Mumbai Court June 2004 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizers and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case the Assistant Commissioner had sanctioned the refund of Rs. 50,16,829.26 to the respondents herein by way of credit in their R.G. 23A Part-II account, being the refund of duty paid on Methane at the rate of 20% and the difference from Rs. 262.50 per M.T. for Methane cleared to their Vadodara Unit, and also Methane cleared for captive consumption in the manufacture of other final products, on the ground that their claim for benefit of Notification No. 276/67-CE had been accepted. By the Tribunal's final Order No. 317/95-C dt. 30.10.95, holding that the bar of unjust enrichment was not applicable for the reason that the amount was not recovered by the assesses; the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order; the Tribunal disposed of the Revenue's appeals by its order dt. 23.6.2000 (Order No.C-II/1897-98/WZB/2000 dt.5.7.2000) by allowing the appeal of the Revenue's; against this order the assessee filed an application for rectification of mistake which was dismi...

Sharmila Tagore Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)93TTJ(Mum.)483

1. The assessee owns a residential property in Bombay which was let out. The total rent received was Rs. 3,95,000. While computing the income under the (head) "property" the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 1,70,397 as follows :2. Non-occupancy charges 1,17,832 levied by society 2. While completing the assessment, the AO disallowed the claim for non-occupancy charges and maintenance charges on the ground that these expenses were not mentioned as deductions in Section 24. On appeal, the decision of the AO was confirmed.3. The assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. As regards the maintenance charges we find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal, dt. 15th Nov., 2000, in the case of Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. in ITA 550/Mum/2000. In this case, the decisions of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of Neelam Cable Mfg. Co. v. Asstt. CIT (1997) 59 TTJ (Del) 474 : (1997) 63 ITD 1 (Del), Lekraj Channa v. ITO (1990) 37 TTJ (Del) 29...

Amalner Municipal Council Vs. Wipro Limited

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR375

Marlapalle B.H., J.1. This is petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the Municipal Council at Amalner challenging the common judgment dated 30-1-1991 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amalner, in Municipal Council Appeal Nos. 1 to 14 of 1985 as well as the common judgment dated 24-9-1991 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner, in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 20 to 31 of 1991 and 59 to 72 of 1991. The first batch of the criminal applications was filed by the Municipal Council, whereas, the second batch of the said application was filed by the company namely; Wipro Limited registered under the Companies Act. The said company has a factory for manufacture of 'Vanaspati' which is packed in a tin container and sold in the market. These containers are made out of the tin plates which used to be imported and the company has a separate factory for the manufacture of these tin containers. It was popularly known as 'fabrication plant' employ...

Abdul Umrao Raje Vs. Jijabai Dashrath Khedkar (Deceased) Through L.Rs.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 3(2005)ACC184; 2005(1)ALLMR618

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. The two appeals and writ petition by the driver in the Motor Accident Claims Petition Nos. 21 of 1980,19 of 1980 and 20 of 1980, decided by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmadnagar, on 14.6.1982, 8.3.1982 and 8.3.1982, challenge all the three judgments on a common question and, therefore, all the three matters are being considered and disposed of by this common judgment. In all the three mattress, Divisional Controller, State Transport Division, Kothala Road, Ahmadnagar was cited as other respondent.2. Heard Advocate Mr. A.K. Gawali for appellant and writ petitioner, Advocate Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, holding for Advocate Mr. V.S. Bedre for claimants/respondents in all three matters and Advocate Mr. A.B. Dhongde, holding for Advocate Mr. P.K. Joshi for Divisional Controller in all three matters.3. The only contention raised by the appellant-driver is that the learned Tribunal was at an error in totally exonerating the Divisional Controller and, in turn...

K.R.C.D. (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT427Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of recorded Audio and Video Compact Disk (CD) on job work basis. The said goods are classifiable under Chapter 85 of Central Excise Tariff and chargeable to duty of excise on ad valorem basis. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the correct assessable value of the audio and video CDs being manufactured by the appellants on job work basis.2. For the said purposes, the appellant's customers provide them master of the audio CD in the form of digital audio tape (hereinafter referred to as DAT) inlay card, and the jewel box for packing of the CDs. The process adopted by the appellants for duplicating the CDs from the master tape or DAT has been detailed in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). From the DAT supplied by the customers, the appellants arrange to manufacture a stamper i.e. Nickel plate on which the data is coded. The stamper is used as a mould to manufacture CD, which while manufacturing CD transfers data fro...

