Mumbai Court November 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. Asia Pacific Marbles P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT368Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for condonation of delay of 41/2 months in preferring the above appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The delay is sought to be explained by the Revenue with reference to the dates of events set out in the miscellaneous application. The impugned order is dated 29-1-2003 which was received by the department on 30-1-2003; submitted for acceptance on 11-2-2003 and accepted by the Commissioner (Import) on 10-3-2003; then a fresh refund order in pursuance to the order was prepared; on 2-5-2003 the file was forwarded to the office of the Chief Commissioner; on 29-7-2003 the Commissioner's direction to re-examine the matter and take up the order in appeal before the Tribunal, was issued.2. We have carefully perused the application for condonation and we are of the view that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained by the Revenue. There is no explanation as to why even after receipt of...

Stonemann Marble, Mukesh Shah and Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT85Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeals arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs Kandla, are taken up for disposal together.2. The facts are that M/s. Satyam Enterprises filed 8 DEEC Shipping Bills before the Customs authorities at Kandla for export of Indian Guargum treated and Pulverised. The exports are sought to be made on behalf of one M/s. Stonemann Mumbai, who applied for a DEEC licence. On verification the Customs authorities found that M/s. Stonemann claimed before the Zonal Advance Licensing Committee constituted by the Ministry of Commerce that their end product, Guargum Pulverised and treated, whould require the following 10 chemicals. The licensing authority granted them to DEEC licence which would entail them to import the chemicals the chemicals are 1 to 10.3. Since the 8 shipping bills in question did not indicate that the export product did contain the above chemicals they (Shipping Bills) were converted into Free Shipping Bills and exports were allowed.Further investigat...

Vimlesh Kumar Neema, Dilip Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These are applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties imposed upon the following person under the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad; 2. The facts leading to the above applications are that on 17th January, 2001 50 gold bars of foreign origin were recovered from the person of Poonamchand Nainaram Bisnoi by the Surat Railway Police. The Customs authorities took over the possession of these imported 50 gold bars valued at approximately Rs. 26 lakhs; recorded statement of the passenger in question, who stated that he was an employee of M/s. M.P.Bullion and his job was to deliver the gold bars and the owner of the shop was Keshav Kumar Nachani and Vimlesh Kumar Neema was the Manager of the shop. He stated that the gold was given by Vimlesh Neema for handing over to Shri Rameshbhai at Nagpur. The gold bars were of foreign origin as they were marked as "JOHNSON MATTHEY LONDON, 9990, 10 TOLAS"; the department proceeded on the basis that the burden of proving that the ...

Besterna Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT351Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The counsel for the applicant confirms that the application is only by Besterna Chemicals and not anyone else.2. The question before the Tribunal was classification of 'Odonil' manufactured by the appellant. The Tribunal, in its order, set aside the demand for duty for the extended period of limitation, and penalty imposed on the assessee.3. The mistake alleged is that the order of the Commissioner has wrongly confirmed the demand for Rs 52.61,472/- by applying the rate of duty @18% ad valorem , the rate of duty then applicable at the relevant time was 16% ad valorem . Therefore if this mistake is not corrected, the duty that would be payable by the assessee would be greater than what is now required to be paid by law. The mistake has occurred because, while the notice correctly seeks to apply the rate of duty @16% ad valorem , the impugned order of the Commissioner has wrongly applied the rate of duty @18%.4. The departmental representative agrees that there has been a mistake in ...

Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Airport

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of various parts of cell membrane electrolytes that the appellant imported. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Assistant Commissioner mat the goods were parts of general use of metal or plastic and therefore, by application of Note 1 (g) to Section XVI of the tariff excluded from classification in any of the chapters of the section. He therefore denied the claim by the appellant for classification in sub heading 90 of heading 8543. Sub heading 90 is for parts of machines and apparatus of heading 8543. It is the appellant's contention that the goods being machine or apparatus for electrolysis are classifiable in sub heading 30 of heading 8543 and therefore the parts classified in sub heading 2. Note 1 (g) to Section XVI of the tariff excludes from classification in any of the chapters of that section does not cover parts of general use as defined in note...

