Mumbai Court July 2003 Judgments

Cit Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (ibps)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN386(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J. This reference is made at the instance of the revenue under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under which following three questions have been referred to us for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the assessing officer to allow depreciation on the assets the cost of which has been fully allowed as application of income under section 11 in the past years?2. Without prejudice to the ground No. 1, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in directing the assessing officer to allow depreciation of Rs. 49,453 on assets received on transfer, when the assessee had not incurred the cost of acquiring the assets3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law forward the deficit of earlier year and set it off against the surplus of subsequent years when the same was not allowable in the ca...

Jyoti Structures Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC214

1.The question for consideration in this appeal is whether in order for the appellant to obtain refund of duty paid by it in excess, it is required to establish as provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Act that incidence of duty which is available as refund has not been passed to any other person. The refund arose in the following manner. The appellant had filed on 19-3-1995 a classification list in which it claimed total exemption from duty available in notification 57/95 to parts of windmills (manufactured). Before the classification list was approved, the appellant received a letter from the Superintendent asking it to pay duty on the goods at 15% ad valorem until the classification is approved finally. While finally approving the classification, the Assistant Commissioner, on 26-4-1995 accepted the entitlement to the exemption. The appellant thereupon filed the claim of refund of the duty paid by it on the goods cleared by it between 19-3-1995 and 11-4-1995. While the ...

Loctite India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT778Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration of this appeal is whether the sealants imported by the appellants were "consumer goods" as defined in the import policy in forced at relevant time and therefore required a licence for their importation. In order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has found that a licence was required, and in its absence, ordered confiscation of the goods under Clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act, with an option to redeem them on payment of fine.2. The appellant is absent and un-represented despite notice. I have read the memorandum of appeal and other papers, and heard the departmental representative.3. The goods consist of epoxy based sealants. It is the appellant's contention that they have only industrial application, and hence could not satisfy the requirements contained in the definition of "consumer goods" that they can directly satisfy a human need without further processing. Among the typical applications cited in the appeal for the sealants ...

Galaxy Agrico Exports Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT904Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri Paresh Seth, learned advocate submitted that as directed by the Tribunal the appellants M/s. Galaxy Agrico Exports Ltd. have deposited Rs. 20,000/-. He further requested that as the issue involved is very simple one the appeal may also be herd. The learned D.R. does not have any objection. Accordingly, I take up the appeal itself for disposal.2. The learned advocate submitted that the appellants manufacture spades, shovels etc. out of rerolled material in respect of which they availed of deemed credit under Notification No. 58/97-CE (N.T.) dated 30.08.1997; that the deemed modvat credit has been dis-allowed to them on the ground that the condition specified in paragraph 4 of the Notification has not been satisfied as payment has not been issued in the name of the supplier. He further submitted that paragraph 4 of the notification provides that the provision of notification No. 58/97 shall apply to only those inputs which have been received directly by the manufacturer of the f...

Hemtex Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT1043Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Hemtex Synthetics Pvt. ltd. the issue involved is whether MODVAT Credit of the duty paid on Anti-static Oil is available to them.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the appellants. In fact the notice sent to them has been received back from the Postal Authorities. I, therefore, heard Shri H. Kothikar, learned S.D.R., and perused the records.3. The Modvat credit has been disallowed to the Appellants on the ground that the Appellants had declared in their MODVAT declaration "Blended Lubricating Oil" falling under Heading No. 27.10 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act whereas they had brought the inputs which have been declared by the supplier as "Antistatic Oil" falling under Sub-heading 2710.90. The Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the disallowance of modvat credit on the ground that Heading 27.10 of the Tariff covers a No. of products and if the benefit of modvat credit is sought on a specific product, the sam...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Jam Shri Ranjit Singhji Spg. and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT786Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) cites the provision of Chapter 55 of the tariff in order to say that winding of the cone is a process of manufacture and therefore credit could be taken of the duty paid on the double yarn that the assessee received and mounted on to cone, which it exported.2. The contention in the appeal that such winding does not amount to manufacture is therefore cleaaly incorrect....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Babu Textile Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT215Tri(Mum.)bai

In this Appeal, Revenue is challenging the Order-in-Appeal No. 474/2000 dated 13/06/2002 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for verifying the contention of the Appellant, M/s. Babu Textile Industries.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the Respondents nor was there any request for adjournment in spite of notice. I also observe that no one was present on behalf of the Respondent when the appeal was posted for hearing on 21/05/2003. I, therefore, heard Shri H. Kothikar, S.D.R. and perused the records.3. The Respondents had claimed refund of Central Excise duty pursuant to Order-in-Appeal No. 1063/99 dated 30/06/1999 by which the appeal filed by them was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Assistant Commissioner has sanctioned the refund of Rs. 5,395/- but directed the Respondents to take the credit in their RG 23A - Part-II as the duty was initially paid by them by debiting the Modvat Credit Account...

Mine Aid Products Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT213Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the cement capsules that the appellant manufactured. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has classified the product in sub-heading 2502.90 of the tariff. It is the appellant's contention that the goods should be classified in sub-heading 29 rof the same.- Portland cement (including ordinary Portland Cement, Portland Pozzolana Cement and Portland Slag Cement) : 2502.21 - - White cement; whether or not artificially coloured and whether or not with rapid hardening properties 3. The question therefore is really whether the product is Portland cement other than white cement whether or not artificially coloured and whether or not with rapid hardening property and falls in residuary heading.4. It is a composition of the product stated to be as follows. In the affidavit, which has been filed by Vipul Gupta, director of the appellant, that the ordinary Portland cement 70%, high alumina cement 15%, non-f...

The Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT994Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the valuation for the purpose of assessment of the molasses that arose in the appellant's factory in the manufacture of sugar and was captively consumed by it in the manufacture of alcohol during June 1994. The appellant had taken the assessable value of the molasses at Rs. 850 per ton. This value, it is claimed, was based upon the price, was determined by a committee presided over by the Chief Minister of Maharashtra on 11^th October, 1993. The notice issued by the department proposed to take the value at Rs. 2150, this being the highest of the three prices at which the appellant purchased the molasses from other sugar mills during June. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the application by the Asst. Commissioner of these prices as the value. Hence this appeal.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have read the memorandum of appeal and heard the departmental repre...

Demosha Chemicals Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Demosha Chemicals Limited is whether the excise duty is leviable on Spent Sulphuric Acid.2. Shri J.C. Patel, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Sodium Hydrosulphite Acid and other chemicals and avail of Modvat Credit of the duty paid on the inputs; that Oleum, which is a concentrated sulphuric acid, is one of the inputs used in the manufacture of final products; that Oleum, a concentrated sulphuric acid dehydrates sulphur by removing moisture and sulphur trioxide in it reacts with sulphur and spent sulphuric acid, a by product, is obtained; that they were clearing the said spent sulphuric acid without payment of Central Excise duty under valid approved classification list; that it has been clarified in Vadodara commissionerate's Trade Notice No. 171/88 dated 12.9.88 that spent sulphuric acid is not a manufactured product; that the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of duty. The learned Advocate, f...