Mumbai Court February 2004 Judgments

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is revenue's appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the respondent's appeal against the order-in-original rejecting their refund claim was allowed. The respondents had claimed a refund of Rs. 1,18,952/- in terms of provisions contained in Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules 1944, (Central Excise Rules) being the duty paid on the MICR cheque paper, which was cleared initially on payment of duty but was returned to the factory consequent to rejection by the buyer. This returned rejected paper was used in admixture with other raw material and the paper made out of such reprocessing was cleared on payment of duty. Hence the claim for aforesaid amount was made, which was equivalent to proportionate duty paid on the returned quantity. The facts of return, reprocessing and subsequent clearance on payment of duty are not in dispute. The claim has been rejected on the ground that, in terms of Sub-rule (3) (v) of Rule 173 L if the "value" of t...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. B. Nichlani Investment Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT99Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The issue involved relates to classification of the impugned goods namely "hand shower for bath". The respondents claimed classification of the impugned goods under sub-heading 8424.89, the original authority has classified the same under subheading 8424.20 and the Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order has classified the product under sub-heading 8481.80.2. After hearing both sides and perusal of the case records including related tariff entries and H.S. Explanatory Notes, we find that Heading 84.81 covers taps, cocks, valves and similar appliances. The heading also includes taps, valves, etc., even if the same incorporated other accessories such as short lengths of tube ending in a shower rose.Hence, as rightly contended by the learned D.R., it is difficult to justify the classification of the hand shower under sub-heading 8481.80 which has been imported as such and not as an accessory of any tap or valve. At the same time, we find that sub-heading 8424.20...

Zulash Clearing and Shipping Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC309

1. Appellants are a licenced Custom House Agent. They filed a BE for part of Sulphur imported of MMTC and allotted to M/s. CIBA Epoxy Chemicals on Sea Basis. After the clearance of the goods on provisional duty assessment the department raised an issue that Importer Code No.was not mentioned in the BE. Summon dt. 11.09.1996 was issued to the appellants by Central Intelligence Unit of Custom House. The Importer Code No. was obtained and furnished. After completion of enquiries, the CHA were issued a charge sheet under Custom House Agents Licencing Regulation. The Assistant Commissioner only held that the charge of non-maintenance of documents was proved. The Commissioner after hearing the CHA passed the following order : "By virtue of the power vested in me under Regulation 21(1) of the CHA Licensing Regulations, 1984, I order that the security deposit amounting to Rs. 25,000/- shall be forfeited forthwith. I also order that the licence shall remain suspended fill they furnish a fresh ...

Century Textiles and Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These three appeals are taken up for disposal by this common order.After hearing both sides and considering that issues involved in these appeals are inter-related and relate to the inclusion/exclusion of these charges from the values to be determined. The charges are explained as - (i) MUKADAMI CHARGES which related to transport of goods from godown outside the factory to railway yards or transport company godowns/trucks. (ii) GODOWN RENT for storage of goods outside the factory, which is charged, as rent, if the buyer does not lift the material in stipulated period of time. On a question from the Bench, the Ld. Advocate could not specify the period after which such godown rent charges were recovered and this important fact is required to be established. (iii) BANK CHARGES are charges after goods are cleared and what bank recovers from the appellants. (iv) INSURANCE CHARGES are charges for insurance of the goods from godown to customers' premises. (v) LOADING CHARGES which were su...

B. Nichlani Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The issue involved relates to classification of the impugned goods namely "hand shower for bath". The respondents claimed classification of the impugned goods under sub-heading 8424.89, the original authority has classified the same under sub-heading 8424.20 and the Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order has classified the product under sub-heading 8481.80.2. After hearing both sides and perusal of the case records including related tariff entries and H.S. Explanatory Notes, we find that Heading 84.81 covers taps, cocks, valves and similar appliances. The heading also includes taps, valves etc. even if the same incorporated other accessories such as short lengths of tube ending in a shower rose.Hence, as rightly contended by the learned D.R., it is difficult to justify the classification of the hand shower under sub-heading 8481.80 which has been imported as such and not as an accessory of any tap or valve. At the same time, we find that sub-heading 8424.20 ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Lloyds Steel India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT224Tri(Mum.)bai

