Mumbai Court March 2004 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Anupam Engineers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue's appeal against the order of Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai-III.2. The grievance is that the Commissioner erred in holding that the demand for Central Excise duty for the alleged short levy during the period December 1990 to April 1992 is time barred as the Show Cause Notice was issued beyond the period of normal limitation. There was no suppression of facts on the part of the respondents.3. It all happened in 1993 when the officers visited the respondents premises where he was manufacturing pipes and structures for MCGH on job work basis. A verification of the value declared indicated that the respondents had not correctly declared the assessable value of the goods cleared by him. for one thing he has adopted the price prevailing in 1986 for M.S. Sheets supplied to him by MCGH while clearing the pipes much later thereby failing to compute the assessable value correctly. For another he has not disclosed the correct transportation cost incurred on the M.S. Plates whe...

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT554Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant a Public Sector Undertaking supplied bunkers to coast guard vessels claiming benefit of general exemption No. 70/77 as amended which is applicable to stores supplied to Naval Vessels. The period involved is September 1986 to June 1990. The show cause notice is issued on 16.10.91 invoking larger period of limitation alleging suppression of facts from the Department with intent to evade duty.2. At the material time the Coast Guard vessels were chartered by Indian Nevy. Supply orders were placed by Naval stores officer. The Chief of Naval Staff, Naval Head Quarters at New Delhi confirmed the accounting of Naval stores of POL to Coast Guard Ships.4. Notification No. 70/77 as amended from time to time exempts stores supplied to Naval Ships. Coast Guard force was constituted under Indian Coast Guard Act. The vessels of coast guard therefore belong to that force which are different from Naval vessels. One can take a strict view that the coast guard vessels are not Naval vess...

Vinubhai Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT296Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants are manufacturers of Iron & Steel products and were availing Modvat Credit Scheme. On 25.7.1997 there was a balance of Rs. 92,028/- in RG 23A register, from that date they opted & shifted to discharge duty on certain items which were covered under Section 3A Scheme. However they continued to clear other items by debit against the credit balance since the other items was not cleared under Section 3A Scheme. They intimated this to the department and filed RT-12 returns.2. Somewhere in Jan 2000, the audit officers pointed out that the balance of Rs. 92,028/- on 25.7.97 in RG 23A credit Register should have lapsed due to amendment to Rule 57F(17). Reversal of this amount of Rs. 92,028 were directed by letter from the Range Superintended on 28.4.2000 & 11.5.2000 & 30.5.2000 & 6.7.2000, the higher authorities in the department did not interfere on representation of the assessee who vide TR6 dt. 12.7.2000 paid an (SIC) amount of Rs. 92,028/- and filed an app...

Ashish Metal Rolling Mills Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT207Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants are steel rolling mills. They were working under compounded levy scheme (scheme) for payment of duty on rolled products.They obtained permission to work under the scheme in terms of Rule 96ZA of then Central Excise Rules, 1944. Vide their letter dated 30/07/96, the appellants requested the Commissioner of Central Excise that, they would be utilising only four Rolling machines out of five rolling machines and one machine is transferred as hot rolling process with effect from 21/07/96. Through reminder dated 03/09/96, the Commissioner was again informed that the duty was paid for five hot rolling machines under protest, since only four rolling machines were under utilisation.The Commissioner was requested to grant necessary permission. It is noticed that, vide permission dated 10/10/96, the Commissioner Central Excise granted permission for special procedure under the rules and the permission was also renewed for a period starting from 21/07/96 to 21/07/97 for four mac...

Jhaveri Polymers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT400Tri(Mum.)bai

