Mumbai Court November 2003 Judgments

New Reshma Dyg. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal against the order of the Asst. Collector rejecting the claim filed by the appellant for refund of duty paid in excess.2. The claim for refund arises in the following manner. Various textile processors among whom the appellant was one had filed in 1979 a writ petition before the Bombay High Court disputing levy of duty on processed fabric on the ground that such processing did not amount to manufacture. On the petition being dismissed by the High Court, they filed an appeal before the Supreme Court in which an additional ground was also taken that, if the process amounted to manufacture duty was payable only on the value of the job work done and not, as was the practice, on the sale price of the supplier of the grey fabric. It appears that while the matter was pending before the High Court no duty was paid, although this point is not entirely clear. The Supreme Court passed interim order for deposit...

Mutual Mecaplast Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT302Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The appeal No. E2621/03 involves duty of Rs. 8,06,040/- and penalty of Rs. 8,06,040/-. A preliminary point was raised whether this case can be heard by a single Member Bench as the duty and penalty together exceed Rs. 10 Lakhs. A reading of Section 35D (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 makes it clear that the limit pf Rs. 10 Lakhs applies separately to duty, fine and penalty since these are separated by 'or'. As such, I am of the view this case can be heard by a Single Member Bench since the duty and penalty involved do not exceed Rs. 10 Lakhs individually.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeals on the ground of non compliance with provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Shri M.V. Ravindran, learned Advocate for the appellants states that the period for duty demand relates to April, 96 to December, 97 and the show cause notice was issued on 7-3-2002. It is his contention that the demand up to 7-3-2002 is clearly time barred.He ...

Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. Balsara Extrusions Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC188

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the valuation of the mosquito coil making machine imported by Balsara Extrusion Ltd., the respondent. The claim filed by the importer for refund of customs duty paid in excess to the machine was rejected by the Dy. Commissioner of Customs. On appeal by the importer, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the claim and ordered sanction of refund. This appeal by the Commissioner is against that order.2. The machine in question was imported in November 1998 from Macro Traders Ltd., Dhaka in Bangladesh. The value declared for the set of parts which was comprising the machine in the suppliers invoice value of US $ 25000. In the declaration that accompanied the bill of entry, the importer stated that in terms of joint venture agreement the supplier was entitled to "issue and allotment of equity shares in the importer company." The agreement referred to was agreement between Macro Traders Pvt. Ltd., Bangladeshi company and Balsara Extrusions, ...

Mega Management Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)82TTJ(Mum.)1027

1. This is assessee's appeal raising two issues by five grounds, out of which ground Nos. 1 to 4 raise the same issue. In effect, the issues raised are as under: "(1) That the learned CIT gravely erred to uphold the disallowance of Rs. 1.32 crores claimed as deduction on account of project expenses on the pretext that such payments to assignees of the project were yet payable. Such delay in payment could not convert a genuine business deal into a non-genuine one culminating in arbitrary disallowance, particularly when the assignee confirmed undertaking of the projects. (2) That without proving the nexus between amounts advanced interest-free and the amounts raised as interest bearing loans, disallowance of Rs. 35,99,656 by the AO and upholding of such disallowance in the sum of Rs. 22,66,010 by the CIT(A) was highly unwarranted and unjustified." 2. Brief facts are during the year in question the assessee had.undertaken the project study for manufacturing of saw pipes for the concern V...

Sunil Prints Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(163)ELT147(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Both these petitions arise out of a common order dated 28th December, 1989, passed by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports & Exports and hence both these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. By the impugned order, the Joint Chief Controller of Imports & Exports has levied penalty under Sections 4-I(1)(a) & (c) of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and has also debarred the petitioners under Clauses 8(1)(b) and (d) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 for a period of five licensing years.3. Facts in brief, are that the first petitioner as actual user issued a letter of authority to an export house M/s. Abdullabhai Abdul Kadar, Bombay, for the import of OGL items in terms of Para 119 of the Handbook of Procedures 1985-88. Acting upon the authority, the said export house opened L.C. with a bank for the import of OGL items. When the goods arrived at the Indian port the petitioners failed to honour the letter of authority, resulting into non...

