Mumbai Court December 2004 Judgments

Hindustan Aegis Lpg Bottling Co., Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT180Tri(Mum.)bai

1. M/s. Hindustan Aegis LPG Bottling Co.Ltd. (here in after referred to as 'M/s. HALPG') having their bulk storage installation at Mahul Village, Trombay, Mumbai obtained on 22/12/1999, a Central Excise Dealers' registration to trade in imported Commercial Liquefied Petroleum Gas Mix ( Commercial LPG Mix) and Commercial Propane both falling under CET Sub-Heading No. 2711.19 from their bulk storage installation. Prior to this date, they were holding Central Excise Registration for manufacture of LPG mix at the same location and clearing the same on payment of Central Excise Duty. M/s. Aegis Chemical Industries Ltd. ( hereinafter referred to as 'M/s.ACIL) and now known as M/s. Aegis Logistics Ltd.) obtained Central Excise Dealer's Registration on 20/4/2000 to trade in imported commercial LPG Mix and commercial Propane from their bulk storage installation also at Mahul Village, Mumbai. Intelligence were gathered by the DRI officers that under the guise of trading, both M/s. HALPG and M/s...

Simplex Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(181)ELT261Tri(Mum.)bai

1. M/s. Simplex Mills Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) manufactures inter alia cotton yarn, Man Made Yarn, Cotton Fabrics and Man Made Fabrics. They paid duty on single yarn at the spindle point stage. The yarn is then doubled and cleared for captive consumption in the manufacture of fabrics. Show cause notice, date 5-12-1995 seeking recovery of duty of Rs. 7/62,159.98 on double yarn, on the ground that exemption earlier available under Notification No.35/95 during the period from 16-3-1995 to 17-5-1995 was withdrawn with issue of Notification No. 84/95, date 18-5-1995 as the latter notification provided that exemption under serial Nos. 1 and 2 of the notification was not available to manufacturer like the assessee, having the facility to produce single yarn. The notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner who confirmed the demand under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial of the benefit of the notific...

Dr. Beck and Co. (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT285Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue in dispute in the above appeal namely classification of insulating varnish, based on polyester manufactured by the appellants herein, whether under CET sub-heading 3208.40 as claimed by the assessees or under CET sub-heading 3208.10 as held by the Commissioner in the impugned order, is no longer res integra as it stands settled in favour of the appellants by the Tribunal's order in Saral Rasayan Pvt.Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara - 2001 (134) E.L.T. 683 (T) = 2001 (99) ECR 53 (Tribunal) wherein the claim for classification under CET sub-heading 3208.40 has been accepted, following the ratio of above order, we set aside the impugned order of classification and confirmation of duty of Rs. 5,88,72,124.34 and allow the appeal....

Hindustan Composite Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The matter pertains to refund of Rs. 36,36,915.45 for the period August 1979 to March 1987 was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner oil the grounds:- "It has been observed that, the claimant did not produce any duty paying document to prove that they have paid Rs. 5699522/-. Apart from the payment part they could not produce any document to show the credit and debit of duty of Rs. 2849762/- which they claimed to have been availed under Rule 56A. It is found that the claimant submitted GPI copies for verification pertains to approximately two years period out of the period of eight years and no corresponding PLA register is submitted for verification. On the same way PLA register for some period is submitted but no corresponding GPI copies were submitted for verification. Apart from this no RG23 Part I and II register is submitted to verify the proforma credit of Rs. 28,49,762/- " and the same has been upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) on the following grounds...

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. B. Arunkumar Trading Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)97TTJ(Mum.)503

1. The present appeal filed by the Department of Income-tax is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) {'CIT(A)' in short} deleting the addition of Rs. 2,65,54,316/- made by the Assessing Officer ('AO' in short) to the total income returned by the assessee. The appeal relates to the assessment year (AY) 1997-98 for which the corresponding previous year ended on 31st March 1997. The Department has taken the following ground of appeal: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,65,54,316/- to the total income without properly verifying the facts regarding frequent change of method of valuation of allowing assessee to adopt the change of method of valuation of stock on the ground that consistency has been maintained due to filing of revised return for A.Y. 1998-99 to 2000-01".2. Both the parties represented by their respective counsel and representatives were heard.3. Briefly sta...

