Mumbai Court May 2004 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mutual Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT434Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of classification of product 'chair base' and 'chair top' made out of plastics, arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Heading 9403 on the basis that heading to be providing more specific description for furniture of plastics and parts of the same.2. After hearing the ld. DR being absent and considering that the definitions in CETA 1985 of Headings 9401 and 9403 are pari materia the defaulted in HSN and applying chapter notes of HSN under Heading 9401 stipulating that all sorts of parts of chairs such as seats, back, bottoms etc. would be covered under Heading 9401 and the notes under Heading 9403 providing that heading not to be covering furniture and parts thereof, covered by the previous headings, and finding that 9403 covers furniture for general use e.g. cupboards, show-cases, tables, writing stands, telephone stands etc. it is to be held that order of Commissioner (Appeals) that Heading 9403 covers plastic seats for chairs mo...

Jayant Extraction Indus. Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT501Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The instant appeal of the appellant is directed against the order of the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Rajkot, whereunder, an amount of Rs. 2,18,260.50 was confirmed against the appellants as duty, by invoking larger period of limitation. Besides penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has also been imposed.2. Briefly stated, on 1.1.86, the Central Excise officers carried out a stock verification in the factory of the appellants, who are engaged in the manufacture of Vanaspati (V.P.). During the process of stock verification, it was revealed that, the appellants had stored 2076 empty tins of 15 kg capacity in the Bonded Store Room (BSR), Hence it was alleged that the appellants had removed 2076 x 15 = 31,140 MT, of V.P. (the contents of the empty tin) in a clandestine manner involving duty of Rs. 47,745/92, and in the place of tins filled with V.P., the said empty tins were substituted. 2.1 Besides the above evasion, the officers further noticed that daily stock account was written up to 2...

Naresh N. Kumbadia Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT537Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides and considering the issues it was fell that the main appeal could be disposed of after waiver of pre-deposit requirement.2. The appellants are aggrieved with the following finding of the Id.Commissioner (Appeals). "I find that the lower adjudicating authority has failed in depicting the inculpatory role of Shri Naresh N. Kumbadia, Prop. Prakash Trading, Mumbai in the present case. Further nothing serious, except for non-production of the retail sale invoice is reflected from his statement dated 3-5-2000. Looking to the facts of the case, I find that the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on Shri Naresh N. Kumbadia, is not commensurate with the gravity of the case and the role played by him in the case. Accordingly, I am disinclined to maintain the same, albeit for his non-cooperation with the investigating officer the same cannot be completely set aside and ipso facto I reduce the penalty to Rs. 5,000/- from Rs. 10,000/-".There is no provision to maintain, uph...

Balmer Lawri Van Leer Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT206Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal of the appellants is directed against the order-in-appeal, whereby the claim for refund of Rs. 91,666/- has been rejected; It is claimed by the appellants that while calculating the payment of fortnightly duty liability, they had erroneously included the duty liability in respect of a consignment, which was exported without payment of duty under bond. On detecting the arithmetical mistake, they filed a refund claim, which was rejected by the authorities below. Hence the instant appeal to the Tribunal.3. During the hearing, the appellants had furnished a detailed worksheet of total debits made by them along with the zerox copies of the relevant ledger accounts.4. In the order-in-original itself, it has been admitted that the export under bond, had indeed taken place, but it is observed that since no excise duty has been paid on the export consignment it is held that the refund claim is not eligible, in respect of this consignment.5. The order-in-appeal also does not discl...

Rahul Metals and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai confirming a duty demand of Rs. 1,30,26,929/-against M/s. Shivai Barrels Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd., by disallowing modvat credit and directing recovery thereof, of the above amount under Rule 571(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, imposing penalty equal to duty under Rule 571(4), confirming interest @ 20% under Rule 571(5) and imposing penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs on the Director of the manufacturing unit under Rule 209A and penalties of amount^set out in the annexure to this order on dealers of the manufacturer, in terms of Rule 173Q(1)(bbb). The ground for confirmation of duty is that the manufacturer took credit on goods described as coils in the invoices while what they received was sheets.In other words the main charge against the manufacturer is that there is no co-relation between the inputs supplied and the form in which the inputs reached their factory.Dhimant Trading Co. v. CCE, Mum...