Pioneer Embroideries Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC61

1. These appeals were heard on two days on 6.5.2004 and 20.5.2004 when the learned advocates Shri V.S. Nankani and Shri Naresh Thakker respectively appeared on behalf of the appellants on these days. Shri K.M. Mondal, learned consultant appeared on both dates on behalf of the Revenue. We place on record our appreciation for the painstaking efforts by both the learned advocates and the learned consultant in taking us through all aspects of the case and bringing to our notice several case laws having a bearing on these appeals.2. The main issue in these appeals is whether the impugned imported goods can be classified as 'computerized embroidery machine' and therefore, can be extended the exemption under Notification No. 11/97- CUS dated 1.3.1997.3. Before we deal with the issue of classification and eligibility to duty exemption, we first take up the plea advanced by the learned advocates for remand of the case back to the adjudicating Commissioner on the ground that he has taken into a...

Plastipeel Chemicals and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are manufacture of anti-corrosion products. 13 such items being manufactured by them were classified since 1.4.1986 onwards under Heading 3403 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were approved. The process of manufacture and the ingredients used were questioned and replied, somewhere in 1989. On 5.3.1992, the classification list was again approved under Heading 3403 subject to the test report result. The test report results were received and the classification was thereafter approved as claimed under Heading 3403. A Show Cause Notice was issued for 8 items, out of the impugned items herein on 30.3.1995 for the period 1.4.1995 to 30.6.1995 proposing classification under Heading 38.11 since the ingredients were made up of more than 70% of the petroleum mineral oils. Another 7 Show Cause Notices were thereafter issued on similar grounds. On 4.8.1997, 9 Show Cause Notices were issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise demanding duty for period 1.7.1992 to 30.6....

Phenoweld Polymer P. Ltd. Vs. C.C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT183Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants were issued a show cause notice dt. 2/7/98 demanding duty for having cleared 'framed mirrors' during the period March 94 to October 95 without- i) Filing proper classification & Price tech & or declaration required under Rule 173B &/or C ii) Without accounting the same in statutory records & covered by Central Excise Invoices on and after determining duty payable. The notice was based on the allegation of suppression of manufacturing process of framed glass mirrors in or much as they did not disclose to the department that they were getting plastic frame and back cover manufactured out of plastic moulding powder from job workers and framed the mirror cut from full mirror sheet & had deliberately declared the said goods in part 111 of the classification List/Declaration as non-excisable leading the department to believe that what they did, was trading activity in receiving duty paid mirrors and selling the same.2. The lower authorities confirmed the de...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Empire Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri Arun Chopra, Ld. JDR appeared for the revenue and Shri J.F.Pochkhanwalla, Sr. Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent in Appeal No. E/2376/01 and as appellant in appeal No. E/2389/01.2. The revenue's appeal is limited to Sections 11AB and 11AC. Since the period involved is March 1994 to February 1995, the provisions of Section 11AB and 11 AC cannot be invoked in revenue's appeal as they came into effect on 28.9.1996. The revenue's appeal is accordingly dismissed.3. As regards the appeal No. E/2389/01, the Ld. Sr.Advocate interalia submitted that the appellant manufactures medicinal glass bottles and sends them to job workers. In 1987, the appellant has informed the department to clear defective moulds to job worker for reconditioning and thereafter the same were returned to the appellant. The Ld. Sr.Advocate also submitted that they had followed the procedure under Notification 214/86 relating to job worker. Further, he submitted that in 1985 the appellant again wrote to...

Excel India Pvt. Ltd. and V.S. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT482Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These stay applications arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai.2. The facts are that M/s. Wipro GE Medical Systems imported computerised tomography scanner parts. The department alleges that the appellants mis-declared the goods as parts of CTS whereas what was imported was complete scanners. The appellant mis-declared the goods to gain duty concession as applicable for parts for manufacture of CC under the provision of notification 16/2000 dated 1-3-2000. The officers of DRI found that the appellants imported 9 CCs from China as imported as air cargo and declared them correctly as CCs and paid the duty accordingly as complete machines. They had however mis-declared certain imports from various other ports including Mumbai as parts of CCs even though what was imported were complete CCs in order to avail of benefits of the above said notifications. Differential duty denying the benefits of the above said notification was sought to be denied to the importer. Th...