Dy Cit, Circle 6(1) V.B. Arunkumar

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)96ITD194(Mum.)

The present appeal filed by the department of Income-tax is directed against the order of the learned Commisioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)') deleting the addition of Rs. 2,65,54,316 made by the assessing officer (hereinafter referred to as AO) to the total income returned by the assessee. The appeal relates to the assessment year 1997-98 for which the corresponding previous year ended on 31st March, 1997. The department has taken the following ground of appeal: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,65,54,316 to the total income without properly verifying the facts regarding frequent change of method of valuation of allowing assessee to adopt the change of method of valuation of stock on the ground that consistency has been maintained due to filing of revised return for assessment years 1998-99 to 2000-01." Both the parties represented by their respective counsel and represent...

Advance Mechanical Works Adico Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT460Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The facts in the referral order are set out in paragraphs 1 & 2 of the order. The issue pertains to whether interest is payable on redemption fine which had to be refunded when the order in which it was ordered, was set aside by a higher judicial forum. The Hon'ble Member who heard the appeal, was of the opinion that the decision in Sheela Foam Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Noida [2003 (154) ELT 522 (Tri.-LB)] granting interest on refund of pre-deposit of duty, has been rendered without taking into consideration the Supreme Court's decision in Orient Enterprises [1998 (99) ELT 193 (SC)] and therefore calls for a re-examination by a still Larger Bench particularly in view of the provisions contained in Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act.2. The Larger Bench is constituted to examine whether the decision rendered in Sheela Foam is in conflict with the decision in Orient Enterprises of the Supreme Court. The two decisions cited supra dealt with facts entirely different and are set out here...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Croissants Etc.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri A.K. Sexana, Ld.JDR and Shri R.C. Sethi, Ld. Advocate, we find that the duty for the first was levied with effect from 01/03/97. The appellants had deposited the amount of duty for the period in question prior to the issuance of the show cause notice. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand against the respondents with effect from 01/04/97 and also imposed penalties. On appeal against the above order, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the personal penalty and interest on the ground that the entire amount of duty stands paid by the appellants before the issuance of the show cause notice.2. The revenue in their appeal memorandum have pleaded that out of the total duty amount of Rs. 2,28,609/- duty amounting to Rs. 58,788/- was debited in PLA against insufficient balance. On the other hand, the respondent's contention is that the said amount was deposited by them subsequently by making the insufficient balance as su...

Sudhir Dattaram Patil Vs. Dy Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)2SOT678(Mum.)

This is an appeal filed by the assessee arising out of the order of CIT(A) XXXV Mumbai dated 15-6-2001 and the grounds raised are reproduced below: "1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs. 9,14,233.2. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that interest paid by the appellant was covered by the scope of disallowance under section 14A.3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant was entitled to receive interest and salary from the partnership firms wherein the amount borrowed was invested and the appellant was a partner." This is the case of an individual deriving salary income, house property income, business income etc. During the course of assessment proceedings it was asked by the assessing officer to justify the claim of interest paid of Rs. 9,14,233 on borrowed funds invested towards capital in the firm in which the assessee is a partner. The assessee was asked to explain as to why the interest was claimed and should not be disal...

Bativala and Karani Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)2SOT379(Mum.)

These cross-appeals are directed against the order dated 29-9-1995 passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the assessment year 1994-95. These appeals were heard together. As a matter of convenience, therefore, we will take up both of these appeals together by way of this consolidated order.Shri Arun Sathe, learned Advocate, alongwith Shri P.K. Agarwal and Ms.Aarti Sathe, appeared for the assessee, and Dr. P. Daniel, learned standing counsel of the Income Tax Department in securities scam related cases appeared for the revenue. Learned representatives have been heard at length, the material before us carefully perused, and factual matrix of the case as also the applicable legal position duly considered.We will first take up revenue's appeal. However, wherever there are interconnected grounds raised in the assessee's appeal, the same shall also be taken up together with the related groun...