Mumbai Court March 2004 Judgments

Nirmala Dyechem and Naresh B. Naik Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT566Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The dispute in the instant appeals relates to confirmation of demand of Rs. 74,39,895/- on M/s Nirmala Dye Chem (the manufacturer) with a penalty of equivalent amount under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act. Beside a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs has been imposed on Shri Naresh B. Naik, the managing partner. The appellant manufacturer is engaged in the manufacture of a product "Domex" which is a liquid cleaner for floors, bathrooms, kitchens etc. On the labels of the product the manufacturer has also declared the product to be "All purpose disinfectant cleaner", "Power Cleaner" "All round Home cleaner".Besides the labels also invariably state that the product kills 100% germs, besides cleaning. In the list of active ingredients of the product Sodium Hypochlorite (minimum 0.5% W/W) figures alongwith other ingredients such as Lauric Acid Amine L Oxide, Sodium silicate, Sodium Hydroxide, Perfume and Water. In the test report of the samples conducted by the departmental laboratory it i...

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT95Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeals arise out of two separate orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai involving a common issue and are hence taken up for hearing together and dispose of by this common order.2. The appellants herein produced crude oil and paid cess leviable thereupon as per the provisions of the Oil Industry Development Act, 1974. The crude oil at offshore installation is brought by pipeline and stored at settlement facilities in Uran from where 50% is supplied through pipelines in closed system to the refineries situated in Mumbai where crude oil is stored in tanks. At both the settlement facilities and in the tanks situated in refineries water is measured and crude oil is ascertained. The quantities acknowledged as received by the refineries form the basis for computation of the cess. Remaining 50% of the crude oil is transferred from the settlement location at Uran/Mumbai by pipeline to tankers/ships which transport it to refineries located in other areas. Examination...

Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC499

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various yearns and fabrics. The appellants have opted for payment of duty on the yarn at spindle stage. The said duty paid yarn, after payment of duty, is taken up for further use within the factory. During the course of use of the duty paid yarn a certain quantity emerges as waste. The appellants had declared the said waste in their classification list as "Hard Waste" and claimed that no duty is chargeable on such waste yarn as the same is already duty borne. The dispute is confined only to the waste arising from synthetic yarns as the waste of cotton yarn classifiable under sub Heading No. 5202.00 is stated to be exempt the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. The lower authorities confirmed the duty and hence the instant appeal.3. We note that the main reason for claiming this duty on the waste yarn is the fact that, while in respect of cotton yarn full exemption has been provided in the tariff, in respect of waste of chapter 55 (5505 ...

Speciality Polymers and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All the stay petitions are being taken up together as they all arise out of the same impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Valsad vide which he has confirmed duty of Rs. 17,06,771/-(Rs. Seventeen Lakhs Six Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy One Only) and has imposed penalty of an identical amount on the main appellant M/s Speciality Polymers. In addition penalties of different amount have been imposed upon the other appellants who are the partner of the main importer and the Technical Advisor and Broker.2. We have heard Shri S.P. Sheth, learned Advocate and Shri K.L.Bablani, learned Jt.C.D.R. for the Revenue.3. The above duty has been confirmed against the appellant on the ground that the goods imported by them under Notification No. 53/97-Cus and which were meant for utilization in the manufacture of the final product required to be exported, have been cleared by them to the domestic market and as such the benefit of the exemption Notification is not available to the a...

Mechelec Steel Products, Sandip Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides, and consideration on a close view of the Show Cause Notice, it is found that the demand under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, to the rune of Rs. 6,75,075.42 has been arrived at on the basis of an assumption that besides the invoices on which duties were incorrectly shown and recovered amounting to Rs. 1,57,483.00 in the other invoices also there was a similar recovery. The authorities have taken for granted that in all the cases, the appellants had shown price inclusive of Central Excise duty and therefore the calculations made by applying Rule 8 of Central Excise duty has been worked out without giving the benefit of the charge and application of nil rate of duty during the exemption limits which the appellants had been claiming. The issue of this demand is therefore to be reworked out to the remand now being proposed. The copies of invoices have been shown, they clearly indicate that the total price of the goods and sales tax chargeable on the sam...

