Mumbai Court October 2004 Judgments

Bhagat Exports, K.S. Chasmawala, Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-II.2. Briefly the facts are that M/s. Kiran Syntex Ltd. is a manufacturer of twisted textvirised yarn. On physical verification of the stock of finished goods and raw materials lying at the premises, the officers found stocks of POY in packed condition, POY on machine, texturised yarn, PFY A-grade made in Korea, bright PFY and yarn on TFO machines.Comparison of the stock found was made with the balance shown in statutory records. The officers also found 30 cartons of imported PFY A-grade made in Indonesia, totally weighing 15,120 kgs. valued at Rs. 10,58,400/-. No import documents supporting the said goods were produced. The said goods were seized under the Customs Act. During the course of investigation, Shri J.M. Godiwala, director of M/s. Sudarshan Tex Prints (P) Ltd., stated that they had purchased the said imported yarn through a yarn broker -whose office is situated in Surat and that the said br...

Cce Vs. Top Detective and Security

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT363Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal by Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals. The matter pertains to payment of Service Tax. The Respondent runs a detective service agency. The service rendered by him falls under `Security Service' and such service is liable to Service Tax.2. The respondent did not file a return within the stipulated period and therefore t was held that he contravened the provisions of Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 and rendered himself liable to penal action under Section 77 of the said Act. A sum of Rs. 10,06,329/- towards interest on delayed payment of tax (the respondent paid Rs. 2,64,851/- towards interest even before the adjudication order was passed that is why the balance of Rs. 10,06,329/- was to be paid) was also held payable. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that penalty under Section 76 & 77 is not imposable when the entire tax liability was discharged; that there is no deliberate contravention of law requiring stringent penal action and ...

Rucha Processors Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Stay application arose out of the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) passed on 06/02/2004 in respect of different appeals filed before him.2. Stay application No. E/3/1348 and 1349/04 arises out of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) - No. YPP/70-71/CRT/2004 issued on 06/02/04 in which the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time barred.He observed that the Order-in-Original against which the appeal was preferred was decided on 04/01/2000 whereas the appeal was preferred on 04/02/2004. He rejected the appellant's plea before him that they received the Order-in-Original only on 25/12/2003. The Commissioner held that the appellants before him received the Order-in-Original on 28/04/2000 itself.3. The applicants state before me that they have not received the order of the lower original authority on 08/04/2000 but got it on 23/12/2003 when they had written a letter to the Superintendent of Central Excise in charge. No such communication was filed before me. The claim ...

Cce Vs. Vidyut Metallic Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(119)LC86Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Revenue's appeal was originally heard on 12.4.2004. The decision of the Bench consisting of a Single Member was pronounced on the same day rejecting the appeal of the Revenue. However no written order was issued.2. The Jt. CDR in his letter dated 27.4.2004 addressed to the Assistant Registrar, requested him to have the letter put up to the Member for re-listing the matter as the order pronounced did not take into consideration settled legal positions. The Member re-listed the appeal.3. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the Respondent argued that since the decision of the Bench was already announced, the letter of the Jt. CDR be treated as if it is a ROM and dealt with accordingly. With the consent of both parties the letter dated 27.4.2004 was converted into an ROM and after admitting it, the appeal is taken up for disposal.5. Revenue's contention is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in allowing Modvat credit availed on HSD, which is captively consumed for the generation of el...

Suditi Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT72Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The prayer in the application is to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 33,77,855/- and of Rs. 6,34,399/-.The said demand has been confirmed against the appellant by denying them the benefit of exemption notification no. 14/2000 (Sr. No. 12) which grants exemption to knitted or crocheted fabrics of cotton, subject to any process, subject to the fulfilment of the condition 3 is to the notification. Condition no. 3 to the following effect: "3. If made from knitted or crocheted textile fabrics of cotton, whether or not processed, on which the appropriate duty of excise leviable under the First Schedule to the said Central Excise Tariff Act and the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, read with any notification for the time being in force, or the additional duty of customs leviable under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as the case may be, has been paid and no credit of the duty paid on inputs or capital goods has been ta...

