Mumbai Court May 2003 Judgments

Asia Investment Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Spl. Rg. 5

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)90ITD630(Mum.)

1. The above referred appeals have been filed by the assessee arising out of a consolidated order dated 11/12/96 of CIT (A) XXXVII, Mumbai.For the sake of convenience both the appeals are hereby decided by this common order.2. Ground No. 1 is in respect of confirmation of disallowance of legal and professional fees of Rs. 1,35,000/-.3. The A.O. has mentioned that an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- was paid to M/s. Anand Pvt. Ltd. for arranging Bridge Loan from ANZ Grindlays Bank New Delhi and for disposing the convertible debentures of M/s. Gabriel India Ltd. The AO has observed that this concern M/s. Anand Pvt. Ltd. being assessee's sistern concern, therefore, asked to file the confirmation letter in respect of work done for which the assessee has made the said payment. The A.O. has recorded that the assessee has expressed its inability to produce the confirmation from ANZ Grindlays Bank. In the absence of any evidence the claim of legal and professional expenses were disallowed.4. In first...

Chhabria Trust Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)87ITD181(Mum.)

1. This appeal by the assesses is directed against the order of CIT(A)-IX, Bombay, dt. 21st Aug., 1991.2. The Hon'ble President, Tribunal, vide U.O. No. 12/Jd/AT/2000, dt.14th Sept., 2000, referred the appeal for the consideration of the Special Bench.3. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : "1. The leamed CIT(A) erred in confirming the gain on transfer of premises as short-term capital gain. 2. He failed to appreciate the facts that the factory premises which was transferred during the year which is not used as business assets from asst. yr. 1986-87 onwards. 3. He failed to appreciate the facts that neither the depreciation has been claimed nor the depreciation has been allowed from asst. yr. 1986-87 onwards. 4. He failed to appreciate the facts that the asset under review never entered the stock of assets as defined under Section 2(11) of the IT Act 1961." 4. Shri V.H. Patil, the learned counsel for the assessee, neatly identified the following two is...

Marine Safety Products Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(161)ELT596Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri Naresh Thakkar, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the goods in question were meant for defence purposes (Indian Navy). They have quoted their rates through tender invitation and after due consideration they were selected for supply of the items in question. His contention is that since the appellants were importing the goods in question for the use by the Indian Navy and not for consumer goods and they could not have been sold to any other person other than Indian Navy, the Department was not justified, when all of a sudden they did not clear the 13th consignment as against 12 consignments cleared in the past. The imposition of redemption fine and penalty are not justified in view of the fact that they have not cleared these goods to any other person other than Indian Navy. In support of his contention he relied on the decision in the case of Newsprint Trading & Sales Corporation v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in 1999 (112) ELT 1...

Dilip A. Goplani Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing the parties on the stay application, we have decided to take up the appeal itself for disposal.2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, has ordered revocation of the licence issued under Regulation 10 of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 1984 (hereafter the Regulations). The reason advanced for the revocation is that the appellant sublet the licence to Laxmi Forwarders, Gandhidham, in contravention of the provisions of Regulation 13. The notice issued to the appellant contained two articles of charges. The first article alleged that the appellant had "sublet/transferred their CHA licence by way of allowing M/s. Laxmi Forwarders, Gandhidham to act as CHA and clearing the goods through Customs on their behalf unauthorisedly ..." Article 2 is nothing more than a repetition of the first article. It alleges that the appellants had "failed to act as genuine CHA and also kept Customs Authority in dark by way of subletting thei...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Steelage Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this appeal the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order in appeal dated 30^th April, 1997 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order in original of the adjudicating authority denying modvat credit of Rs. 2,01,562/- to the respondents.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents took the modvat credit on the strength of the original copy of invoice during the period December 1994 to February 1995. The adjudicating authority disallowed the modvat credit by observing that it could not be legally taken, as original copy of invoice could not be considered to the proper documents in terms of Rule 57G of the Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed that order by observing that the invoice was issued by the SAIL which did not issue duplicate copies and as such, the respondents were entitled to take modvat credit on original invoice.3. The Revenue has contested correctness of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). None has com...

