit of which is sought in the present application, has been confirmed as duty on laminated paper with aluminium foil manufactured and cleared by the applicants herein during the period ranging from December, 1993 to February, 1999 on the ground that the product falls for classification under Chapter Heading 39.20 as such attracting demand of differential duty as above and not under CETA sub-heading 3607.60 under which the applicants sought classification.2. On hearing both sides and noting that in the case of the same assessee the Tribunal vide its order reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 313 (LB) has held that the classification of the identical product is under Chapter Heading 76.06. we are of the view that prima facie case for waiver has been made by the applicants. The contention of the learned SDR that subsequent circular dated June, 1999 of the Board clarifying that product of this kind cannot be said to be backed with a...