Mumbai Court December 2003 Judgments

Securities and Exchange Board of India Vs. Sangeeta Jayesh Valia

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)2CompLJ347(Bom); [2004]50SCL641(Bom)

ORDER1. The present appeal is under Section 15Z of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, (for short 'SEBI Act') against the reversal common order dated 30-11-2002 under Section 15T read with Section 29 of the SEBI Act, passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, in appeal Nos. 17 and 18 of 2000, whereby the orders dated 24-7-2000, passed by the Adjudicating Officer under Section 15-I of the SEBI Act, imposing penalty of Rs. 1,50,000. (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) for violation of Regulation 3(4), SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover) Regulations 1997 (for short Takeover Regulations, 1997) and Section 15A(b) of SEBI Act, against the respondent, (original appellant), were set-aside. Thereby appeals filed by the respondent herein, were allowed. Therefore, the appellants herein (original respondents) preferred two separate appeals against the impugned common order.2. The Appellants Securities & Exchange Board of India for short (SEBI), is a statutor...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Alfa Polyfilm and Jugal K. Agarwal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

"On 20.6.97 the officers visited the factory and found goods not entered in RG1 even though they were in fully finished form. The adjudicator ordered the confiscation of the goods seized and gave redemption option to pay fine of Rs. 30,000/- and confirmed the duty on the seized goods, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 173Q on the manufacturer and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on Shri J.K. Agarwal, partner under rule 209-A. No finding of clandestine removal and intention to evade duty was alleged or found." 3. The original authority's order was set aside by learned Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) interpreted the provisions of Rule 173Q(1)(b) and 173Q(1)(d). So far as, Rule 173Q(1)(b) is concerned, he has observed as under: - "Therefore, the interpretation of the words "account for" in any considered opinion cannot be applied to a simplicitor non entry in RG1. If such non entry is explained by the assessee, manufacturers such act it would go out...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Toyoto Chemicals Inds.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT330Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Commissioner of Central Excise challenges the findings contained in the order in appeal of the Commissioner Central Excise (Appeals).2. It was alleged that, at the time of visit of the officers to the respondent's factory on 28/7/95, certain goods in fully finished form were found without making the required entries in the RG 1 record. The adjudication resulted in confiscation of the excess goods, which were seized, with an option to pay redemption fine of Rs. 70000/-, and confirmation of the duty on the seized goods, and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- under Rule 173Q on the manufacturers and Rs. 5000/- on Shri Dhiraj J. Trivedi, Chief Accountant.3. On respondent's appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), the penalty was reached to Rs. 2000/- being the maximum under Rule 226 for non entry. It was also held that the goods being not liable-to confiscation, no redemption fine could be imposed and the same was set aside. The penalty imposed on the Chief Accountant was also se...

Amar Food Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri T. Vishwanathan Ld. Advocate and Shri K.L. Bablani Ld. JCDR, we allow the stay petition unconditionally and proceed to hear the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. The impugned order has been passed by Commissioner (Appeals) in de novo proceedings when the matter was earlier remanded by the Tribunal with the following observations and directions:- "3....We also agreed that the plea of the assessee that the demand is barred by limitation, which plea was raised in the reply to the show cause notice and the plea that the item in dispute was not put up in the unit container so as to attract classification under CET sub-heading 1904.10 as proposed in the show cause notice, and the plea regarding quantification of duty were required to be considered by remanding these issues to the adjudicating authority. We also find that ;the appellants have contested the applicability of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Favourite food...

Sun Industries Ltd. and Ajay Padia Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri Naresh Thacker, learned Advocate and Shri S.V. Parelkar, learned JDR, we find that the appellants' appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the Tribunal's stay order vide which the appellants were directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs). The appellants filed a Writ Petition against the above order before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay which stands disposed of vide their order dated 27/03/2001. The Hon'ble High Court restored the appeal and has directed the Tribunal to look into their financial position and decide the matter afresh.2. In view of the above directions contained in the High Court's order we restore the appeal to its original number. The appellants have contended that they have been declared as a sick unit by the BDFR. The impugned order has also been assailed on the ground that the same has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the documents seized from...

Rashtriya Metal Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of brass sheets, coils, strips falling under Chapter 74 of the Central Excise Tariff, 1985 on job work basis for its customers out of the raw material supplied by them. For the purpose of arriving at the assessable value the appellant filed the price declaration on the basis of actual cost of production, which included the landed cost of the raw material and the job charges. However, the department was of the view that notional profit margin of 15% is further required to be added in the assessable value. Accordingly proceedings were initiated against them which resulted in approval of higher assessable value. The appellant contested the above decision of the Revenue by submitting that the job charges include the profit margin. The case travelled up to Commissioner (Appeals) and vide his order dated 24/12/2001 the appeal was decided against the appellant. Thereafter the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal.2. As a consequence of...

Shri Aslam Noor Mohammed Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC689

1. The appellant Shri Aslam is aggrieved by the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, (Appeals), whereby duty amounting to Rs. 39,600/- has been recovered along with redemption fine of Rs. 80,000/- (already paid).2. The brief facts of the case are that, the customs preventive party undertook the verification of certain baggages received by railway at Mumbai. On examination goods of foreign origin were noticed in certain baggages. Several persons came forward to claim the ownership of the goods, and produced copies of the railway receipts and certain custom baggage clearance documents in the names of various passengers coming from abroad. The customs authorities at Mumbai undertook the verification of genuineness of the 27 baggage receipts and out of them, 25 baggage receipts were found to have been genuinely issued by the office of air cargo Trivandrum. The baggage receipts produced by the appellants in respect of the subject goods under dispute were genuine on...

Zenith Weaves Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the admissibility of modvat credit. The appellants were issued three show cause notices proposing to deny modvat credit on the ground that the same has been taken on the basis of invoices issued by the manufacturer in favour of its depots and endorsed by the depots of the said manufacturer. A part of the credit was proposed to be disallowed on the ground that the invoices showed the appellants' factory address at Kim, whereas the goods were actually delivered to the appellants' other factory at Surat and were utilised therein. A portion of the credit availed by the appellants was proposed to be denied on the ground that the same has been availed on the basis of the certificates issued by the jurisdictional Superintendent in lieu of gate pass and the credit was taken after 1.4.1994, when the said certificates were not proper modvatable documents.2. We have heard Shri K.I. Vyas, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri J.M. George, lea...

Albright and Wilson Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT499Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Prayer in the application for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 21,72,451/- confirmed against the first appellant, M/s Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd. with the identical amount of personal penalty imposed under Rule 11AC of the Central Excise Rule 1944. Further penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs has been imposed on Shri N.S. Shetty, second appellant under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Arguing on behalf of the appellant Shri H.C. Daruwala, learned Advocate for M/s Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd. and Shri M.H. Patil, for M/s N.S. Shetty, submits that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Rock Phosphate Sulphuric Acid, during the manufacture of which Phospho Gypsum emerges as by product. The same is loaded in the trucks directly from the pipe line and is taken to a dumping ground near the factory with the consent and permission of the Revenue. At the stage, learned Advocate clarifies that the loading charges incurred...

Durgeshwari Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)93TTJ(Mum.)432

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order dt. 17th Jan., 2003, in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yr. 1998-99.2. During the course of hearing, we have noticed that the assessee had not even paid the admitted tax liability till the time this appeal was filed before the Tribunal. We find that it is not in dispute that by way of revised return dt. 26th Oct., 1999, the assessee-company disclosed a taxable income of Rs. 58,39,170 which was duly accepted by the AO. The income so returned included Rs. 58 lakhs as 'income from other sources' which the assessee-company had offered for taxation in lieu of 'unexplained share capital'. Even though the returned income itself was accepted, the assessee carried the matter in appeal mainly on the ground that 'the AO erred in treating share application of Rs. 58,00,000 as 'income from other sources'. This appeal was, however, unsuccessful. The CIT(A), w...