Mumbai Court May 2004 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Nityanand Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT193Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is revenue's appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Vice the impugned order the appeal of the respondents was allowed. The appeal of the revenue challenges the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and seeks restoration of the order of the adjudicating authority. The respondents have filed written submissions in support of the findings contained in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The respondents are engaged in the manufacturer of steel structural viz ladders, liners and gratings, out of iron and steel supplied free of cost to them by their customer M/s. L & T, on job work basis. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the order of the adjudicating authority and held these as not liable to duty, on the ground that these goods would be covered under heading No. 73.08 as "structures and parts of structures", and these would be fully exempt from Central Excise duty under Notification No. 41/94 CE. The revenue appeal disputes this findi...

Cce Vs. Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT534Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this appeal at the instance of the Revenue challenge is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30.11.98. The respondent is engaged in the manufacture of, inter alia, cotton fabrics, man-made fabrics and toweling cloth falling under Chapter 52, 55 and 58 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. Under declaration dated 13.4.1994 given under Rule 57G(1) the respondent had claimed three bleaching chemicals used for bleaching of fabrics of Chapter 52 as inputs used for manufacture of coated fabrics of Chapter 59. Show cause notice was issued proposing to deny the credit availed for on the said bleaching chemicals. The adjudicating authority also denied the entire modvat credit to the extent of Rs. 68,53,626 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.2. The adjudicating authority took the view that BTRA relied on by the respondent cannot be accepted as evidence in view of the note in the letter stating that "The information contained in this letter and/or enc...

Birla Copper Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The instant stay application is moved against the impugned order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, whereby the appellants have been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,58,40,000/- and the penalty of Rs.5,000/-. The appellants had erroneously debited the aforesaid amount in their PLA, in excess of what was required to be reversed. The appellants take modvat/cenvat credit on inputs, which are common for duty paying as well as exempted products. So while clearing the exempted products (gold) reversal from the credit account an amount equivalent to 8% of the value of exempted goods is required. The appellants, through an error made the excess reversal of the said amount and when they discovered the mistake after a lapse of about one year, they suo moto took the credit. The taking of credit in PLA without a valid refund sanctioning order from the competent authority was objected to. Since the credit was raised beyond the period of six months prescribed for claiming refund under Sect...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kraftech Products Inc.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT43Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The respondents manufacture "Godrej Permanent Powder Hair Dye" and "Godrej Kali Mehendi". These products are packed in small packages containing 3 units each but the combined weight is less than 10 gms. The dispute is whether such packages are exempted from declaring the M.R.P under Rule 34 of the Standards of weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 and consequently from the operation of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is the claim of the respondents that they are exempt from the requirement of declaring the M.R.P. under the said rules, though they have voluntarily declared such price. It is also their claim that consequently they are entitled for assessment under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in accordance with which they have paid the duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the claim of the respondents.2. The main ground of the Departmental appeal is that the exemption under the said Rule 34 does not apply to a case...

Ragunath Ramchandra Shanbhag Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The duty demand in the present case is of Rs. 55,91,471/- on pre-stressed concrete girders supplied by M/s. Asia Foundations and constructions Limited to M/s Konkan Railway Corporation Limited. The adjudicating authority has also imposed penalty of amount equal to duty the manufacturer and penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs on its Deputy Managing Director. Hence these appeals.2. On hearing both sides we note that in their own case vide order No.CB/603 to 605/WZB/2004 dated 16/03/2004 the Tribunal has allowed the appeals of the appellants against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise dated 29th June, 1998, confirming duty demand and imposing penalty. The Tribunal followed the order in the case of B.E.Billimoria & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Order No. CII/890-91/WZB/2003 dated 25/04/2003 wherein the bench had held that the girders in question were not goods within the meaning of Central Excise Act, 1994.3. Learned SDR brings to our notice Tribunal's order in the case of Delhi Tourism & Tra...

