Mumbai Court May 2003 Judgments

Maharashtra Agro Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The matter was last adjourned on 10.04.2003 at the telegraphic request of the applicant on the ground of the illness of counsel. The adjournment request once again sought by the applicant telegraphically.2. No vakalathnama has been filed. The telegraphic request for adjournment on the previous occasion on 10/04/03 had not been followed up any explanation furnishing the details of the counsel's illness, etc. We are therefore, not satisfied that a case exist for adjournment and after reading the stay application, the memorandum of appeal and after hearing the departmental representative proceed to dictate the order.3. Duty of Rs. 5,29,605/- has been demanded on the sugar syrup manufactured by the applicant and utilized in the manufacture of mixed fruits. The Assistant Commissioner had dropped the demand for duty by relying upon the content of a circular No. 75/75/94CX dated 7/11/99 which has clarified that in the absence of citric acid its syrup is not marketable. 4. The circular of ...

A.C.i.T. Vs. Shri Narendra I. Bhuva

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)84TTJ(Mum.)208

1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of CIT (A)-XIII, Mumbai passed on 31.08.1994 in respect of AY 1992-93. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs. 20,80,000/- made by the AO on account of sale of Motor car as business income without appreciating the fact that the assessee had purchased the car with a view to sell it on a future date for profit." 3. Before coming to the actual issue involved in this appeal, it would be proper to narrate the facts of the case in brief for better appreciation of the issue involved and decisions taken by the authorities below.4. The appellate is an employee of M/s. Indu Nishan Oxo-Chemical Ind.Ltd. is a salary employee. Besides, he has also income from house property, share income, diffident etc. The appellant filed return for AY 1992-93 on 20.11.1992 declaring total income of Rs. 2,79,440/-. In the statement of income attached to the return of income, assesse...

Ketan Bolinjkar Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)87TTJ(Mumbai)273

ORDERR.P. Tolani J.M.These are four appeals by assessees. Issues, being inter-connected and common, the appeals are disposed of by this common order for convenience.ITA Nos. 5757 & 57582. Grounds raised are common. Out of which, ground Nos. 1 and 2 are not argued before us. Hence not adjudicated and dismissed accordingly. The other common grounds in both the appeals are as under:'3 (a) The'learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XI erred in law and on facts by confirming the finding of the assessing officer that the sum of Rs. 6,00,000 paid to Miss Usha Bohnjkar is not deductible from the gross sale proceeds.3 (b) The learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XI erred in law and on facts by confirming the finding of the assessing officer that the sum of Rs. 6,00,000 paid to Miss Usha Bolinjkar is not an income diverted at source and hence forms part of the income.(4) The learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XI erred in law and on facts by confirming the disallowance of deduction under section 54 of the Income T...

Asstt. Cit Vs. Narendra I. Bhuva

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]90ITD174(Mum)

ORDERR.P. Rajesh, AMThis appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-XIII, Mumbai passed on 31-08-1994 in respect of assessment year 1992-93.2. Grounds taken in appeal is as under:'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting addition of Rs. 20,80,000 made by the assessing officer on account of sale of Motor car as business income without appreciating the fact that the assessee had purchased the car with a view to sell it on a future date for profit.'3. Before coming to the actual issue involved in this appeal, it would be proper to narrate the facts of case in brief for better appreciation of the issue involved and decisions taken by the authorities below.4. The appellant is an employee of M/s. Indu Nishan Oxo-Chemical Ind. Ltd. is a salary employee (sic). Besides, he has also income from house property, share income, dividend etc. The appellant filed return for assessment year 1992-93...

Steel Industries of India Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)87TTJ(Mumbai)281

ORDERR.P. Tolani, J.M.:These are two cross appeals, one each by revenue and assessee. Grounds raised are as under:Assessee's appeal'(1) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,22,238 being undisclosed premium.(2) The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or to amend the above mentioned grounds of appeal which are without prejudice to one another.'Revenue's appeal'On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 98,13,018 holding that the addition is made purely on surmises, conjectures and suspicions, without appreciating the evidences on record.Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the additions were made after considering the various statements and affidavits of the persons who claim themselves to be the hawala givers and this fact was put to the assessee and an opportunity to cross-examine was also given to t...

Commissioner of Cen. Excise Vs. Vac-met Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT393Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein were engaged interalia in the manufacture of Metallic yarn, Rigid Lacquered Polyester Film, Rigid Metallised Polyester Film and Rigid Metallised & Lacquered Polyester film. They claimed the benefit of exemption from payment of duty in terms of Sr. No. 10 of Notification 45/86-CE which grants exemption to Man-made Metallic yarn falling under CET sub-heading 5605.10 subject to the condition that in the manufacture of such yarn, polyester film or metallised polyester film on which appropriate duty of excise duty or additional duty has been paid, is used. The benefit was sought to be denied on the ground that the man made metallic yarn was manufactured out of metallised and lacquered polyester film which was not covered under the Notification. Therefore, show cause notice dated 28.2.94 was issued to both the respondents proposing recovery of duty of Rs. 1,44,01,699.44 (against M/s. Vac Met Corporation (P) Ltd. and Rs. 1,00...

Commissioner of Cen. Excise Vs. Haldyn Glass Ltd., Janta Glass

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeals of the Revenue arise out of the common adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The brief facts are that M/s. Haldyn Glass Ltd. were engaged in the manufacture of glass bottles falling under Chapter Heading 7007.90 and filing price lists declaring sales to industrial consumer and wholesale dealers in terms of contracts. The prices were declared in proforma II, meant for sale to independent buyers. The jurisdictional Asstt.Commissioner noticed that the prices for sale of the goods of M/s.Janta Glass Works, M/s. 'J' Traders and M/s. 'J' Foundation were on lower side compared to prices for the sale of like goods to other customers. Therefore, show cause notice dated 7.2.89 was issued proposing revision of declared assessable value in the case of 'J' group of concerns at par with other customers and proposing recovery of differential duty. By the order dated 25.4.89 the...

Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 64,72,952/- and penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot. The demand has been confirmed as a result of holding that the applicants herein are required to pay an amount equal to 8% of the total price charged by them for sale of cement without making any deduction from the price charged by them from their customers on account of: iii. the 8% reversal amounts as they had cleared cement at nil rate of duty for the purpose of relief and rehabilitation of earth quake affected areas of Gujarat and availed Cenvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods which was not permissible.2. The contention of the applicants is that in the absence of machinery provisions in the Central Excise Act, 1944 or the Rules for the recovery of 8% of the price of the exempted final product on its clearance, the said amount if not deducted, cannot be recovered. In support of this co...

Sterlite Optical Technologies Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty amount of Rs. 38,68,582/- (equal to the duty demand which has been already paid by the applicants) under Section 11AC and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed upon the Sr. Officer Commercial of the applicants, we found that it is possible to hear and decide the appeals themselves at this stage with the consent of both sides. We, therefore, do so after waiving the pre-deposit of penalties.2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee received back a particular quantity of finished goods viz. optical fibre during he period 2.7.2001 to 18.10.2001. they availed Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,35,65,335/- in respect of the duty involved on the above gods in terms of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules 2001. Out of this quantity received, the consumed a certain quantity in their factory for the manufacture of cables and on balance quantity, they have carried out the process of rewinding and subsequently ...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Amrutbhai Vasudevbhai Patel

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT222Tri(Mum.)bai

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 Section 74 under Gold (Control) Act, 1968 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 witnesses during the adjud...