Mumbai Court December 2004 Judgments

Shilpa Shares and Securities Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(120)LC448Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On matter being called today, no body is present on behalf of the appellant inspite of today's notice of hearing having been sent to them well in advance. Accordingly, I have heard Shri R. Chandan Ld. JDR and gone through the impugned order. The authorities below have imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 22,000/- under the provision of Section 76 and Section 77 of Finance Act, 1994 for delayed deposit of Service Tax and late filing of ST-3 returns. The appellants has pleaded that latte deposit of tax was on account of poor financial position and the same has been deposited subsequently along with interest.2. Shri R. Chandan, Ld. JDR brings to my notice the Larger Bench decision in the case of ETA Engineering Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai reported in 2004 (65) RLT 669 (CESTAT-LB) : 2004 (117) ECR 665 (T-LB), wherein it has been laid down that penalty of Rs. 100 per day referred to in Section 76 of Finance Act, 1944 is required to be imposed in case of failure of Service Tax for every day a...

Goa Carbon Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)2SOT152(Mum.)

All these appeals have been filed by the assessee against the different orders. Common grounds of appeal in all these appeals have been raised in respect of manufacture and export of Calcined Petroleum Coke for Deduction under section 80HHC.The main dispute in all these appeals is regarding denial of deduction under section 80HHC on the ground that the commodity exported by the assessee company constituted 'mineral oil', within the meaning of section 80HHC(2)(b)(i) of the Act. Besides this there are certain other issues in some of the years which will be dealt with at appropriate place of this order.The background as well as facts in brief for each year under appeal, vide order dated 4-3-1998 under section 263(1) of the Act, the CIT, Panaji, revised the order under section 143(3) dated 9-1-1996 of the assessing officer for assessment year 1993-94, in the assessee's own case, as being erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of revenue with direction to disallow the deduction under s...

Govik Electricals (P.) Ltd. Vs. Joint Cit, Special Range-15

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)96ITD70(Mum.)

This is an appeal filed by the assessee arising out of the order of CIT(A)-XLIV, Mumbai dated 12-9-2000. As many as three grounds have been raised, out of which Ground No. 3 is argumentative referring only a case law hence need no separate adjudication. The substantial Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are reproduced below: "1. The CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the order of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax in respect of not considering the payment of Rs. 27,00,000 made to Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and interest of Rs. 43,263 paid to bank of Baroda as a revenue expenditure.2. The CIT(A) did not appreciate the fact that the disclosure of the above payments as capital expenditure in the accounts and the claim of the same as revenue expenditure under the Income Tax Act has no relevance! This is the case of a company and during the course of assessment proceedings it was observed by the assessing officer that the assessee has entered into an agreement with Maharashtra Indust...

Govik Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Jcit, Spl. Rg. 15

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)97TTJ(Mum.)75

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee arising out of the order of CIT (A) XLIV Mumbai dated 12/9/2000. As many as three grounds have been raised, out of which Ground No. 3 is argumentative referring only a case law hence need no separate adjudication. The substantial Ground No. 1 & 2 are reproduced below. "1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in confirming the order of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax in respect of not considering the payment of Rs. 27,00,000/- made to Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and interest of Rs. 43,263/- paid to Bank of Baroda as a revenue expenditure. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not appreciate the fact that the disclosure of the above payments as Capital expenditure in the accounts and the claim of the same as revenue expenditure under the Income Tax Act has no relevance." 2. This is the case of a company and during the course of assessment proceedings it was observed by the A.O that the ass...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. R.M. Industries, P.M.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT353Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner(Appeals), who vide the order impugned after considering that brass eyelets, brass rivet sets, part of rivet i.e. toti buttons and eyelets, buckles etc of M.S. Brass and sets, and Aluminium metal were classifiable under heading 9606 on the following grounds the Id Commissioner appeals also observe that Section 11 AB and Section 11 AC were introduced on 28.9.96 and the appellants company had filed declarations in respect of buttons manufactured by them claiming classification under heading 96.06 wayback in 1992-93 and the facts did not disclose any supression, misdeclaration, collussion, etc as envisaged in terms of Section 11A and Section 11AB and the demand of Central Excise duty confirmed is for the period April 1996 to February 1998. He do not find any penalty liable for the period prior to 28.9.96. He fond that penalty was also imposed on the traders under rule 9(2) and Rule 226 and or Rule 52 A however it has not b...