Ceekay DaikIn Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT668Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the allegation of illicit removal of excisable goods by the appellants as held by the original adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,20,834/- and imposed a penalty of equivalent amount and demanded interest.3. The facts of the case are that the appellants had prepared an invoice on 15/02/98 to cover the proposed removal of 371 cartons of excisable goods (clutches for motor vehicles) showing the out time thereon as 2000 hrs. The said goods (motor vehicle parts) were consigned to M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., Gurgaon (Haryana), situated at a distance of over 2000 KMs from the factory. It is the claim of the appellant that, though the said cartons (371 cartons) were to be despatched on 15/02/98, due to inability of the transporter viz., Transport Corporation of India (TCI) to make the truck available on 15/02/98,...

Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. JaIn Irrigation Systems

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai, who has accepted the importer's claim for classification of pipes of plastic coated as parts of agricultural drip irrigation equipments under Chapter heading 84.24 of the CTA, while it is the contention of the Revenue that the goods are nothing but pipes of plastic falling under Chapter heading 39.17.3. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals)'s detailed description of the goods as 'dual chambered emission tubing featuring a main supply chamber through which the water flows and have laser drilled small water emission orifices at regular intervals' has not been disputed in the appeal before us and what is disputed is the classification of the goods. The literature of the items imported clearly shows that these are pans of drip irrigation system and in this context the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Elgi Utlra Appliances Ltd. v. CCE, CoimbatoreCCE, Aurangabad v. EPC Irrigation 2002 (142) ...

Parbat B. Patel and Narsi D. Patel Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. We have heard both sides on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on each applicant by the adjudicating authority vide the impugned order on the ground that as a proprietors of M/s. Sure and M/s. Sure Boutique there were in possession of and acquirerd / deposited / kept / sold / purchased readymade garments, leather belts, pouches, packs, etc., of foreign origin which were found to be liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 as they were found not to have been legally imported.2. The contention of the applicants that the order is bad in law for failure to follow the directions contained in Tribunal's remand order No. CII/4199-4200/WZB/2002 dated 09/12/2002, for consideration of the affidavit of Shri Khetshi Shah, proprietor of M/s. Sapna Enterprises, deposing that he had sold substantial quantity of the goods to the applicants and the bank account showing payment for the goods by cheque is prima facie not tenable i...

Schenectady Beck India Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of I.T.,

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. On a difference of opinion between the Members constituting this bench, when appeal originally came up for hearing, following question was referred for the esteemed views of a Third Member:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) is justified in assuming the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the I.T. Act and thereafter setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer? 2. Shri M.K. Chaturvedi, Hon'ble Vice President (MZ) and acting as a Third Member, held that the Commissioner was justified i n assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. He thus concurred with the learned Judicial Member Shri N. Vijaykumaran who had also held so and, for that reason, dismissed the assessee's appeal.4. In the result, and in accordance with the majority view, these appeals are dismissed....

Smt. Babita P. Kanungo Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)277ITR177(Mum.)

1. This is an assessee's appeal directed against the order of the learned CIT(A)-XXXIX, Mumbai, dt. 17th July, 2000, for asst. yr.1997-98. The grounds of appeal are as under : "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO and also the learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as in facts in holding that agricultural income pertaining to minors are liable to be clubbed Under Section 64 of the IT Act, 1961, in the hands of the assessee (parent) for the rate purposes. 2. That the learned AO has erred in clubbing the agricultural income of the minors in the hands of the appellant Under Section 64 at Rs. 36,000 ignoring the provisions of Section 10(1) read together with Section 2(24) and Section 64 of the IT Act, 1961, and the provisions of the Finance Act, 1997, which do not provide for clubbing of agricultural income of minor sons in the hands of their parents, being the agricultural income of minors is not the income which is the subject-matter of Section 64, ...