Mumbai Court November 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Suraj Textiles
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-2003
Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT281Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) reducing the penalty imposed on the assessee of Rs. 1,29,768/- to Rs. 97,326/-and reducing the fine for redemption on goods ordered to be confiscated from the assessee from Rs. 1,30,000/- to Rs. 65,000/-.2. The ground in the appeal, that the Commissioner has not furnished any reason for reducing the fine for redemption and penalty. In the light of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s finding that he has reduced them having regard to the gravity of the offence. It is a well settled principle of law that fine for redemption of confiscated goods and penalty should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The Commissioner therefore has discretion for reducing the fine and penalty. The question is whether he has exercised his discretion properly. The value of the goods was ordered to be confiscated around Rs. 6.50 lakhs, the duty involved on them is around Rs. 1.30 lakh. The redemption fine and penalty ad judged by the Asstt....
Sewak Pharma Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-2003
Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT645Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri S.P. Sheth, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri S. Singhal, Ld. JDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue.2. The Ld. Counsel interalia contended that the adjudication order is void ab-initio as the same has violated the principles of natural justice; that the same was passed ex-parte despite the adjournment request by the appellant; that the appellants were manufacturing the goods on Loan Licencee basis for various parties and as per the prevalent and accepted trade practice, were receiving the duty paid inputs directly from the manufacturers under the cover of relevant duty paying documents and the Modvat credit was availed on the basis thereof. The CBEC had also clarified that in case where the goods are being manufactured on job work basis, the name of the buyer of the inputs as well as the job worker should appear in the duty paying documents in order to avail the Modvat credit; that once it is established and that the entire consignment covered by the re...
Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-2003
Reported in: (2004)85TTJ(Mum.)71
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)"-Central--I, Mumbai, dt. 29th Feb., 1996. The only effective ground raised in this appeal is that learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in holding that the amount remitted for services rendered outside India was taxable in India.2. The assessee-company, as per the statement of facts filed before the learned CIT(A), is one of the largest aluminium manufacturing company in the country. It has entered into an agreement with Raytheon Engineers and Constructors Inc., USA (hereinafter referred to as 'Raytheon' in short) for conducting study and submission of Techno Economic Feasibility Report for setting up a one million tonnes capacity steel plant on 7th May, 1993 for a consideration of US $ 79,500. The company remitted the said consideration in three equal instalments of US $ 26,500 on 30th July, 1990, 3rd Dec., 1993 and 24th Feb., 1994, respectively. After a lapse of about one and a half year, the...
Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. the Income-tax Officer (Tds)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-2003
Reported in: (2004)91ITD64(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Central-l, Mumbai, dated 29.2.1996. The only effective ground raised in this appeal is that Id.CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in holding that the amount remitted for services rendered outside India was taxable in India.2. The assessee company, as per the statement of facts filed before the learned CIT(A), is one of the largest aluminium manufacturing company in the country. It had entered into an agreement with Raytheon Engineers and Constructors Inc., U.S.A. (hereinafter referred to as 'Raytheon' in short) for conducting study and submission of Techno Economic Feasibility Report for setting up an one million tones capacity steel plant on 7th May 1993 for a consideration of US $79,500.The company remitted the said consideration in three equal instalments of US $26,500 on 30.7.1990, 3.12.1993 and 24.2.1994 respectively. After a lapse of about one and a half year, the...
Narayan Avachitrao Deshmukh Vs. State Bank of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR888; II(2004)BC525; [2005]127CompCas704(Bom); 2004(1)MhLj356
S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of the parties.2. The challenge made in this writ petition is to the power, authority and quantification of the costs imposed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. The facts, in brief, relevant for resolution of the controversy are that the respondent No. 1 Bank had filed Special CS No. 472 of 1996 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur for recovery of Rs. 25,34,543.57 against the respondent No. 2 and the present petitioner. The respondent No. 2 was defendant No. 1 in the said civil suit. The present petitioner was defendant No. 2 in the suit. Petitioner, after service of summons and entering into appearance, had filed Written Statement somewhere on 19-11-1996. In the Written Statement, present petitioner has stated that the respondent No. 1 was carrying on business in the name and style of M/s Karuna Traders and had raised Cash Credit Limit from the respondent No. 1 Bank. He, amongst other pleas, denied the ...