Ebg India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(181)ELT91Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue pertains to eligibility to Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules on goods falling under chapter subheading 84.24. The year in which the dispute arose is 1998. Capital goods credit taken on the sound blast machine was denied on the ground that the said machine falls under heading 84.24 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and such goods were excluded from the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q. A penalty was also imposed on the appellant under Rule 173Q as he availed of inadmissible credit. Hence the appeal.3. It was argued that the sound blast machine is a part of annealing line. The line encompasses several equipments in the form of dual play off reels, straightener, stitcher, direct oil fired annealing furnace with recuperator, looper car, re-circulating spray quench system, sludge separator, drier, shot blasting unit, rewind reel, coil car for transportation of coils and coil storage. Thus there is no doubt that a sound blasting machine...

The Tata Power Company Limited, a Company Incorporated Under the India ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR867

Dalveer Bhandari, C.J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 31st May, 2004 passed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short, 'MERC').2. The brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of the petition, are recapitulated as under:The Tata Power Company Limited (for short, 'TPC') has entered into an agreement with Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) on 12th March, 1985, as a result of which, it has been providing standby facility to TPC. Since 1990, TPC is getting standby facility of 550 MVA (Mega Volt Ampere) from MSEB.3. Reliance Energy limited (REL) also required standby facility of 275 MVA, and on the direction MSEB, it was agreed that TPC would provide standby facility of 275 MVA to REL out of 550 MVA received by TPC from MSEB. It was further agreed that REL would pay Rs.3.5 crores per month to TPC for providing 275 MVA standby facility to REL. It was agreed that TPC would pay MSEB Rs. 24.75 crores per month for the entire standby facility,...

Goal Packaging, P.P.L. Goal, Goal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides and considered the matter in these appeals which arise from the common order. The issue involved is a claim of DEPB by the firm Goel Air Shrink Ltd., who were alleged to have overvalued as shown on certain Shipping Bills seeking export of goods on DEPB benefit. The Custom authorities found and were of the view that the valuation declared on those Shipping Bills for the said export were over pitched and excessive. The export was therefore not permitted as claimed. On the contrary even though investigation had started, the goods were allowed to be removed back to town for alleged claim of reprocessing. The goods subsequent to the said reprocessing were allowed to be cleared and exported on substituted shipping bills without claim of DEPB. However, the department proceeded with the charge of the claims made on the earlier shipping bills and these proceedings resulted in the order now impugned to the effect. "1 M/s. Goel Air Shrink (I) Ltd., (Manufacturer exporter) and...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Siddhivinayak Engineers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is a Revenue's appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The respondents manufacture lift parts, petrol pump parts and switchgear parts falling under Chapter 84 of Central Excise Tariff Act.They receive HR/CR sheets as inputs under Central Excise documents. The respondents take credit of duty paid on these inputs. The allegation is that the respondents received HR/CR sheets whose dimensions were different from the ones shown in the C.E invoices. Since the dimensions of HR sheets valued at Rs. 1,59,781/- did not tally with the ones shown in the C.E invoice No. 5026/22-12-2001 covering the said goods they were seized on 25/01/2002. Further investigations revealed that the assessee during the period 05/10/99 to 27/12/2001 received nine consignments of CR/HR coils of varying thickness from various dealers and took credit of Rs. 1,59,641/-. The coils received under the cover of invoices pertaining to the nine consignments were of no use to the respondents in the man...

Nita Dyeing and Ptg. Works and H.R. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT180Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri NJ. Gheewala, Consultant appeared for the appellant. Shri R.K.Chandan, Id. JDR appeared for the revenue.2. The Id. Consultant submitted that he is contesting only the penalty and the interest amount. He submitted that in view of the decision in the case of Alfa Chemical Ind. reported in 2002 (145) ELT 454 (Tri-Delhi), separate penalty on partnership firm and their partners is not permissible. Therefore, he contended that the penalty imposed on the partner is not permissible. Since the penalty has already been imposed on the firm. He further submitted that the statement of the appellant was obtained by coercion. The appellants have not been given the opportunity of cross examination of Superintendent of Central Excise who has carried out the investigation and signed the Panchanama, partner of the mills, M/s Rahul Silk Mills and Shri Dayhabhai Madhav Singh. This clearly violets the principles of natural justice. That partner of the appellant has retracted from the statement but ...