Mumbai Court November 2003 Judgments

Dy. Cit Vs. Sunil Tolaram

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Mumbai)48

ORDERH.S. Sjdhu, J.M.:The revenue has filed the present appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Central-V, Mumbai, dated 3-8-1999, for assessment year 1995-96, by which he cancelled penalty of Rs. 23,92,872 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, levied by the assessing officer.2. The assessee is an individual. He had filed his return of income on 30-3-1996, declaring an income of Rs. 40,26,400. The assessment was finalised under section 143(3) on 27-3-1998 determining total income at Rs. 40,50,620. The assessing officer observed in the penalty order that in this case search operations were carried out under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at various business premises of the Kukreja group and at their residence on 25-10-1994. 'Kukrejas' are one of the prominent builders of Bombay and have to their credit several big building projects at New Bombay. The business is controlled by three brothers viz., Shri Omprakash T. Kukreja, Shri Mohan T. Kukreja a...

Bihar State Export Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT462Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appeals taken up for disposal, with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. Shri Sant Muktabai Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, a sugar mill located in Jalgaon district, in Maharashtra. It sold a consignment of sugar manufactured by it to Bihar State Export Corporation Ltd, in pursuance of a advice release order issued by the Department of Food and Civil Supplies of the Government of India. The notice issued to both the party demanded duty in terms of notification under the Sugar Promotion Act, 1958 on the ground that the sugar in question was not shown to have been exported and proposed penalty. In reply to the notice, the parties took up various contentions. Among these was that the Sugar Promotion Act, 1958 has been repealed in January 1977. No duty was payable in terms of that Act and that the goods in fact had been exported to Nepal through the Customs station at Raxaul, Bihar. It is also contended that the manufactured had cleared the goods from the factory on pa...

Maya Rasayan Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The stay application has been filed in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal before him for failure by the assessee to deposit Rs. 2,96,350/- out of the duty confirmed by the Joint Commissioner of Rs. 9.28 lakhs approx (out of which Rs. 6.21 has already been paid) and equal penalty.2. The applicant is absent and unrepresented despite notice and has filed written submissions. We have considered these and heard the departmental representative.3. In her order the Joint Commissioner finds considerable shortage of inputs and also finds that considerable disproportion between the quantity of raw material and quantity of finished product, one of the finished product manufactured by the applicant, para nitro chloro aniline. She finds that applying the yield of 73.07% of finished product from the raw material, which is what the manufacturer accepted.There is a considerable shortage of duty which comes to Rs. 9.28 lakhs.The contentions of the applicant ...

Asian Paints (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT224Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants during the period February 1997 to August 1997 received certain capital goods and filed declarations under Rule 57T(1). Due to mis-placement of Excise licence T(4) declaration were delayed and goods installed/used and intimation was given to Range Supdt. on 18-11-1997.The A.C. allowed the credit but imposed a penalty under Rule 173Q(bb).The Commissioner (Appeals) also confirmed the penalty observing the condonation application under Rule 57T(5) was not filed. Hence this appeal.2. Rule 173Q(bb) provides for ensuring taking of duty paid credit and utilisation of the same, or rendering of accounts. The penalty imposed for not seeking condonation, which could have been granted for the procedural infraction is not called for when credit eligibility is not doubted. Penalty imposition powers is not a crop given in the hands of the officers to crack at every opportunity. Penalty is therefore not upheld in the facts of the case....

New Cool Well International Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the light of the statement made by the common counsel for the applicants that the imported goods on which duty has been demanded are under the control of Customs, since the importer has not availed of the option given it to redeem them on payment of fine, after their confiscation under clause (m) of Section 111 of the Act has been ordered, deposit of the duty on the goods will not arise.2. A penalty of Rs 12 lakhs has been imposed on the importer and Rs 4 lakhs on Prakash Mehta, its partner.3. The duty has been demanded, and penalties imposed, on the finding of the Commissioner that the goods which were declared to be stainless steel scrap were in fact prime material. The contention of the common counsel for the applicants is that because the goods are order of the thickness of 0.5 millimetre and 0.7 millimetre they are to be considered to be scrap. This is prima facie difficult to accept. Such goods are prima facie falling entries in the tariff such as 72.08 and 72.09 etc- sub ...

