Mumbai Court September 2003 Judgments

Jal Hi Power Petro Chem Ltd., Shri Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded below, we waive the pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 4,06,32,644/- confirmed against the appellant company and penalty of equal amount imposed along with penalties of Rs. 50 lakhs and 25 lakhs imposed on its Managing Director and Shri Dinesh G. Patil, Director (Technical) respectively and proceed to hear and decide the appeals themselves with the consent of both sides. The issue in dispute relates to classification of the impugned intermediate goods viz. Fractional Distillates under CET sub-heading 2710.13, although it has not been established that the same is suitable for use as fuel. The details of comparable goods on the basis of which the goods in dispute have been classified, has also not been furnished to the appellants.2. On hearing both sides, we find that in an identical situation in the case of M/s. Avani Petrochem Ltd., the Tribunal by its order No.C.I/2083 to 2086/WZB/2003 dated 15/9/03 has remanded the case for readjudication by the Adjudicating Commissi...

Meena Polysacks Pvt. Ltd., Pranav Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 4,70,528, Rs. 5,74,125, Rs. 4,52,663 and Rs. 4,42,312 confirmed against M/s. Amit Polysacks Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Amen Polysacks Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Meena Polysacks Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Pranav Polysacks Pvt. Ltd. under Section 11A along with equal amounts of penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and interest under Section 11AB of the same Act arose out of the order of the Commission of Central Excise, Rajkot. In the impugned order of the Commissioner held that the price at which goods are sold by M/s. Bardanwala Plastics Ltd. to his buyers should be treated as assessable value even when the above four mentioned Units cleared the goods on payment of duty, as the transaction between them and M/s. Bardanwala Plastics are related party transaction. The Commissioner while adjudicating case invoked the extended period of limitation.2. The applicants argued that extended period is not invokable as all the facts were within the...

Vakharia Traders and Biren Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application by Vikharia Traders is f or waiver of deposit of duty totalling Rs. 1,86,995/- and Rs. 2 lakhs and application by Biren Harishchandra Vakharia, the partner, is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 25,000/-.2. The notice issued to the applicant proposed to demand duty on two counts. The first of Rs. 18,965/- related to finished processed textiles in the factory of the assessee which had not been entered in the RG1 register. The contention of the representative of the applicant is that the goods were production of the same day and that in any event duty is not payable on it prior to their removal. The other demand for duty of Rs. 1,68,030/- is based solely on the admission made by Biren Vakharia in his statement before the officer in which he has accepted removal of 27 consignments on which duty payable amounts to Rs. 168030/-. He contends that Vakharia's statement is clearly not voluntary or true. There is not a word in it saying the dates on which the goods were ...

Ratnamani Metals and Tubes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant was entitled to take modvat credit of the duty shown to have been paid on the inputs on the basis of what is described as an "extra" copy of the invoice, i.e. other than original/duplicate which it issued more than six months prior to take of credit.2. The counsel for the appellant contends that the credit was taken on the extra copy because the duplicate was lost in transit and the original also not traceable. He says that the delay in taking credit was the inputs were sent to the job worker and the job worker delayed in sending back the goods to the appellant.3. Rule 52A provides for issue of an invoice in two copies original and duplicate copy. There is no provision in law, for taking credit on such "extra" copies of invoice. Apart from that Sub-rule (2A) of Rule 57G prohibited in taking credit beyond six months from the date of issue of duty paying document. The contention of the appellant does not apply in ...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Gangaram P. Kerkar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC10

Whether the stay application of the Revenue is required to be rejected as proposed by Member (J).2. I have perused the Order passed by the Hon'ble Member (J) as well as the order passed by the Hon'ble Member (T).3. Shri M.K. Gupta, Ld. JCDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue. He reiterated the order passed by the Hon'ble Member (T). The Ld. JCDR also reiterated the Revenue's Order of the Board dated 22.1.2003. He particularly drew my attention to para 3 thereof, which is reproduced as under:- 3. The aforesaid findings thus prima-facie indicated that the said car was unauthorisedly imported in contravention of the restriction imposed under Import Trade Control Order Public Notice No. 3 (RE-2000) 1997-02 date 31.3.2000 by Shri Aditya Singh in the name of Shri Gangaram Kerkar by resorting to hawala payment and that the said car had been shipped to India by M/s. Nirvana Trading Company, Dubai who were the importers of rags at Dubai exported by M/s. Quality Apparels Pvt. Ltd., of Shri Adity...

