Mumbai Court December 2004 Judgments

indapur Ssk Ltd. and anr. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(119)LC388Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The appellants have complied with the pre-deposit order by depositing a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In this application, the appellant raised a doubt regarding his status to be as to whether he is service provider or service receiver, in view of the discrepancy raised in the Show Cause Notice and in the Order-in-Appeal about the status.Further, he pointed out that in the Stay Order the period of Service Tax paid relates to July 97 to October 98, but it is shown as July 97 to June 98.2. All the above aspects can be decided at the time of hearing of the appeal. There is no point to decide the status of the appellant at this stage. The period in question of Service Tax is also can be looked into at the time of disposal of the appeal. With this observation, the modification application is closed. List the appeal in regular course....

Rina Dyeing and Printing Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. This an application for grant of Stay Order and to dispense with the pre-deposit order and its recovery from the operation of the impugned order.2. In an adjudication made by the Addl. Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, headquarter Surat, confirmed the additional duty of Central Excise amounting Rs. 5,29,845/- on illicitly cleared MMF(P)admeasuring 3,92,083.00 Lmtrs valued at Rs. 61,27,146/- by the appellant unit. The Order-in-Original has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Surat. It may be mentioned that the appellant's unit is engaged in manufacturing fabrics having factory at Surat. They also do job work on the grey fabrics supplied by other parties. On 30.04.1993, the Central Excise officers raided the Mills and found the following discrepancies:- 1) There was excess stock of fabrics not accounted in records measuring 22,731 mtrs. It was also seized (but not the subject matter of the appeal). 2) 26 challans of gray fabrics, ...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. K.M. Chaudhari and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR884

Rebello F.I., J.1. The respondents on account of failure by the petitioners to grant them promotion had sought reference. An award came to be passed in favour of the respondents dated 20-1-1995. The award was in the following terms:'1. The management of Western Railway, Bombay are not justified ini) in not including the names of 28 khalasis Helpers working under SEF (TRS) Bombay Central in the seniority list issued vide No. E.L.T. 1030-1-6(TRS) dated 16-7-88 and issued vide No. E.L.T. 1030-1-6(TRS) dated 16-7-1988 andii) in not including the names of 28 khalasi helpers in the list of eligible candidates for 'Dastkari Pariksha' issued by the Divisional Railway Manager vide No. ELT-1130-1 (TRC) dated 13-7-88.2. The management is directed to revise the seniority list based on promotion or upgradation as on 1-1--84,2-A. The management is also directed to give promotions to these workers as per the seniority to skilled category.3. The management is also directed to give them all the consequ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Arm Engineers

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Bom)336; [2005]279ITR255(Bom)

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This is an appeal by the Revenue, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Goa, and it raises the following substantial question of law for our decision and it recites the following substantial question of law for our decision :'Whether the lower appellate forums committed an error in law in making applicable the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Brij Bhushan Lal Parduman Kumar v. CIT : [1978]115ITR524(SC) . In the instant case wherein the contractee is a co-operative sugar factory and not a Government Department/establishment and the clause of the contract had provided an option to the contractor/assessee to procure the material in case the contractee failed to do so and also the debit notes for an amount of Rs. 1,03,61,602 were made available.' 2. The assessee had filed return of income on December 31, 1996, and the same was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of...

Ronald Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT213Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides, it transpires that the main appeal could be disposed off, at this stage. We take up the same for disposal, after waiver of pre-deposit requirement.2. Appellants, a manufacture of P & P medicaments is working under CENVAT Scheme & availing benefit of Notification No. 8/2000-CE., dated 1-3-2000. They were maintaining accounts/inventory for goods exported under Bond. They accumulated CENVAT credit of Rs. 60,217.00 which was utilized towards payment of duty on goods cleared for home consumption.This was denied by the lower authorities on the grounds that the accumulated CENVAT credit could not be used to debit duty on goods manufactured on behalf of loan license holders and they had not declared the intention to avail benefit of exemption & simultaneously the benefit of CENVAT.3. It is seen from C.B.E.C. instructions Circular No. 323/39/97-CX., dated 14-7-97 that the Board approves the simultaneous availment of exemption under Notification No. 16/9...