Manoj Kumar Gupta Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)100TTJ(Mum.)588

1. This is an assessee's appeal directed against the order of learned CIT (A) XXIII, Mumbai, dt. 5th Dec., 2000 for block period 1st April, 1987 to 16th Sept., 1997. Ground No. 1 of the appeal is not pressed; and hence, dismissed as not pressed. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of the debit of the net representative liability amounting to Rs. 9,81,512 in parties' suspense account; thus increasing the total income for the block period by this amount. He has done this despite the fact that the AO had clearly admitted about the correctness of the liability and about the same having been worked out from the seized material itself (please refer line 11 of the last para of page No. 8 and line 4 on the first para of p. 9 of the AO in this regard.) 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of brokerage of iron and steel scrap and the assessee procures materials from various consignors i.e., ship-breakers for and on beh...

Nat West Securities B.V. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)1SOT503(Mum.)

-The assessee in this appeal is a non-resident company. It is incorporated in Netherlands. We are concerned with the assessment year 2000-2001 for which the previous year ended on 31-3-2000.The first ground in the appeal relates to the validity of the reassessment made under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee filed a return of income on 19-7-2000 declaring total income of Rs. NIL and claiming a refund. The refund arose because in respect of certain payments made to the assessee tax was deducted at the rate of 20% as per certificate issued under section 197. The rate of tax was later amended to 10%. After filing the return the assessee kept pursuing the refund by number of letters written to the assessing officer, which are complied as item numbers 11 to 15 of the Paper Book. These are letters written to the CIT as well as the assessing officer for early processing of the return and release of refund. There is some dispute as to whether the return ...

A.P.L. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the D.C.i.T., Range 8(1)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)97TTJ(Mum.)187

2. This is assessee's appeal arises from the order dated 28.3.2003 of CIT(A)-VIII, Mumbai. The first issue pertains to confirmation by the ld. CIT(A) of an addition of Rs. 50,60,127/- made by the AO by disallowing expenditure incurred on payment of 'speed money' to the workers of Port Trust. The relevant facts may first be stated. The assessee company is the Indian Agents for APL Shipping Lines, which is a fully owned company of Neptune Orient Lines Ltd. (NOL). The assessee company was incorporated on 13.11.92 and commenced business on 7.12.92 in the name of India Trident Maritime (India) Pvt. Ltd. with share holding to the extent of 51% held by ITS Investments Pvt. Ltd. and to the extent of 49% by Mr. V.S. Puri on behalf of Samrat group.Subsequently, the name of the assessee company was changed to NOL (India) Pvt. Ltd. and on 22.12.97, it was renamed as APL(I) Pvt. Ltd. after the takeover of APL Group by NOL group on 13.4.97. It may be mentioned that NOL group, in terms of share hold...

Air India Ltd. Vs. Indian Pilots Guild and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR405; [2005(105)FLR645]; 2005(1)MhLj850

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The employer - Air India is aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), 2nd respondent herein, dated 13th September, 2004. By the said order the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) disposed of the application made by the respondent Union for recognition of its office bearers, as 'protected workmen' under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. By the impugned order the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) was pleased to allow the application moved by the petitioners.2. Two office bearers of the respondent No. 1 were granted status of protected workmen for the year 2003 - 2004. Respondent No. 1 by letter dated 19th January, 2004, forwarded the names of Capt. Vikrant Sansare, General Secretary of the Union at serial No. 1 and Capt. V. Kooner, Vice President of the Union, at serial No. 2, as the workmen to be accorded the status of 'Protected Workmen' for the period 2004 to 2005, under Section 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Ac...

Keshao S/O Kawadu Maral and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR268; 2005(1)MhLj1059

S.U. Kamdar, J. 1. C.A. No. 5922 of 2004 : By the present civil application, the applicants/respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are seeking early disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal. Civil Application is granted. Appeal is taken up hearing forthwith.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The present appeal is arising out of the order dated 10th March, 1992 passed by the Single Judge. By the impugned order dated 10th March, 1992, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition as abated. According to the learned Single Judge, there was delay in filing the application for bringing legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 3 on record and in view thereof, application for condonation of delay has been refused and the petition has been dismissed.3. The main petition was filed challenging the order dated 4th July, 1991 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Appeal No. l/B-109/89 confirming the order dated 10th September, 2004 passed by the Tahsildar. Some of the facts of the present case a...