Kamlesh Mehta, Mahendra Shah, Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT520Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applications are for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 6.69 crores approx. demanded from Aafloat Textiles, equivalent penalty on it, and penalties on the other applicants.2. Duty has been demanded from Aafloat Textiles on quantities of goods imported by it and cleared in terms of special imprest licences, which rendered the goods eligible for partial exemption from duty as contained in Notification No. 117/94. The basis of the charge that the licences were forged is not denied by any of the applicants. The claim on behalf of the importer and S N Baheti & Prakash K Mehta, its Chairman and Managing Director respectively, on each of whom penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 112 is imposed, is that they purchased these licences in the ordinary course of business from Ketan Shah and Mahendra Shah and did not have reason to believe that they are forged.It is emphasized that no evidence has been sought to show complicity of the firm or its employees in the transactions. The fact t...

Ultra Tek Devices Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Ultra Tek Devices the appellant has a factory in Santacruz Export Processing Zone which is engaged in the manufacture of various electrical commodities. Among these are switch mode power supplies.This device is used to provide by converting the incoming alternative current provided data processing machine and parts direct current and stepping down the voltage to the level required by the machine. Part of the SMPS exported by the appellant was returned as rejected by its customers and appellant where possible repaired these goods and reexported and where it was not possible, broke them down into components.2. The officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence visited the appellant's factory in February 1997. No panchnama or other documents deriving the results of any stock taking or the result thereof was drawn. It appears that there was some discrepancy in the account maintained by the appellant. The statements of various employees of the appellant were recorded during the cou...

C.C. Vs. Shri Amrutbhai Vasudevbhai Patel

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this Appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 10.8.1995 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) had remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority after setting aside the Order-in-Original for de novo proceeding after allowing cross-examination of the material witnesses to the respondents.2. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the adjudicating authority imposed penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and 74 under Gold (Control) Act, 12968 on the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside that order on the ground that there was violation of rules of natural justice as the cross-examination of material witnesses was not furnished to the respondents by the adjudicating authority. Accordingly, he has remanded the case to him for fresh decision.3. The only ground put forth before me by ld. DR is that the respondents did not ask for the cross-examination of the witnessess during the adjudication...

Nuchemo Plast, Shri Pushpak Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT278Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals are against the order dated 20.11.87 of the Collector of Customs whereby two consignments from USA of Acrylic Plastic Scrap consigned to M/s. Mascot Metal Traders, Jamnagar as per Item No. 85 of Import General Manifest [IGM] No. 2947 and Item No. 341 of IGM No. 3069 (Bills of Lading Nos. 13347 and NYC-13613 respectively) were absolutely confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act r/w. Section 3(2) of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act and penalties of Rs. 1,90,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- were imposed on Shri Devang R. Vora (appellant in Appeal No. C/614/88), M/s. Pushpak Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (appellant in C/600/88) and M/s. Nuchema Plast (appellant in C/599/88).The impugned order was in adjudication of Show-Cause Notice [SCN] dated 21.10.86 wherein, on the basis of investigations, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [DRI] had alleged, inter alia, that Shri Vora had imported the goods in the name of M/s. Mascot Metal Traders (who allegedly, did...

C.C.E. Vs. Technova Imaging Systems Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The delay is only of 11 days in filing of the reply. Learned Counsel has no objection if the delay is condoned and appeal is heard on merit.Therefore, the COD application of the revenue is allowed. With the consent of both sides, I proceed to decide the appeal also on merit.2. This appeal has been directed by the Revenue against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 19.12.2000 vide which Commr. (Appeals) has dropped the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- as imposed on the respondents vide the adjudicating authority's order-in-original dated 26.4.2000.3. The facts are not much in dispute. Respondents availed modvat credit of Rs. 271357/- during the period from April 1998 to January 1999 on the strength of certain invoices which later on were found to be not proper documents for availing the modvat credit. The respondents thereafter voluntarily reversed the credit vide PLA Entry No. 2136 dated 24.299, 2181 dt. 26.2.99 and 2232 dt. 5.3.99 but the department issued them Show-cause Notice dated 21.12...