Premier Art Silk Processors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT182Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. M/s. Premier Art Silk Processors Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the processing of Grey MMF. The appellant filed refund claim of Rs. 6,30,676/- relating to appropriation of Bank Guarantee in lieu of confiscation. The appellant was served a Show Cause Notice for rejection of the said refund claim and the case was adjudicated by the Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, Div.-III, Surat-I under its O.I.O.dated 13.06.2002, wherein he rejected the refund claim. Thereupon, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Surat. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed in his impugned order as follows:- "In view of above, when the order of appropriation of Bank Guarantee is set aside by appellate authority, the appellant is automatically entitled to go back the amount of bank guarantee, but the time limit of six months will be computed from the date of issue of such order of appellate authority has passed the order of set aside the appropria...

indigo Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT105Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the valuation of 82 old and used photocopying machines imported by the appellant with a declared value as Rs. 9,01,600/-. In as much as the appellant had not produced the Chartered Engineer's Certificate, the goods were examined at first check basis under DC (Docks) supervision and it was suspected that the value declared by the appellant was on the higher side. It was also found that the photocopying machines were imported without a licence whereas the same required a valid specific licence. Based upon the examination and the computer print outs, proceedings were initiated against the appellant for enhancement of the value, confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty.2. Vide his impugned order, Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai has enhanced the value of 82 photocopying machines to Rs. 29,06,826.25. The goods have also been confiscated with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of the redemption fine to 8.10 lakh...

Shabnam Synthetics and Shri Rafia Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT264Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. This is an application for granting Stay Order from implementation of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad, and to dispense with the pre-deposit order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.2. M/s. Shabnam Synthetics has two units, viz. Unit 2 and 3 (100% EOU) situated at Block No. 110/Paiki-H, Palod, Kim, Dist. Surat. It is engaged in the manufacture of twisted yarn and grey man-made fabrics classifiable under Chapter 54 of the Central Excise and Customs Tariff.On receipt of intelligence report, the officers of Preventive Unit of the Customs Division, Surat, kept a watch on the factory premises on 09.01.2002 for the clearance of imported yarn without cover of any duty paying supporting documents from the said unit and subsequently, followed and intercepted one loaded truck at National Highway No. 8 near Saber Hotel, Palsana, Dist. Surat. They have enquired the driver of the truck about the goods and also recorded his ...

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC150

1. These appeals are taken up for disposal and are being disposed of by this common. a) duties and penalties have been imposed in this case on a manufacturer of P and P medicament on the grounds that the appellants have cleared their finished products namely medicaments packed in commercial sale pack on payment of duty at prices charged from their wholesale dealers. However, physician samples of the same brand of medicament were cleared by the appellants in different i.e. smaller quantity packing, by paying duty on such physician sample packs, at prices lower than the pro rata price at which duty were paid for the packages removed as commercial medicament for sale to the wholesale dealers. b) The physician samples in similar packs so removed were also sold to the wholesale dealers, but the prices were much lower when compared the pro rata price. The revenue authorities have confirmed this valuation as applied to physician samples to be incorrect and have redetermined the values by pro...

Anant R. Thakore Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)5SOT298(Mum.)

This appeal has been filed by the assessee directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 29-10-2002 for block period from 1-4-1989 to 11-1-2000. Following grounds of appeal are taken by the assessee : Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-XX, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commissioner (Appeals)'), the appellant begs to present the appeal to the Honourable Tribunal on following grounds amongst others which are in alternative and without prejudice to each other.1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine on the ground that the appellant has not paid full self-assessment tax on block return of income and hence the appeal cannot be admitted as per provisions of section 249(4)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2.1 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that, the appellant for assessment year 1991-92, having not filed his return of income under section 139, the share of income from M/s. Anant &am...