Mumbai Court December 2004 Judgments

Goa Industrial Products, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(181)ELT222Tri(Mum.)bai

1. All the three appeals are being disposed off by this common order as they arise out of he same impugned orders, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. Duty of Rs. 64.62 lakhs and 7.47 lakhs has been confirmed against M/s Goa Sintered Products Pvt Ltd (herein after referred to as GSP and Goa Industrial Products (herein after referred to GIP) respectively. Vide his impugned order Commissioner has also ordered reversal of Modvat Credit of Rs. 1.55 lakhs, Rs. 3.88 lakhs and Rs. 13.63lakhs or GSP, GIP and Metalloys respectively. Penalty of Rs. 1.05 lakhs, Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 15,000 has been imposed on each of them.2. After healing both sides duly represented by Shri Vipin Jain and Vishal Agarwal Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri Vimlesh Kumar Ld SDR for the Revenue, we find the said demands have been confirmed on various grounds. Ld. Advocate for the appellant has placed on record written submission dealing with the various issues. We propose to deal with the various demand ...

Kalyani Steels Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. By a common order no 8/2000 dated 5.5.2000 the Commissioner of Central Excise Belgaum denied an amount of Rs. 84,64,164 availed as Modvat Credit on capital goods, by the assessee company, appellant in E/1975/00 (herein after referred to a KFIL for short) imposed a penalty of equivalent amount under Rule 57 U(6) with interest under Rule 57U(8) and a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs under Rule 173Q(1) ordered the confiscation of an EOT Crane ladles, DG sets, equipments installed in MRSS (short for Main Recurring Sub Station) and gave an offer to KFIL to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 75 lakhs confiscation of building, machinery etc under Rule 173Q(2) belonging to KFIL was ordered and allowed to be redeemed on fine of Rs. 20 Lakhs. Penalties under Rule 209 A of Rs. 2 lakh each was imposed on the other employees of KFIL who are appellants herein. Hence these appeals no E/1975/2000, E/2260/2000, E/2238/2000, E/2239/2000, E/2240/2000.2. Vide Commissioner order no 7/2000 dated 12.04.200...

Tanna Electronics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC314

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of satellite and cable TV equipments and accessories falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Their factory was searched by the Central Excise Officers on 10.3.99 and as a result of search, duplicate chits, one note book showing cash transactions and other incriminating documents were recovered. The same were seized on the reasonable belief that the entries therein reflected clandestine activities of the appellants. Similarly, the premises of M/s. Moby Enterprises, who were the sole distributors of the appellant company for the State of Maharashtra were also put to search and incriminating documents i.e.duplicate chits, etc. were recovered from their premises.2. In his statements recorded on the spot, Shri M.M. Tanna, partner of the appellants company admitted that the duplicate chits were used for making clandestine deliveries of their product and after accounts were settled within a period of about 15 days, suc...

National Orgawc Chemical Vs. Dy Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)96TTJ(Mum.)765

These two appeals pertain to the same assessee and were heard together.As a matter of convenience, therefore, both of these appeals are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order.None appeared for the, assessee, but we have carefully perused the papers filed by the assessee, and we have also heard the learned CIT (Departmental Representative) appearing for the revenue at considerable length. We have also carefully perused the entire material before us and have duly considered factual matrix of the case as also the applicable legal position.The assessee has raised as many as six grounds of appeal, but, in substance, only grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the payment of CHF 8,000 paid to M/s RCC Registration & Consulting Company Ltd., Switzerland, is covered by the scope of the expression 'fees for included services' under article 12(4) of the Indo-Swiss tax treaty, and is, accordingly, liable to be taxed in India @ 20 per cent of the gross ...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Arthur Anderson and Co.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)94TTJ(Mum.)736

1. These two appeals pertain to the same assessee, involve common issues and were heard together. As a matter of convenience, therefore, both of these appeals are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order.2. We will first take up ITA No. 6192/Mumbai/2004, i.e., Revenue's appeal for the asst. yr. 1997-98. In this appeal, the only grievance raised by the Revenue is as follows : "On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)-XL, Mumbai, has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,66,19,762 being 20 per cent of the expenses of Rs. 8,30,98,810 reimbursed to Arthur Anderson Worldwide Society Co-operative." 3. The material facts giving rise to this litigation before us are like this. The assessee is a chartered accountants firm and is a member of Arthur Anderson Worldwide SC (AWSC, in short), a co-operative company organised under the laws of Switzerland. In the relevant previous year, the assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs. 8,30,93,810 on ...