Jai Jawan Jai Kisan Sahakari Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT332Tri(Mum.)bai

1. We have heard both sides. The appellants requested for permission to store molasses in kutcha pits as their steel tank was full. The Commissioner allowed them to store molasses in kutcha pits on the condition of payment of Central Excise duty. However, the appellants removed the molasses for storage in kutcha pits but without payment of duty. The lower authorities have confirmed the duty demand and the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty to Rs. 1,000/- in each case. Shri K.P. Joshi, learned advocate for the appellants states that the permission to remove molasses should not have been made conditional neither under Rule 49 nor under Rule 173H which has been quoted in the Commissioner's letter. He has cited the following decision in support of his contention:-Shri Dudhganga-Vedganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Twelve Other Sakhar Karkhanas and Ors. v. CCE, Pune & Aurangabad - 1987 (29) ELT 22 (Tribunal).Purna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad - 199...

KevIn Engg Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT268Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appeal taken up for disposal after waiving deposit and after hearing the departmental representative and considering the submissions filed by the applicant.3. The notice issued to the appellant proposed to recover duty short paid by it during the financial year April 1997 and March 1998. The basis for the demand was that the applicant had not correctly calculated the value of clearances for the purpose of availing of the exemption contained in notification 7/97. The assessee contended in reply that there was no short payment of duty. It had not included in the value of clearance, value of goods exported and the value of the goods resold. The Assistant Commissioner found that the value of resale has not been established and, but accepted the appellant's contention with regard to the value of export clearances to the extent that proof of export of goods available with the jurisdictional range office. He therefore confirmed the demand for Rs. 94,106/- out of the total demand of Rs. 11...

Anil S. Gore Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of It

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)272ITR53(Mum.)

1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against CIT's order dated 29-3-1996 passed under Section 263 of the I.T.Act. 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax was not justified in usurping Jurisdiction Under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax was not justified in enhancing the total income as determined by the Assessing Officer by Rs. 73,593/- by treating the capital gain on sale of units as short term capital gain instead of as long term capital gain as returned by your Appellant." 3. The assessment in this case was completed by the AO Under Section 143(3) on 31-1-94 determining the assessee's total income at Rs. 5,01,740/-. On the perusal of records, it was noted by the CIT that the assessee had disclosed long term capital gains of Rs. 42,395/- on the sale of units of UTI and in the assessment completed Under Section 143(3), the long term c...

Mahadev Mahantappa Patil Vs. Ahmed Usman Sayyed

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR91; 2004(2)BomCR612

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the Respondent waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. In a suit instituted in 1984, a decree for eviction was passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Solapur on 30th April 1997 under Section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The ground for eviction was that the tenant had committed an act contrary to the provisions of Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, by not utilising the premises for the purpose for which they have been let out. The judgment and order of the Learned Trial Judge has been affirmed by the Additional District Judge at Solapur on 2nd January 2003.3. The admitted fact is that under a rent note executed on 20th July, 1982, the premises were let out for being used for residential purposes. The suit was instituted in 1984 and in paragraph 6 of the Plaint, the landlord pleaded that approximately one year pri...

Chirantan Mahendra Shukla Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(165)ELT271(Bom)

ORDER1. Heard. Rule returnable forthwith. Petition is taken up for final hearing by consent of the parties.2. This petition is directed against the order dated 18-6-2003 passed by the Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai ('CEGAT' for short), refusing to condone delay in 2 appeals bearing Appeal Nos. C/43 and 44 of 2003, holding that no sufficient cause has been shown for condoning delay in presenting appeals.3. Petitioner claims to be a person who is operating as regular Custom House Clearing Agents under the name and style of M/s. Neptune Clearing Agency. On 13-4-1998 petitioner's CHA Licence had been suspended by order dated 13-4-1998 in a case of tampering with the documents of Bills of Entry by changing duty rates and violation of Regulations 14(1), 20(7) and 21(c) of the CHALR, 1984. However, on 16-10-1998 petitioner's licence was restored as per directions of the CEGAT contained order dated 16-10-1998 passed in the appeal. Final decisi...