Mumbai Court May 2004 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Costa and Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC234

1. (a) These three appeals are being disposed off by this common order as the issue involved revolves around the classification of the same products & thereafter the duty demands.(b) Appeal E/2668/02 by the assessee arises consequent to a Show Cause Notice No. 59/MAR GAO/2001 dated 12.7.2001 which proposed classification of the products under dispute under Heading 1601.10 and recovery of duty of Rs. 22,13,636/- under the provision to Section 11A (1) Commissioner vide Order No. 21/Commr/Goa/CX/2002 dt 31.1.2002 confirmed the same and imposed a penalty of Rs. 22,13,636/- for contravening the provision of Rule 173B, 173F, 173 G(1) read with Rule 9 (1) & 173 G (4) and Rule 53 of the Central Excise Rules. A Confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 98,128/- seized on 10.1.2001 was arrived and ordered to be redeemed on a fine of Rs. 25,000/-.(c) Appeal No. E/2669/02 by the assessee, emanates from a Show Cause Notice No. 50/MAGAO/2001 dt 18.5.2001, on deny same goods consequent to the whic...

Vijay Silk House Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These are appeals which have been filed against a common order, one by M/s Vijay Silk House Pvt. Ltd. and the rest by the revenue. The appeal filed by M/s Vijay Silk House Pvt Ltd., against the impugned order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), questions the validity and the legality of the said order. From the facts of the case, it is revealed that 4 consignments of imported polyester fabrics were initially cleared duty free against a DEEC licence, presented by the appellants. On enquiry it was revealed that the import was made against an expired licence, by manipulation of the import document to show shipment within the validity period of licence.Therefore import of polyester fabrics was allowed only on payment of duty. The duty free import was held as not valid. It was observed by the Commissioner that the licence against which duty free clearance was sought had already expired and the goods imported against the same could not have been utilized to fulfill...

James Mackintosh and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)93ITD466(Mum.)

1. The short, neatly identified and interesting issue requiring our adjudication in this appeal is as to what precisely are the connotations of the expression "more than casual" appearing in article 8A(2) of the India Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA' for short).2. Before we address ourselves to this core issue, it is necessary to briefly touch upon the relevant DTAA provisions and the material facts in the background of which this controversy is set out. The assessee is a shipping agency, and is before us in its capacity as 'representative assessee' of the actual assessee, i.e., a Netherlands based shipping company, namely Serrmoah Shipping BV-a capacity in which it is assessed to tax as well. It is necessary to take note of the fact that article 8A(1) of the Indian Netherlands DTAA [(1989) 177 ITR (St) 22], as a general principle, lays down that "profits from the, operation of ships in international traffic shall be taxed in that other State in which the place ...

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Aroh Trading (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)96TTJ(Mum.)570

1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, and relates to the asst. yr. 1992-93.2. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us and precedents relied upon. The CIT(A) has held that no penalty for concealment is leviable in the case of the assessee as it was assessed for the year under consideration on a loss of Rs. 15,40,450. Therefore, the question posed before us was whether the penalty for concealment is leviable in a case where an assessee has been assessed on a figure of loss.3. We find that the Tribunal decided this issue in the case of Dy. CIT v. Galaxy Dyeing & Printing Mills (P) Ltd. being ITA No. 3331/Mum/1997, dt. 9th March, 2004. It is pertinent to note that while deciding this issue, the Tribunal followed the judgment rendered by the apex Court in the case of CIT v. Prithipal Singh & Co. . The Tribunal also took note of the decision rendered by the j...

Shri P.V. Sanghvi Vs. C.C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT24Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants had filed a refunds under the provision of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 amounting to totally Rs. 57, 70, 924.58.They were issued a show cause notice dt 18.9.95 by the Assistant Commissioner as to why the said claims of refund should not be rejected on the grounds- "Annealing and pickling does not amount to manufacture. Hence the product i.e. stainless steel wife rods/coils annealed and pickled are not dutiable. As per Rule 57C of the Central Excise Rules 1944, no credit of duty paid on inputs is allowed if the final product is exempt from duty or chargeable to nil rate of duty. As your product is chargeable to nil rate of duty, the credit of duty paid on inputs cleared from your Kalwe plant is not admissible. And therefore the reversal of Rs. 57, 70, 924.68 is correct and in order. Hence the question of refund of the said amount does not arise ". "I have gone through the refund claim, case history, relevant records available and party's written reply. I fin...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Richardson and Cruddas Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT346Tri(Mum.)bai