Jeegar Gems Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)BomCR784; 2004(163)ELT414(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. In this petition, the Petitioners challenge penalty and debarment order passed under the Imports & Exports (Control) Act 1947 and Imports (Control) Order, 1955 respectively.2. The facts in brief, are that:An REP licence bearing No. P/K/K/044825/REP was issued to the Petitioners on 7th April, 1981 for import of diamonds unset and uncut up to the value of Rs. 12,14,186/-. The licence was valid up to 31st March, 1982. On 20th March, 1982 an endorsement was made on the licence for import of OGL items in terms of Para 185 of AM 1981-1982 policy subject to the condition laid down therein and the licence was made non-transferable. In view of the above endorsement, the Petitioners could import OGL items for actual use only.3. On 27th March, 1982 the Petitioners issued a letter of authority to M/s. Didwania Imports & Exports Pvt. Limited ('L.A. holder' for short) authorising them inter alia to import on behalf of the Petitioners the permissible OGL items under the relevant i...

Smt. Sheel Arora Vs. Sanjay Fetah Bahadur Srivastava

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom99; 2004(1)ALLMR632; 2004(2)BomCR518

ORDERD.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. 2. According to the plaintiff, she advanced a loan of Rs. 3,50,000/- to one Fateh Bahadur Shrivastava who executed three demand promissory notes for Rs. 1,60,000/-, Rs. 1,40,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- on 3rd June, 1998 and 4th June, 1998 respectively. Fateh Bahadur died prior to the institution of the present suit. The plaintiff has therefore, filed this suit joining Sanjay Fateh Bahadur Shrivastava, son of the deceased as defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 2. as stated in the title of the plaint is 'unknown legal heirs and representatives of Fateh Bahadur Shrivastava.'3. After service of writ of summons, the defendant No. 1 filed appearance and on receipt of the summons for Judgment has filed an affidavit in reply dated 13th June, 2003. In paragraph No. 2 of the affidavit in reply, the defendant No. 1 who is the son of the deceased has specifically stated that the deceased Fateh Bahadur Shrivastava had...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Gopi Synthetics Ltd., Alok

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT172Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals are filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who in the impugned order disposed of three appeals before him, viz. appeal No. 213/Ahd-I/2002 (Gopi Synthetics Ltd.), appeal No. 214/Ahd-V2002 (Alok Synthetics Ltd.) and appeal No.215/Ahd-I/2002 (Omkar Textile Mills Ltd.), arising out of the same issue. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Deputy Commissioner's orders and allowed consequential relief. The Revenue is aggrieved by this order and have filed the subject appeals.2. Briefly the facts are that the respondents arc engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapters 52, 54 & 55 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were discharging duty liability under compounded levy scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They filed refund claims for the duty paid by them on galleries of stenter machine installed in their factory during the period from 16.12.1998 to 28.2.2000. The respond...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Vardhaman Special Steels

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT416Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Vardhaman Special Steel, the respondent to this appeal imported in April 1994 a consignment of heavy melting scrap which, on examination, was found to contain cartridge scrap, damaged guns and smoke shells, totally Rs. 85,425/-. It is not disputed that import of these goods were prohibited. The respondent waived the issue of written notice of hearing. The Additional Commissioner ordering confiscation of these goods permitting the cartridge scrap and smoke shells to be released on payment of fine. In appeal that the importer filed to the Commissioner (Appeals), it contended that it had relinquished the title to the goods and accordingly advised the department by its letter of 11.8.95 and therefore duty was not payable on the goods and neither fine nor penalty was payable. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted this contention and allowed the appeal. Hence this appeal by the Commissioner.2. The ground in the appeal is that order of clearance made under Section 47 was prior to letter dat...

Cce Vs. Pycom Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(113)LC783Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondents herein are holders of Central Excise registration, availing facility of modvat. They have filed a classification list with effect from 1.4.1993 which was approved by the proper officer granting the benefit of simultaneous availment of modvat facility and SSI exemption under notification 1/93 dated 28.2.1993. This was objected to by the Revenue; however the Commissioner (Appeals), before whom the department preferred an appeal, held that since the lower authority, whose order was challenged by the Revenue, followed the earlier decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in order-in-appeal No. GS/404/BI/92 dated 1.9.1992, no review of such classification was permissible. Hence this appeal before the Tribunal.2. We find that the issue in dispute, viz., as to whether simultaneous availment of modvat credit of duty paid on goods and availment of concessional rate of duty in terms of SSI exemption are permissible, is no longer res integra as it has been settl...