Radheshyam S/O Laxminarayan Goenka Vs. Savatram Rampratap Mills and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR461; 2004(2)MhLj327
S.A. Bobde, J.1. Heard Mr. C. A. Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. C. Choubey, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 .2. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.3. This petition is directed against the notice issued by the respondent, the Estate Officer dated 4-4-2002 directing the petitioner to appear before the said respondent at Bombay. The notice is issued in respect of the proceedings taken by the respondents under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1971 against the petitioner in respect of a shop within the premises of Savatram Rampratap Mills situated Tilak Road, Akola. The only point raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 cannot issue any notice requiring the petitioner to appear at Bombay and to hold the proceeding at Bombay. Therefore, what falls for consideration is Section 3 reads as follows :--'3. Appointment of Estate Officers. -- The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazett...
Braco Electricals and Ramesh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT329Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing the stay application for some time it transpired that the main appeal could be taken up for disposal on a very small point of non compliance of the principle of natural justice. Therefore after waiver of predeposit and with the consent of both side,. the main appeal is taken up for disposal at this stage.2. A case of unaccounted manufacture and non-duty paid clearance of goods was made out by the officers of Central Excise Commissionerate. A show cause notice dt. 1.4.2002 was issued to the appellants and the Commissioner vide the impugned order dt. 12.5.2003 has confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalties and hence these appeals.3. It is the plea of the appellant that cross examination of certain witnesses sought by them were not granted. The Commissioner vide paragraph No. 24.11.1 has observed that no plea for cross- examination was made, we find and it was shown to us from the paper book filed which has a letter dt. 10.1.2003 by the Advocate to the Commissioner,...
Ruia Aquaculture Farms Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT307Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applications for waiver of predeposit of duty and penalty arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise Thane. The Commissioner confirmed the following duties on the following goods:- [1] Customs Duty of Rs. 29,13,498/- in respect of imported capital goods, such as, machinery etc. required for use in the Ruia Aquaculture Farms Ltd. set up by the applicants as detailed in Annexure "I" to the show cause notice. [2] Customs Duty of Rs. 33,87,022/- in respect of imported raw material as detailed in Annexure "II" to the show cause notice. [3] Central Excise Duty of Rs. 21,57,047/- in respect of indigenously procured capital goods as detailed in Annexure "III" to the show cause notice.These are the three duty demands He has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 63,00520/- under Section 114A of Customs Act, penalty of Rs. 21,57,047/- (equal to the Central Excise duty demand) and penalty of Rs. 8 lakhs on Shri Sharad S. Ruia and Shri Kamal S. Ruia, Director of M/s. Ruia Aquacul...
Sky Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC634
1. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of (a) narrow woven fabrics and manmade textile material (hook and loop tape fasteners) falling under CETA sub-heading 5806.10; and (b) narrow knitted fabrics (elastic tape) falling under CETA sub-heading 6002.10 and availed deemed credit facility under Notification 29/96 dated 03/09/1996 @ 60% of the excise duty leviable on inputs used in relation to the manufacture of hook and loop tape fasteners viz. LDO. They availed modvat credit in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on light diesel oil used in the production of the above mentioned final products and such availment was contrary to the conditions stipulated in paragraph 4 of Notification 29/96 (deemed credit notification) which provided that the provisions of the deemed credit notification shall not apply to manufacturer (other than composite mill) who avails any credit under any notification issued under Rule 57A(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respe...
Bombay Oxygen Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT332Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Heard both sides. The lower authorities have denied refund of Rs. 50,000/- on the ground that the claim was time-barred. Shri C. Mathew, learned Manager of the appellant-company states that the excess duty was paid at the instance of the Department, much after the clearance of the goods, by debit entry in PLA wherein it was clearly written ''under protest." Even in the RT 12 Return, the protest was recorded. He further states that the refund of balance amount which was similarly paid has been allowed, since duty at lower rates was charged by the same jurisdictional officers from another unit.2. After considering all aspects of the case, I am of the view that in the circumstances of this case, the provision of Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be made strictly applicable as the duty was not paid on the gate passes but has been paid through debit entry in the PLA at the instance of the Department. Moreover, the appellants have clearly mentioned in the PLA at the time...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »