Mumbai Court April 2003 Judgments

Shri Noor Hasan Abdul Shaikh and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1572; 2003CriLJ4007

J.G. Chitre, J.1. The petitioner are hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order which has been passed by the Special Executive Magistrate, Crime Branch (Preventive), Santacruz (W) Mumbai. The petitioners have been directed by the said Special Executive magistrate to appear before him on 21/7/1993 at 11 a.m. and to show cause as to why they should not execute a bond of maintaining the peace for a period of one year with security bond of Rs. 1000/- and two sureties of equal amount. It was alleged in the said notice that the petitioners were abusing Afsar Husain Zaidi verbally and on telephone on flimsy grounds and were threatening him. Not only that, it has been alleged in the said notice that the petitioners threatened and abused Afsar Zaidi and his family members at odd hours of night. It was pointed out in the said notice that the said Mohammed Afsar Zaidi and his family members at odd hours of night. It was pointed out in the said notice that the said Mohammed ...

Chudgar and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Bom)289; [2003]263ITR324(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Tribunal dt. 20th Oct., 2000, in ITA No. 7541 of 1996 in respect of asst. yr. 1993-94.2. In this appeal, our opinion is sought on the following questions :(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal erred in holding that an amount of Rs. 2,63,816 claimed by the assessee by way of deduction on account of business loss was not allowable ?(ii) Whether, on facts, the Tribunal erred in holding that the assessee had not proved the factum of embezzlement ?Facts3. Assessee-company is a dealer in chemicals. For the year under consideration being accounting year ending 31st March, 1993, corresponding to asst. yr. 1993-94, the assessee had declared a total loss of Rs. 1,829 after claiming deduction of Rs. 2,63,816 on account of embezzlement of cash.On or about 21st April, 1993, there was a search under Section 132 of the Act. A file-Exhibit A-17 was seized. The file had, a caption 'Inflate...

Premier Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN289(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J.Being aggrieved by the Judgment and order passed by the Tribunal dated 18-11-2002, in Income Tax Appeal No. 3580/MUM/99, Premier Auto Ltd. has filed this Appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Appeal pertains to assessment year 1995-96.Facts2. Premier Auto Ltd. is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cars. Upto and during the year under consideration, Premier Auto Ltd. (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as 'PAL') was engaged in the manufacture of two cars viz. Padmini and Premier 118 NE at Kurla and Kalyan respectively. PAL had plant & machinery for 118 NE at Kalyan, Kurla (Gear box) and Pune (Machining) (hereinafter referred to as Kalyan Undertaking'). PAL had manufacturing facility for Padmini a Kurla. Pal entered into memorandum of understanding (hereinafter referred to as 'the MOU') on 11-3-1993 with Automobile Peugeot (hereinafter referred to as 'the AP') to es...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. N.R.B. Bearing Ltd., Shri T.S.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT755Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Based on specific information that M/s. N.R.B. Bearing Ltd. have diverted machineries imported for their plant at Waluj to their Thane unit, custom authorities investigated into the matter. On conclusion of the investigation, a Show Cause Notice dtd. 30/12/1995 was issued to the said M/s. N.R.B. Bearing Ltd. and its officials proposing confiscation of the seized machineries valued of Rs. 4,37,16,439/-, demanding custom duty amounting to Rs. 1,35,33,836/- and proposing penal action. This notice was issued by Shri S.S. Sekhon, Commissioner of Customs, Bombay. However, after adjudication the said Show Cause Notice was withdrawn by the same Commissioner and seized goods were released vide order in original dtd. 06/07/1996. This order was reviewed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and a review order dtd. 04/06/1997 was issued directing the Commissioner to file an appeal to this Tribunal. The present appeal has been filed in pursuance of the same order in review by Shri M.G. Ven...

Shilpa Rerollers Ltd., Hind Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri R. Nambirajan, learned advocate for the appellants states as follows:- 1) The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of non-alloy steel rerolled products, such as, flats, strips, bars, rods, angles, etc. falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2) With effect from 14.5.1997, the provisions of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act providing for charging duty on the basis of annual production capacity was introduced. The goods manufactured by the appellants were covered by this scheme by a Notification dated 1.8.1997. The scheme came into effect on 1.9.1997 with certain modification. 3) Prior to 1.8.1997, duty was payable on these final products manufactured by the appellants in terms of Section 3 of the Act and the said final products manufactured by the appellants were specified as final products under Notification No. 5/94-CE(NT) dated 1.3.1994 issued under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants were availing Modvat of the duty pa...

Clariant (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri M.P. Baxi, learned Advocate for the appellants states that the main issue involved in this appeal is whether the appellants can pay duty on the intermediate goods and avail modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs when such intermediate goods are exempt when taken for captive consumption. In support of his claim, he relies on the following case laws:- 1) Everest Convertors v. C.C.E. Calcutta-II--1995 (80) E.L.T. 91 (Tribunal)Gothi Plastic Industries v. C.C.E. Trichy--1996 (83) E.L.T. 23 (Tribunal).Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. C.C.E. Mumbai-IV and Ors.--2000 4) S.A.I.L. v. C.C.E. Bhubaneswar--2001 (129) E.L.T. 636 (Tri. Kolkata) 2. He also states that the demand is time barred since the Show Cause Notice was issued on 23/05/1996 for the period 19/08/1991 to 29/01/1992 and there has been no suppression on the part of the appellants and the unit was audited from time to time. He also states that there is no justification for imposition of penalty of Rs. ...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Loctite India Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT513Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the industrial adhesives and sealants imported by Loctite India Pvt. Ltd., respondent to this appeal/ were not consumer goods. In coming to his conclusion, he has relied upon the earlier order of his predecessor with regard to the same goods. Hence this appeal by the Commissioner, 2. The departmental representative emphasises that the reliance placed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upon the fact that the import of same adhesives was freely permissible and misplaced, because the amendment to the import policy permitted such free import took place after the goods with which we are concerned had already been imported, and could not have respective application. At the same time, however, the Commissioner (Appeals) has also relied upon the finding by his predecessor in office that the goods could not be put to use that the adhesives are sophisticated nature in quality and require technical skill for their intend...

Laxbro Mfg. Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I confirming two demands of duty amounting to Rs. 18,30,785/- and Rs. 8,35,501/-. Recovery of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has also been ordered in addition to imposition of penalty of Rs. 26,66,286/- under Section 11AC. The matter was argued at length by Shri V.S. Nankani, learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants and by Shri M.K. Gupta, learned Jt. C.D.R., Shri S.S.Bhagat, learned S.D.R. and Shri M.H. Sheikh, learned J.D.R. on behalf of the Department.2. The learned Advocate argues that the Department has wrongly classified the goods manufactured by the appellants under Sub-heading 9027.00 whereas the same should be rightly classified under Sub-heading 3926.10 or alternatively under Sub-heading 9018.00. He also argues on the ground of limitation stating that the goods manufactured by the appellants were declared in a letter dtd. 16/08/1994 and therefore, the extended p...

Commissioner of Customs and Central Vs. Special Prints Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeal by the Revenue arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Vadodara, who has upheld the confiscation of fabrics admeasuring 1,24,715.75 L.Mtrs. valued at Rs. 32,53,334.46, but reduced the redemption fine in lieu of confiscation to Rs. 1 lakh (from Rs. 3,50,000/- levied by the Deputy Commissioner), set aside the confiscation of plant and machinery, set aside the penalty imposed upon the Director of the respondent company and reduced the penalty on the company to Rs. 50,000/- (from Rs. 2 lakhs) as imposed by the Deputy Commissioner). According to the Revenue, the fine and penalty imposed require to be enhanced, and not reduced.2. On hearing both sides, I note that vide Order No. 3178 to 3181/98/WRB/C-I dated 01/08/98, the Tribunal has set aside the confiscation and penalties in appeal Nos. E/1699/98 and E/1228/98 filed by the company against the same impugned order and allowed their appeals, accepting the contention of the company that there was no clandes...

Otis Elevator Co. (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri Rohan Shah, Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the impugned order traverses beyond the scope of show cause notices and as such there is a clear-cut violation of principles of natural justice and it is abinitio void. He further contended that the appellants have retaken the credit on the receipt of the processed inputs from the job workers to the extent of 10% of the reversed credit of the value of the inputs cleared to the job workers.he also contended that the adjudicating authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) have failed to consider the following:- (a) At the time of the removal of the processed products by the vendor/job worker, he issues an excise invoice indicating the payment of excise duty on his inputs and the reversal of credit availed on inputs supplied by the Company. On receipt of the processed products from vendor/job worker on which no further activities carried out by the Company, the Company avails the modvat credit ...