Kores (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC125

1. Kores India Ltd., the Engineering division, Pithampur, the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of drilling rigs and mud pumps. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether various items purchased by the appellant and sold along with drilling rigs are classifiable as such drilling rigs or independently on them.2. The Commissioner in his order has recorded the items consist of such items as travelling block with sheaves, swivel, kelly, drilling rods, drill collar etc. He finds that these parts were making sub-assembly of drilling rig which are attached to the rig for their functioning and their site. He has therefore held that the cost of these items should be includable in the value of the drilling rigs cleared by the appellant since they have not done so, the rigs were undervalued. He has confirmed the notice issued to the appellant demanding duty of the drilling rigs on the value determined by including the cost of such equipment and imposing penalty.3. The conten...

The Dy. Cit, Special Range 54 Vs. Godrej Properties and

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)93ITD308(Mum.)

1. The appeal is by the Department and the cross objection is by the assessee. They pertain to the assessment year 93-94. The assessee is a company, incorporated on 8^th February 1985. According to Clause (1) of the main objects as per the memorandum of association, it was to carry on business as dealers, re-sellers, house and estate agents, auctioneers, lessors, builder, developers, experts etc. in real estate, immovable and movable properties and for that purpose to acquire, hold, take on lease, sell, deal, dispose of, turn to account etc. immovable and movable properties and other properties such as lands, flats, dwelling houses, shops, offices, markets, commercial complex etc.Pursuant to this object, the company had constructed a property at Noida. It was given on rent of Rs. 5000 per month to another company by name Godrej Soaps ltd. For the year ended 31-3-1993, the assessee-company received a rent of Rs. 60,000 and claimed in the return of income that the same should be assesse...

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Shantilal Jewellers and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom49; 2004(1)ALLMR869; II(2004)BC530; 2004(1)BomCR1; (2004)192CTR(Bom)565; 2004(1)MhLj879

R. M. Lodha, J. 1. None appears for the appellants.2. The appeal is, accordingly, liable to be dismissed in default.3. Even otherwise, we are satisfied that there is no merit in the appeal. The respondents 1 to 4 herein were adjudicated insolvents in the insolvency proceedings under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 on 3-11 -1987. The Official Assignee took over the assets of the insolvents and auctioned the properties of the insolvents. The sale proceeds thereof came in the hands of Official Assignee. The Tax Recovery Officer No. 7, Bombay made a claim of Rs. 41,09,658/- on 12-1-1995 before the Official Assignee. Out of the said claim made by the Tax Recovery Officer the claim of Rs. 35,02,277/- was rejected by the Official Assignee against theestate of insolvents. The reason for such rejection was that such claim was not provable under Section 46(3) of Presidency Towns Insolvency Act as it was necessary that claim should pertain to the liability to which the debtor was subjec...

Lexicon Finance Limited Vs. Park Securities Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom115; 2004(1)ALLMR668; 2004(2)BomCR520; 2004(1)MhLj934

D. G. Karnik, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed on record compilation of original documents on 13th November 2003. The compilation is marked as Exhibit-A only for the purpose of identification.3. The first document produced in the compilation is a document styled as 'Inter Corporate Deposit Agreement' dated 27th February 1998. It is a document executed between the plaintiff and the defendant the recital clause in the agreement states that the defendant was in need of financial assistance and the plaintiff agreed to grant to the defendant Inter Corporate Deposit of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Paragraph No. 4 of the operative part of the agreement states that the Inter Corporate Deposit of Rs. 4,00,000/- was given to the defendant by cheque dated 27th February 1998, Clause Nos. (5) and (6) of the document are material and read as under :--(5) 'The borrower shall repay the said ICD of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only) together with...

Union of India Vs. Shantilal Jewellers

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN147(Bom)

R.M. Lodha, J.None appears for the appellants.2. The appeal is, accordingly, liable to be dismissed in default.3. Even otherwise, we are satisfied that there is no merit in the appeal. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein were adjudicated insolvents in the insolvency proceedings under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 on 3-11-1987. The Official Assignee took over the assets of the insolvents and auctioned the properties of the insolvents. The sale proceeds thereof came in the hands of Official Assignee. The Tax Recovery Officer No. 7, Bombay made a claim of Rs. 41,09,658 on 12-1-1995 before the Official Assignee. Out of the said claim made by the Tax Recovery Officer the claim of Rs. 35,02,277 was rejected by the Official Assignee against the estate of insolvents. The reason for such rejection was that such claim was not provable under section 46(3) of Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, as it was necessary that claim should pertain to the liability to which the debtor was subject wh...