Mumbai Court February 2004 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Gauri Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue has filed these stay applications against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein he has held as follows: "6. The Adjudicating Authority has also rejected the transaction value in terms of Rule 10A of Customs Valuation Rules 1988 on the that the importer has not produced the manfuacturer's invoice. In this regard the CEGAT decision in the case of Auto & Hardware Enterprises [003 (151) ELT 330] is relevant wherein CEGAT has held that in order to apply Rule 10A the assessing officer must have reason to doubt the correctness of the transaction value; however, this reason alone would not be conclusive evidence of the incorrectness of the declared value. I find that the law with regard to the valuation of second-hand machines as outlines above has not been followed by the Adjudicating Authority. The grounds on which the transaction value can be assailed have also been outlined above and in the absence of these grounds the transaction value cannot be rejected. Thus in...

Samanjas Udyog and Dhirajlal Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT137Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The authorities below confirmed duty demand of Rs. 1,18,146/- under proviso to Section 11A(1) against M/s. Samanjas Udyog together with interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act on the ground that the value of clearances of brass bearing cages, by M/s. Atharva Udyog are required to be clubbed with the clearances of brass bearing cages by M/s. Samanjas Udyog as Atharva Udyog is a dummy unit set up by Samanjas Udyog for the purpose of fragmentation of value of clearances so as to wrongly avail SSI exemption in terms of Notification 1/93-CE.A penalty of amount equal to duty has been imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act in addition to penalty of Rs. 60,000/- under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. A penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed upon Shri D.D. Chandresha, proprietor of Swastic Machines Tools, job workers for M/s. Samanjas Udyog.2. We have heard both sides. The only argument advanced before us is that the demand is bad in law in the a...

BipIn Silk and Synthetics Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT130Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The dispute relates to the denial of refund of Rs. 50,000/-. The brief facts are that, the appellants were required to pay an amount of Rs. 1,06,341/- vide order-in-original dated 08/05/2000 along with payment of Rs. 50,000/- towards penalty imposed on the appellants and Rs. 5,000/- as personal penalty on Shri R.K. Agarwal. The above amounts, which were already paid, were appropriated by the adjudicating authority. In the order-in-appeal dated 24/11/2000, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the duty liability to Rs. 67,030/- and penalty was reduced to Rs. 39,271/- and it was noted that these amounts have already been paid by the appellants. In the said order it has been further mentioned that "duty demanded and confirmed amounting to Rs. 50,000/- is based on the statement of Shri K.K. Agarwal, but I find that, the impugned order-in-original does not give the details about the goods cleared without payment of duty and the same amount has been adjusted against the Government dues by t...

Paranjape Metal Shapers (P) Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT543Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The appeal of the appellants is directed against the denial of refund of Rs. 1,82,349.94. It is noted that the appellants were issued a show cause notice dated 26/10/94 seeking recovery of credit of Rs. 1,82,349.94 taken by them during the month of May 94 to June 94 pointing therein certain defects in the duty paying documents.Appellants took credit on the basis of zerox copy of invoice is one of the defects, The appellants have conceded that so far as this objection is concerned they have no case. Accordingly, I hold that the credit to the tune of Rs. 9,203.35 (Sl.No. 6 of annexure-A to the show cause notice) and Rs. 2,784.80 (Sl.No. 10) of Annexure-A) is correctly denied.3. So far as the balance credit is concerned, the objection is stated as "invoice not consigned to the assessee".4. On going through the records, I note that, the invoice issued by the manufacturer has been consigned to the dealer and the dealer in turn has issued the entire quantity mentioned in the manufacturer...

icici Bank Ltd. Vs. K.J. Rao, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Bom)380; [2004]268ITR203(Bom); 2004(3)MhLj467

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By the consent of the parties, both the petitions are taken up for final hearing.2. In these two petitions, the ICICI Bank Ltd. has challenged the notices both dt. 17th Oct., 2002 (relating to the asst. yrs. 1996-97 and 1997-98) issued under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961, by the IT authorities at Ahmedabad to Anagram Finance Ltd. The said Anagram Finance Ltd. was a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and was assessed to tax under the jurisdiction of the Asstt. CIT, Ahmedabad. With effect from 1st April, 1998, the said Anagram Finance Ltd. merged with ICICI Ltd. It is not in dispute that by a letter dt. 27th Nov., 2001, ICICI Ltd. had informed the IT authorities at Ahmedabad about the merger of Anagram Finance Ltd. with ICICI Ltd. and had requested to transfer all pending cases of the erstwhile Anagram Finance Ltd. to the Dy. CIT, Circle 3(1), Mumbai, under whose jurisdiction ICICI Ltd. was assessed. Thereafter, the ICICI L...

Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs. Maharashtra Electricity Regula ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom294; 2004(3)BomCR485

D.B. Karnik, J.1. By these appeals, the appellants challenge the order dated 10th January, 2002 passed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulation Commission (for short 'the Commission') passed under Section 29 of the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 (for short 'ERC Act') determining and fixing the tariff for electrical power at rates lower than the rates claimed by the appellant. The facts giving rise to the appeal are summarised below :--M.S.E.B. is a State Electricity Board (for short 'the Board' or 'the appellant-Board') constituted under Section 5 of Electric (Supply) Act, 1948. On the application made by MSEB on 15th October, 1999, the Commission for the first time issued a tariff order on 5th May, 2000 fixing the tariff for electrical power for the year 2000-2001. On 15th March, 2001, the Board submitted a proposal seeking revision of retail distribution tariff with effect from 1st April, 2001. On an earlier petition bearing Case No. 8 of 2000 filed by Prayas, Pune, a c...

Ravindra Bhagwan Todkar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2004)DMC791

V.G. Palshikar, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed on 23.8.1999 by V Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sess. Case No. 130/98 the appellant named above has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal and as verbally canvassed by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant before us.2. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the defence and the prosecution we have scrutinized the record and reappreciated the evidence.3. The prosecution story as disclosed as it emerges on reappreciation of evidence on record stated briefly is that the accused No. 1-Ravindra Todkar is the son of accused No. 2-Bhagwan Todkar and husband of the deceased Sarika who according to the prosecution was throttled to death by the present accused persons. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons were harassing the victim demanding dowry or gifts and moneys in the nature of dowry and when she was unable to...

icici Bank Ltd. Vs. K.J. Rao, Dy. Cit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]268ITR303(Bom); [2004]136TAXMAN669(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.Rule, returnable forthwith. By the consent of the parties, both the petitions are taken up for final hearing.2. In these two petitions, the ICICI Bank Ltd. has challenged the notices both dated 17-10-2002 (relating to the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98) issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the income-tax authorities at Ahmedabad to Anagram Finance Ltd. The said Anagram Finance Ltd. was a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and was assessed to tax under the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner, Ahmedabad. With effect from 1-4-1998, the said Anagram Finance Ltd. merged with ICICI Ltd. It is not in dispute that by a letter dated 27-11-2001, ICICI Ltd. had informed the income-tax authorities at Ahmedabad about the merger of Anagram Finance Ltd. with ICICI Ltd. and had requested to transfer all pending cases of the erstwhile Anagram Finance Ltd. to the Deputy Commissioner, Circle 3(1), Mumbai, under whose jurisdiction ICICI Ltd. w...

Plas Pack Industries, Chirag Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT422Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeals arising out of different orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), involve a common issue and are heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE tapes and fabrics and paid additional duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Textile and Textile Article) Act, 1978 under Chapter 54 during the period April 1992 to October, 1992 through credit of basic duty which was objected to by the department; thereafter the assessees paid additional duty subsequent to the period of clearance of the goods by debiting PLA and then claimed refund of duty paid by PLA debit. The adjudicating authority sanctioned refund claims within the period of limitation and also held that the bar of unjust enrichment would not apply as the goods were captively consumed, applying the riatio of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Madras High Court in the cases of Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 1992 (57) ELT 201 (Bom) and ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Ventron Chemicals Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT532Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Revenue is in appeal against the classification of the entity under 3808.90 and entitled to the benefit of Notification 14/94-CE., dated 1-3-1994 on the grounds as the product does not alter the life process of plants inasmuch it regulates water supply to roots of the plant only. The chemicals in question can only improve the growth of a plant and not retard the same and as this not plant growth regulators as they are used along with fertilizers and purpose can be served by drip irrigation method as far as watering is concerned and are not useful alone.2. After hearing and considering the issue it is found that the case CCE (Appeals) has based his finding on literature and departs of Govt.Institutes which are not in question to arrive at the entity to be Plant Growth Regulator. A perusal of the HSN notes reveal that it stipulates all kinds of applicants to a plant to be Plant Growth Regulators, which "accelerate or regulate" the growth. The appeal attempting to read the word '&...