Mumbai Court July 2003 Judgments

Mahendra Steel Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 4,21,005 (being the balance duty) confirmed upon the goods imported by the applicants herein and the penalty of Rs. 6,49,005 arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs who has confirmed the duty demand on the ground that H.R.S.S. plates, coils and S.S.welded pipes imported by the applicants herein were of prima quality which have been mis-declared as defective. The evidence inter-alia on the basis of which the finding that the goods are prime quality has been arrived at consisted of statements of the importer chemical test report and supplier's letter dated 10.7.99 to the effect that the goods supplied were of prime quality.2. It is the submission of the applicants herein represented by their counsel that the statement relied upon has bene immediately retracted and therefore, it cannot be relied upon, that prime quality or defective had not been opined by the Chemical Examiner and the letter of the supplier does not relat...

E. Merck (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT954Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is required to reverse credit taken by it under Rule 57A of the duty paid on inputs that it used in the manufacture of medicaments which it sought to destroy on the ground that there is no market available for them. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Assistant Commissioner has communicated to the assessee, the order of the Commissioner that permission to destroy the goods under Rule 49 is granted subject to credit being reversed.2. The appellant is absent and is requested for decision on the basis of its submission.3. I have considered these and have heard the departmental representative.4. While permitting destruction of the goods under Rule 49, the Commissioner has accepted that they are unfit for use for marketing. In that event, it would follow that the goods are in the nature of waste, which arose in the course of manufacture of the final product.Therefore, by application of Rule 57D, credit was not r...

Hemtex Syntetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(111)LC740Tri(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 same...

Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT1080Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The prayer in the present stay application was to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 83,72,919/- and personal penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs.2. Arguing on the stay petition, Shri V.S. Nankani, learned Advocate, submits that view the impugned order passed by the Commissioner in de novo proceedings, modvat credit has been disallowed to them on the ground that they were not entitled to the benefit in respect of the Customs duty free import of inputs under erstwhile Notification No.203/92-Cus dated 19.5.1992 and under Notification No. 204/92-Cus dated 20.5.1992 inasmuch as one of the relevant conditions for VABAL scheme was that the importer could not avail benefit of modvat credit of CVD paid on the imported inputs. He submits that the Tribunal had earlier remanded the matter to the Commissioner vide its order No.2129-30/WZB/1998 dated 23.9.1998, after considering the appellants' contention that they have all the relevant documentary evidence to show that the...

Devang R. Vora and K.D. Bhatt Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. By its orders passed on 3.11.1999, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner imposing penalty under Section 112 of the Act on Devang Vora and K.D. Bhatt, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for adjudication in accordance with law. The order of the Commissioner passed on 31.10.2002 in pursuance of this order is in appeal before us.3. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that he had not been given an opportunity of hearing and this contention after examination of the facts by us, and on hearing both sides, has to be accepted. The first notice received by the appellants was for a hearing schedule on 15th or 16th May, 2002 at their convenience. The Commissioner apparently, it is stated, was not available on these dates. The matter was next fixed for hearing on 14th of June. By letter written on 11.6.2002, the appellant asked for cross examination of the officials to specify and to supply some documents on the next hearing on 14th June. It is stated that...

Manikgarh Cement Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT1120Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri J.C. Patel, learned Advocate, argued on the following three issues. (i) Whether the items used in the mines which are situated outside the appellants' factory premises are eligible for modvat credit as capital goods; (ii) Whether the cement and steel used for civil construction are entitled to modvat credit as capital goods; and (iii) Whether welding electrodes used for repairing and remaking old worn out machine parts can be considered as capital goods in terms of the provisions of Rule 57Q.3. As regards the first issue as to whether the capital goods used in the mines situated outside the factory premises, the appellants have contended that minies are owned by them and is an extension of their cement manufacturing factory. The same would be includable in the definition of "factory" inasmuch as mining was an inevitable and necessary compliment to the cement industry. For the above proposition, they have relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Finolex Industries Ltd...

Bharat B. Patel, Snehal B. Patel Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. By the above applications, the applicants seek modification of stay order No. C.I/754-63/WZB/2002 dated 7.3.02 directing pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 1 Crore and Rs. 66 lakhs by Shri B.B. Patel and Shri Snehal B. Patel respectively (Directors of M/s. Hytaisum Magnetic Ltd. ) and Rs. 16 lakhs by Shri Vishnu Patel, Excise Clerk of the company.3. By the impugned order challenged in the appeals, the Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed a duty demand of approximately Rs. 9 crores against M/s. Hytaisun Magnatics Ltd. being the Central Excise Duty evaded by them by procuring raw materials under forged CT.3 certificates and diverting the same to the open market without re-warehousing and without utilising the same in the manufacture of video magnetic tapes and cassettes for fulfillment of export obligation as per Notification No. 1/95 CE dated 4.1.95 and Notfn.No. 13/81 Cus dated 9.2.81. He also confirmed Customs duty of Rs. 15,18,671/-. He also imposed a penalty of over Rs. 9 crores ...

American Bureau of Shipping Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Bom)168; [2003]263ITR590(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, two questions of law have been referred to us for our opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning assessment year 1977-78.'1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that even if there is no positive 'average adjusted total income' under Explanation (ii) to Section 44C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the provisions of Clause (a) of Section 44C are applicable and, consequently, no deduction was allowable ? 2. Whether in the absence of positive income under Clause (a) of Section 44C of the Income-tax Act, head office expenses would be allowed in accordance with the lower limits under Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 44C of the Income-tax Act ignoring Clause (a) ?' Facts :2. The assessee is a shipping consultant and it also supervises ship repairs. The accounting year, relevant to the assessment year in question, was the calendar year 1976. In the assessment proceedings, the assessee challenged the treatment of the ...

Sudha D/O Bhaskarrao Saikhede Vs. Yashodabai Shikshan Sanstha and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004(101)FLR106]; 2003(4)MhLj659

A.P. Deshpande, J.1. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard byconsent of the parties.2. The petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher in respondent No. 2School which is administered and managed by the respondent No. 1 Society. It isan admitted position that the petitioner is a permanent assistant teacher and herservice conditions are regulated by the provisions of the Maharashtra Employeesof Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Rulesmade thereunder.3. The respondent No. 1 after serving a statement of allegations, called forexplanation of the petitioner to the same and as the explanation was not found tobe satisfactory, proceeded to constitute an Inquiry Committee to enquire into thealleged acts of misconduct. The constitution of the Inquiry Committee isregulated by Rule 36 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools(Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 36 provides that theInquiry Committee shall comprise of i) a nominee of t...

Caprihans India Ltd. Vs. Tarun Seem, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(6)BomCR559; (2003)185CTR(Bom)157; [2004]266ITR566(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service.2. By consent, writ petition is taken up for final hearing.3. Heard learned counsel on both sides. In this case, arguments were heard by us on 24th July, 2003. After hearing the arguments, the following order was passed :'For the reasons to be given subsequently rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a) with no order as to costs.'4. Accordingly, we propose to give reasons for allowing the petition. Reasons 5. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner seeks to challenge impugned notice dt. 22nd Jan., 2003 issued under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 for accounting year ending 31st March, 1997, corresponding to the relevant asst. yr. 1997-98.Facts 6. Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of PVC sheets and industrial laminates. The petitioner filed its return of income for the asst. yr. 1997-98. This was on 28th Nov., 1997. The return was initially processed under Section 143(1)(a). This w...