a) One truck was intercepted on 29.1.99 by the officers, on the main public road in Palej. It was found loaded with PP Tape & another truck was found loaded with "PP woven sacks" and parked on the road of opposite the factory of M/s Sagar Industries, Palej. Enquiries revealed both trucks to be loaded at M/s Sagar Industries. The drivers could not produce any documents. It was learnt that the trucks were loaded, sent to Weigh bridge & were intercepted on the way back. The invoices Nos. 957 & 958 dated 29.1.99 of M/s. Jhaveri Polymers Ltd, the appellants, prepared were not debited in the duty payment records. The woven sacks were said to have been received from the job workers M/s Sagar Industries, further investigation revealed a shortage of 53,542 nos of woven sacks in the factory. The SCN issued was adjudicated & the Joint Commissioner ordered- i) Confiscation of 50,000 woven sacks & PP tapes found in the truck under Rule 173Q(1) & ordered the same to be redee...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Rajender Ship Breakers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for stay of the operation of the order of the Comm. Appeal Ahmedabad.2. The respondents imported one vessel by name of MV AL ALIYU for breaking which arrived at the Alang anchorage on 3^rd September, 2000.3. On 3.9.2000 the shipping agent presented a copy of MOA entered into between the owner of the vessel and the buyer M/s. Titan Ltd. Nassan Bahamas. This MOA is dated 24.8.2000. The MOA revealed that the vessel was sold for US$ 1140532 to the buyer in Bahamas. The appellant signed another MOA dated 7/9/2000 whith M/s. Titan Ltd. Bahamas which indicated that the vessel was sold to the appellant for a price of US $ 1113609. The Dy. C. while finalizing the assessment accepted the price (US$ 11,13,609) was against US$ 1140532 indicated in the MOA dated 24.8.2000.4. Aggrieved by this decision the Dept. went in appeal to the commissioner (Appeals). The commissioner of (Appeals) in the impugned order rejected the appeal. He held that the price actually paid by the ...

Pnp Polytex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT481Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants herein imported goods declared to be polyester knitted fabrics under bills of entry for home consumption claiming classification under CTH heading 6001.22 which covers 'looped pile fabrics'. The goods were examined; representative samples were drawn and sent to Textile Committee, Ludhiana and CRCL, New Delhi for ascertaining the exact composition and classification. The Textile Committee, Ludhiana reported mat the goods was "knitted cut pile fabric of GSM 177.74". The CRCL's report on the sample was that it is "cut piece of a black coloured knitted cut pile fabric having velvet like surface on the one side. The base knitted fabrics is composed of polyester multifilament yarn and cut piles are made of polyester fabrics. GSM of the sample is 185.5". It appeared from the above that the goods were cut pile polyester knitted fabrics falling under customs tariff heading 6001.92. Since the importers did not get the goods released provisionally, even though such option was g...

Milan Enterprise Vs. Asstt. Cit, Circle 12(5)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)95ITD18(Mum.)

This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order dated 10-3-2000 by Commissioner (Appeals)-1x, Mumbai, in the matter of order under section 154 read with section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1994-95.The short point requiring our adjudication in this case is whether an assessing officer can levy interest under section 234A, even when entire self assessment tax is paid on or before the due date of filing the income tax return, in the course of processing of income-tax return under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Both the parties agree that it is this core issue which is required to be adjudicated upon, in order to resolve the dispute before us.We find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Dr. Prannoy Roy v. CIT(2002) 254 ITR 755 (Del), held that interest under section 234A is'not leviable in a case where the assessee has paid the tax, even though return is not filed. Their Lordships have held that interest (under section 2...

Milan Enterprise Vs. the Asstt. Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)95TTJ(Mum.)635

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order dated 10^th March 2000 by CIT(A)-IX, Mumbai, in the matter of order under Section 154 r.w. Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1961, for the assessment year 1994-95.2. The short point requiring our adjudication in this case is whether an Assessing Officer can levy interest under Section 234A, even when entire self assessment tax is paid on or before the due date of filing the income tax return, in the course of processing of income tax return under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Both the parties agree that it is this core issue which is required to be adjudicated upon, in order to resolve the dispute before us.4. We find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Dr. Prannoy Roy v. CIT, held that interest under Section 234A is not leviable in a case where the assessee has paid the tax, even though return is not filed. Their Lordships have held that "interest (under Section 234A) would be payable in a ca...

Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Mohan Murari Sawant

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Bom)497

R.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard Mr. R.V. Desai, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.S. Hadade, the learned counsel for the respondent.2. The preliminary objection is raised by the learned counsel for the assessee about the maintainability of the appeal in view of the Instruction No. 1979 dt. 27th March, 2000 issued by the CBDT (for short 'the Board') which provides that the appeal under Section 260A shall not be filed before the High Court by the IT Department from the judgment of the Tribunal where tax effect does not exceed Rs. 2 lakhs.3. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that in the present appeal, the issues raised by the Revenue have tax effect of Rs. 1, 65, 000 only and therefore, by virtue of the aforesaid circular, the appeal is not maintainable. He relies upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in CIT v. Cameo Colour Co. : [2002]254ITR565(Bom) .4. That the circular issued by the CBDT is binding on the IT Department on administration side does not s...