National Organic Chemical Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)5SOT317(Mum.)

These two appeals pertain to the same assessee and were heard together.As a matter of convenience, therefore, both of these appeals are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order.None appeared for the assessee, but we have carefully perused the papers filed by the assessee, and we have also heard the learned CIT (DR) appearing for the revenue at considerable length. We have also carefully perused the entire material before us and have duly considered factual matrix of the case as also the applicable legal position.The assessee has raised as many as six grounds of appeal, but, in substance, only grievance of the assessee is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the payment of CHF 8,000 paid to M/s.RCC Registration & Consulting Company Limited, Switzerland, is covered by the scope of the expression 'fees for included services' under article 12(4) of the Indo-Swiss Tax Treaty, and is, accordingly, liable to be taxed in India at the rate of 20 per cent of the ...

Satyam Enterprises Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)93ITD606(Mum.)

1. The short and interesting legal issue requiring our adjudication in this case is whether or not the provisions of Section 249(4} of the IT Act, i.e., requirement of paying admitted tax liability before filing the appeal, also extend to an appeal which is directed against the penalty under Section 221 for being an assessee in default in respect of non-payment of the admitted tax liability, i.e., self-assessment tax itself.2. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal before us is as follows. The assessee filed its IT return for the asst. yr. 1996-97 showing a self-assessed tax liability of Rs. 13,68,183, but this admitted tax liability was not paid by the assessee at the time of filing of IT return. On completion of the assessment under Section 143(3), i.e., on 9th Sept., 1997, the AO raised a demand of Rs. 20,20,310. This demand remained unpaid. The assessee issued two post-dated cheques--one for Rs. 10,00,000 and the other for the balance amount of Rs. 10,20,310. These cheques ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Marine Electricals Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT411Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order held as follows. "In the instant case I find that the goods manufactured by the manufacturer M/s Marine Electricals have been supplied to M/s Anderson Marine Pvt Ltd Vasco-d-gama Goa vide all the five invoices referred in the SCN. Alongwith their reply No. 406 UA 4257 dated 28.1.98 to the SCN the assessee has also submitted a letter N. AMPL/ME/05/97/300 dated 13.5.97 Ms Aderson Marines Pvt Ltd Goa the receiver of the goods, wherein the said M/s Aderson Marines Pvt Ltd inter-alia has stated that they are the builders of the vessel for the Indian Navy. From the above said letter it is evident that the goods supplied by the manufacturer is used for building of a "ship" and are, therefore, considered as "Components" only for the construction of Navel Vessel ship. This fact also has not been denied by the manufacturer of the goods. On this aspect there is no dispute either from the manu...

Nandan Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit who has been charged for clearing clandestinely raw material kept in the Bonded Ware House.Duty demands with penalty have been imposed.2. The brief facts relevant for the determination of this matter are that the officers of the department intercepted a tempo at Navsari, Gujarat which was found to be loaded with 100% cotton yam and on enquiry it was revealed that the said tempo was loaded at the premises of the appellant-assessee herein and on verification of the stocks in the premises of the appellant, it was found that certain quantities of polyester filament yarn imported was found short. It was alleged that it was cleared by the appellant clandestinely. Statement of the director of the appellant was recorded and a Show Cause Notice was served which resulted in the order of confiscation of 5554 kgs of imported polyester filament yam totalling (he market value of Rs. 6,66,480/- which were removed without cover of invoice and bonding fo...

Cc Vs. Tararam Prajapati

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue is in appeal against order passed by commissioner of Central Excise vide which he has set aside the order of confiscation of non-notified goods on the ground that onus to prove that smuggled nature of the non-notified goods lies upon the revenue and as the revenue has not been able to produce any evidence to that effect, confiscation was not justified. While allowing the appeal he has observed as under: "I have carefully gone through the facts of the case as well as submissions made by the counsel of the appellant. In the instant case, it is a fact which is not in dispute that all the goods seized and confiscated by the deptt. are non-notified goods under section 123 of the Customs Act, nor under Chapter IVA of the Customs Act, therefore appellant is not require to discharge the burden of its non-smuggled nature and burden in such cases is entirely on the department. From the order-in-original, I find that the goods were seized and confiscated only on the ground that these ...