1. None appeared for the respondents. Heard Shri A.K. Saxena, learned JDR for the Department.2. The applicant Commissioner has taken the following ground for appealing against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) :- "Rule 57F(2) as it existed, during the relevant period did not allow for extension of time period. Thus, Central Excise Rule which have been framed and issued under Sections 6, 12 and 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 have the force of law. Whereas the circular which has been cited by the Commissioner (Appeals) is in the nature of executive instruction which cannot take (sic) statutory provisions, as such the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (A) is not correct." 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) while passing the impugned order has held that the departmental officers cannot take a stand contrary to the Board's circular. The appeal filed before the Tribunal by the applicant Commissioner is clearly based on the presumption that the Board's circular ...

D.K. Polyn Industries and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT517Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Vide his impunged order Commissioner, Surat has confirmed demand of Rs. 61,12,328/- against Polyn Industries as Customs duty under the provisions of Section 28 of Custom Act, 1962 along with imposition of personal penalty of identical amount under Section 72 read with Section 114-A of Customs Act, 1962. In addition personal penalties of varying amounts has been imposed upon other appellants under Section 112-(b) of Customs Act, 1962.2. The appellant M/s. D.K. Polyn Industries is 100% EOU. On checking the stock position of processed yarn during the visit of officers from the Central Excise & Customs (Preventive) to the appellant's factory on 23.10.99, the same was found to be short by 1 lakhs Kgs. Statements of partner as also other persons were recorded and it was believed that the goods in question have been sold without the cover of invoices and without discharging the duty burden. Accordingly, show cause notices were issued proposing confirmation of demand of Customs duty as...

D.S. Karant Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(1)SLJ104CAT

1. The applicant is a 1969 batch I.R.S. Officer. In 1986 he was promoted as Additional Commissioner and was posted at the relevant time as Additional Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore. According to the applciant, an information was received by one Shri K.A. Nayar, Appraising Officer that an Arab Dhow carrying 8 M.Ts of contraband silver had left Dubai on 9.12.1990 and was en route to Mangalore. DRI-I i.e. information report in regard to that was sent to Collector of Customs, Bangalore. The Arab Dhow was intercepted on the high seas on the night of 17/18th December, 1990. The informer was entitled to a reward of Rs. 1000/- per kg of silver seized and therefore, Nayar vide his letter dated 8.3.1991 to the applicant requested to recommend the reward to the Informer. The applicant recommended to the Collector of Customs, Bangalore for disbursal of Rs. 87,77,000/- to the Informer.After the issue of this letter dated 22.3.1991, the applciant was issued a charge sheet dated 7.8.1995. The fo...

i.C.B. Limited Vs. the I.T.O.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)93ITD418(Mum.)

1. ITA Nos. 6592 & 6593/Mum/1991 are appeals by assessee for Assessment years 1982-83 & 1983-84 respectively and are directed against the common order of CIT (A), Mumbai dated 26.06.1991.2. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and have also perused the records.3. First we take up assessee's appeal No. 6592/Mum/1991 being for A.Y.1982-83. Ground No. 1 disputes the disallowance of Rs. 13,766/- Under Section 40A(8) of I.T. Act. The ld. AR of assessee has contended that the relevant statutory provisions of Section 40A(8) of the I.T. Act, 1965, as it existed at the relevant time, is as under: "(8) Where the assessee, being a company (other than a banking company or a financial company), incurs any expenditure by way of interest in respect of any deposit received by it, 15% of such expenditure shall not be allowed as a deduction. (a) "Banking Company" means a company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), applies and includes any bank or banking institution...

Sunflex Auto Parts Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT188Tri(Mum.)bai

1. When the matter was called no one appears for the appellant the matter is pending since 1999 therefore we proceed to decide the matter after considering the material on record and hearing the Jt. CDR.2. It is found that the issue involved in this case is classification of certain parts made out of rubber and metal bonded together which were being manufactured and supplied to the Indian Railways as per the specifications use by the Indian Railway. They were supplied under Heading 8607.00. (a)A new management with new partners has taken over the firm from April 1996, and when they received the impugned show cause notice for the metal bonded parts manufactured and supplied Indian Railways they filed a no-objection letter to classify their products under Heading 8607.00. (b)Later on they realized their mistake and therefore contested the classification on merits. Since the use of the subject goods is in all axle assembly. This rubber metal silent block is common to absorb jerk and nois...