Gobind Glass Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT759Tri(Mum.)bai

1. By final order No. CI/3070 to 3074/WZB/2003 dated 24/12/2003 the Tribunal allowed the above appeals by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration of the appellants' claim for deduction of certain excess expenses towards freight and packing. The applicant submits that in addition to this ground they have raised other grounds, that of limitation, acceptance of factory gate price, etc., as seen from their memorandum of appeal before the Tribunal and these aspects are yet to be considered and the remand order being confined to one aspect the remaining issues will remain unresolved.Learned counsel seeks decision of the Tribunal on the aspects raised by them in the appeal which have not been covered in the remand order as all these pleas were raised before the adjudicating authority who has find against them on these aspects.2. Learned SDR submits that since the case has already been remanded for fresh consideration on one aspect the remaining issues which have b...

Lalitha Chem. Industries Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT565Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for stay has been moved by the appellants against impugned order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, which directs them to make a payment of duty of Rs. 10,44,085/- and penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. The Commissioner vide the impugned order rejected the claim of the appellants for remission of duty on finished goods destroyed in an accidental fire, caused due to electric short circuit. While rejecting the claim the Commissioner had observed that, there is a grave lapse on the part of the assessee in not taking necessary precautions to safeguard the goods. He further finds that the fire fighting system and fire alarms were not adequate, which could have helped to control the damage. Consequently, he ordered recovery of duty and imposed penalty.3. We note that there are no foolproof safety measures to avoid altogether accidental fires through electric short circuits. Even star hotels having best of the fire prevention system had been victims to such fir...

Ragunath Ramchandra Shanbhag and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT488Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The duty demand in the present case is of Rs. 55,91,471/- on pre-stressed concrete girders supplied by M/s. Asia Foundations and Constructions Limited to M/s. Konkan Railway Corporation Limited. The adjudicating authority has also imposed penalty of amount equal to duty on the manufacturer and penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs on its Deputy Managing Director. Hence these appeals.2. On hearing both sides we note that in their own case vide order No.CB/603 to 605/WZB/2004 dated 16/03/2004 the Tribunal has allowed the appeals of the appellants against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise dated 29^th June, 1998, confirming duty demand and imposing penalty. The Tribunal followed the order in the case of B.E.Billimoria & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Order No. CII/890-91/WZB/2003 dated 25/04/2003 wherein the bench had held that the girders in question were not goods within the meaning of Central Excise Act, 1944.3. Learned SDR brings to our notice Tribunal's order in the case of Delhi Tourism &...

indo-american Society Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)278ITR49(Mum.)

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-XVIII, Mumbai, and relates to the asst. yr. 1996-97.2. The following two grounds taken in this appeal are reproduced here as under : "1. That the learned ITO as well as CIT(A) erred in law as well as the facts of the case in computing the total income of your petitioners at Rs. 27,83,662 by denying exemption under Section 11 and in holding that your petitioners are conducting courses which have no connection with the objects of the society. 2. That without prejudice to the aforesaid ground of appeal the AO as well as the CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the provisions of Section. 11(4A) of the IT Act, 1961, are (sic) applicable to your petitioners and are entitled to the benefit of the relief provided by the said, provisions." 3. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us and precedents relied upon. The assessee is an AOP. As per the memorandum of association, the assessee-so...

indo-american Society Vs. Asstt. Dit (Exemption)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)96ITD61(Mum.)

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-XVIII, Mumbai, and relates to the assessment year 1996-97.The following two grounds taken in this appeal are reproduced here as under : "1. That the learned Income Tax Officer as well as CIT(A) erred in law as well as the facts of the case in computing the total income of your petitioners at Rs. 27,83,662 by denying exemption under section 11 and in holding that your petitioners are conducting courses which have no connection with the objects of the society.2. That without prejudice to the aforesaid ground of appeal the assessing officer as well as the CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 11(4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are (sic) applicable to your petitioners and are entitled to the benefit of the relief provided by the said provisions." We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us and precedents relied upon. The assessee is an AOP. As per the memorandum...