Anand Steel Rolling Works Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT608Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants are a steel rolling mill. They had opted for payment of duty on the rolled products. The dispute relates to determination of annual capacity of production (ACP). The appellants had declared that they have two rolling stands corresponding to each furnace. They also declared (SIC) the various parameters of both the rolling mills as prescribed under Notification No. 32/97 CE (NT) dated 1.8197 issued under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. In their declaration dated 18.9.97 filed with the range superintendent, it was mentioned that their second mill having 'd' factor of 228.6 mm, is not running since 12 years and they seldom use stands of the said mill for the purpose of roughing of scrap for the small mill (another mill). While the various parameters declared by the appellants were on verification found to be as declared, the contention of the appellants that the rolling stand having 'd' factor of 228.6 mm (bigger) is not running, was not found to be acceptable, sin...

Sayyed Mohd. Absarul Haque Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT319Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant was intercepted pursuant to an information on 3094 (sic) and found to be carrying foreign currency of his present accounting to equivalent to Rs. 30,81,888/- and Indian currency of Rs. 1,30,000/- which was not declared. Same was confiscated. "I have carefully gone through the facts as well as submissions made by the counsel of the appellant. It is fact which is not in dispute that the appellant immediately after release from the Customs had filed an affidavit stating that confessional statement was made by him as it was dictated under the threat of getting arrested and it was also a fact that affidavit was received by the department but it was not considered while passing the order. Further it was also seen that the original authority had passed the order merely on the basis of confessional statement said to have been made by the appellant and no further investigation was made as to how he procured the foreign currency as well as Indian currency and it was treated as ...

ito Vs. Pukhraj N. Jain

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)95ITD281(Mum.)

This appeal by the revenue for assessment year 1987-88 is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A), Bombay dated 14-8-1992.We have heard the arguments of both the sides and have also perused the records.The revenue has raised three grounds of appeal before the Tribunal.Ground Nos. 2 and 3 are, general. Ground No. 1 is as under "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,51,400 made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act ignoring the confessional statement of Mr. Kishore N. Jain and without appreciating the finding in the order dated 31-5-1988 passed by Collector of Customs (Preventive) wherein Mr. Kishore N. Jain is stated to be merely a student and the assessee is held to be the concerned person on whose instructions Mr.Kishore N. Jain took delivery of gold and therefore the unexplained investment, bullion, if any clearly belonged to the assessee." The facts, as revealed from record, seem to be that o...

income Tax Officer Vs. C. Chhotalal Textiles (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)95TTJ(Mum.)436

1. This appeal by the Revenue for the asst. yr. 1993-94 is directed against the order of the CIT(A). The only issue in this appeal is regarding validity of penalty of Rs. 3,05,998 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.2. The learned Departmental Representative stated that it is a survey case and survey was conducted on 20th Nov., 1992, and the Department found the stock discrepancy as a matter of fact and thereafter the assessee has made the surrender of the discrepancy and, therefore, is liable to penalty. He stated that physical verification of stock was undertaken by the survey party and various discrepancies such as blank bills, bills not numbered and even two printouts of the same period were found. He relied on the series of decisions in support of his arguments that in such a case the penalty for concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable on the assessee. He relied on the decisions in Western Automobiles (India) v. CIT (1978) 112 ITR 1048 (Bom), CIT v. S. Krishnaswa...

income Tax Officer Vs. Mr. Pukhraj N. Jain

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the Revenue for Assessment Year 1987-88 is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A) Bombay dated 14.8.1992.2. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and have also perused the records.3. The Revenue has raised three grounds of appeal before the Tribunal Grounds No. 2 and 3 are general. Ground No. 1 is as under:- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,51,400/- made Under Section 69A of the I.T. Act ignoring the confessional statement of Mr. Kishore N. Jain and without appreciating the finding in the order dt. 31.5.1988 passed by Collector of Customs (Preventive) wherein Mr. Kishore N. Jain is stated to be merely a student and the assessee is held to be the 'concerned Person' on whose instructions Mr. Kishore N. Jain took delivery of gold and therefore the unexplained investment, bullion, if any clearly belonged to the assessee." 4. The facts, as revealed from record, seem to ...