Vinayak Balkrishna Samant and ors. Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom227; 2004(1)ALLMR662; 2004(2)ARBLR94(Bom); 2004(3)BomCR111; 2004(1)MhLj1102

R.M. Lodha, J.1. The Appellants are the owners of the building known as 'Nalanda' situate at Plot No. 28, Samant Estate, Goregoan (E), Mumbai. By the Deed of Lease dated 3-9-1984, the appellants (hereinafter be referred as 'lessors') leased out second floor of the said building admeasuring about 2540 sq.ft. to the President of India for the purpose of Bombay Telephones (the lessee) on a monthly rent of Rs. 10,160/- and the service amenity charges of Rs. 3,810/-. The said lease was for a period of three years effective from 8-8-1983 with a renewal clause allowing lessee to seek renewal for a further period of three years. The lease provided that the lease of premises may mutually be renewed for a term of three years on the same terms and conditions including the rate of compensation and service amenity charges. The lease further provided that after the expiry of six years' lease period, if a further renewal is required by the lessee and notice of such intention by the lessee is given at...

Saraswati Shivanand Kumbhar and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2004)DMC32

J.N. Patel, J.1. Heard Mr. T.E. Mane, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-accused No. 1, Mr. Rahul S. Kate, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-accused No. 2 and Mrs. V.R. Bhosale, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.2. The appellants have been indicted for a charge of having committed an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. i.e., committing murder of Smt. Anita w/o Mallinath Kumbhar who was the wife of their brother-in-law by pouring kerosene on her person and setting her ablaze on 29th day of September, 1997 at about 12.45 p.m. in the landing space of staircase going towards the terrace of the residential Block No. A/6 situated at Homkar Nagar, Bhawani Peth, Solapur. The learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, by judgment and order dated 18th February, 1998 found the appellants-accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life which...

Lloyds Steels Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC213

1. Lloyds Steels Inds. Ltd. was engaged in the cold rolling and hardening of coils of hot roll steel supplied to it by Tata Iron and Steel Co. In terms of the agreement with the supplier of the raw material, the appellant sold the waste that arose in its factory during such cold rolling and hardening and retaining with itself the proceeds of the sale. The notice issued to the appellant proposed inclusion in the value for assessment of the steel of the proceeds of sale of the scrap that arose between 1^st February 2000 and 31^st January 2002. The Additional Commissioner after considering the cause shown and hearing the assessee, confirmed the proposal in the notice and imposed penalty.His order having been confirmed on appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee is in appeal before us.2. The representative of the appellant contends that the price received by the appellant for sale of the scrap ought not to form part of the value of the assessment. In arriving at the cost of the ...

Hoganas India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC169

1. Hoganas India Ltd., the appellant was, prior to 1992 engaged in the manufacture of annealing of the atomised iron powder which was manufactured by Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd. In 1992, it purchased the plant used by MSPL to atomise iron powder. It thereafter sold to MSPL the annealed atomised powder that it manufactured on the basis of cost of production including sales and administrative cost and interest on bank outstanding and 13% of the amount as profit. This arrangement was entered into by an oral agreement with MSPL which was reduced to waiting in September 1995. The agreement contained the following provisions. The appellant agreed to supply annealed powder to MSPL for 10 years at a commercially competitive price. The preamble to the agreement provided that MSPL would not undertake the manufacture of anneal powder during the subsistence of the agreement. Clause 4 of the agreement provided that the price would be based on the formula referred to earlier (cost of production...

P and O Nedlloyed (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellants are agents of P&O Nedlloyed Ltd., U.K and under slot arrangement with vessels agents M/s. Tata NYK Ltd., manifested cargo show uppers in container KNLU 3086251. Their principals have computerized system and due to computer problem one Bill of Lading out of two Bill of Ladings for the same consignee for same goods in the same container i.e. shoe uppers was not manifested.2. On an application made for additional entry on 25/05/98 on complaint received from clearing agent finding it difficult to note his Bill of Entry, the Customs Authority considered this to be a deliberate act of contravention of Section 111 (f) and 111 (g) ordered the confiscation of the container with a redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on M/s. Tata NYK Ltd. Hence this appeal by the appellants.M/s. Tata NYK are not in appeal.3. After hearing both sides and considering the material, it is found :- a) Since the container as per its number was manifested with one Bill of Ladin...