Though revenue's appeals have been the assigned separate numbers by the registry, I note that it is only a single appeal, against order-in-Appeal No. PKA/751/M-III & NGP/2001 dated 31.8.2001.Consequently I dismiss the subsequent appeal E/3721/01-Mum. as being infructuous.2. As regards the appeal E/3663/01-Mum is concerned, the facts are as under:- The appellants brought back to their factory certain finished goods which were previously cleared from their factory on payment of duty. It is an admitted position that, the duty which was initially paid was under provisional assessment basis. The appellants filed necessary intimations in form D-3, which were verified by the concerned Central Excise officers in charge of the factory. It is admitted that the sheets in coil form were subjected to cutting to obtain cut lengths, which did not amount to manufacture. It is also admitted fact that no duty was required to be paid on the subsequent removals as the goods could be identified with t...

Dnyaneshwar Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT271Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The instant appeal is directed against the impugned order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The issue relates to violation the provisions of the Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958. The Commissioner adjudicated the show cause notice issued to the appellants demanding duty of Rs. 1,18,430/- in terms of the said Act and dropped the demand. However, a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the appellant Sugar factory for violation of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001, (Rules) and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-imposed on CM. Mehta & Company, Ahmedabad under Rule 26 of the said Rules.2. The present appeal is filed by the sugar factory against the imposition of penalty. The Commissioner had imposed penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001, it was held that since the exporter had paid the additional duty on the sugar in terms of the provisions contained in the Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958, it is implied that the sugar meant for export was dive...

Ajitkumar C. Kamdar Vs. Dy Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)1SOT183(Mum.)

This appeal, filed by the assessee, is directed against the order dated 24-11-1999 passed by the CIT (A) for the assessment year 1996-97.The grounds of appeal filed with Form No. 36 have been concised. In the concised grounds of appeal, the assessee has not taken ground No. 1, which is regarding disallowance in respect of telephone expenses. At the time of hearing it was pointed out that the disallowance being small amount, the ground may be rejected being not pressed. In the remaining grounds, only two issues are involved. First is regarding disallowance of Rs. 66,225 made in respect of bad-debts. The second grievance is regarding software expenses of Rs. 10,500 which is treated as capital expenses.The assessee, in the preset case is a sharebroker. The assessee debited to his Profit & Loss Account an amount of Rs. 66,225 as bad debts relating to following two persons viz. (1) Shri Anil Mithelal - Rs. 13,775 and (2) Shri H.B. Parekh - Rs. 52,450. Both the above-mentioned persons a...

integrated Container Feeder Vs. Jcit, (intl. Tax._4)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)278ITR182(Mum.)

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order of CIT(A) dated 7.3.2003 for the assessment year 1998-99. "1. a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)1 has legally erred in holding that the appellant has income chargeable to tax in India. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have held that no part of the Appellant's income is chargeable to tax in India. b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has legally erred in holding that under Article 8 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Mauritius ('DTAA~, the place of effective management may be a state other than India or Mauritius. c) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has legally erred in holding that the place of effective management of the Appellant is not in Mauritius and consequently denying the benefit of Article 8 of the DTAA.. 2. a) Without prejudice to ...

Santosh Dattaram Nadkarni and ors. Vs. New India Industries Limited an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR341; (2004)IIILLJ178Bom; 2004(2)MhLj931

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The petitioners were the employees of the respondent No. 1/company. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are Directors of the said Company since 15th July, 2002, and prior to that date, the respondent No. 4 was its Chairman, while the respondent No. 5 was the Accounts Manager. A complaint under MRTU and PULP Act bearing No. 185 of 2001 came to be filed by the petitioners against the said company on 26th February, 2001. Since the application for interim relief filed in the said complaint was rejected by the Industrial Court on 30th July, 2001, a petition was filed being Writ Petition No. 2473 of 2001. In the said petition, the parties arrived at amicable settlement and accordingly filed consent terms in the form of minutes of the order and the learned Single Judge of this Court, by its order dated 30th December, 2001, while accepting the undertaking given in the said consent terms, disposed of the said writ petition in accordance with the said consent terms. The underta...