Mumbai Court June 2004 Judgments

Shiva International Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT46Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides in this case it is found that the issue involved in the classification of Aluminium Foils & Pouches. The entities are manufacture by Sandwiching of Aluminium Foil between BOPP and LDPE cover on cither side.2. We find that the disputed issue i.e. as to whether the aluminium foil laminated with both sides with classifiable as a plastic product under Chapter 39 or the same has to be considered as aluminium foil classified Heading 76.07, is covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Paharpur 3P v. CCE Ghaziabad reported in 2004 (165) E.L.T. 239 (T) 2004 (60) RLT 88 (CESTAT -KOL.). While holding that the product is properly classifiable under Heading 76.07, the Tribunal in the above referred matter has taken note of the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. India Foils Ltd. reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 737 (T) 2000 (39) RLT 304 (CEGAT) as also the decision in the case of CCE, Delhi-IIV.R.T.Pack...

Olympic Synthetic Sacks (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. During the period from July 1989 to February 1990, the appellants were clearing the HDPE tapes without payment of duty on furnishing bank guarantee in terms of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court Stay Order before whom the matter as regards the correct classification of tapes was pending.Subsequently the stay was vacated by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the appellant paid an amount of Rs. 78,211.74 by making a debit entry from the PLA on 12.7.90, Subsequently the issue of classification was decided in favour of the assessee by Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s Rajpack Well Industries holding that the HDPE Tape is correctly classifiable under Heading 3920.32.2. The appellants subsequently claimed the refund of duty debited from the PLA on 12.7.90 and for an amount of Rs. 1829.17 paid under protest during the period 1.7.89 to 4.7.89. The said refund claim was considered by Asst Commissioner who allowed the same by observing that since the classification of the goods is finally...

Ja Vs. Engineering (India) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT438Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 15,66,000/- confirmed together with interest for the period February, 1999 to August, 1999, we find that it is possible to decide the appeal itself at this stage; and hence after waiving the pre-deposit, we proceed to hear and dispose of the appeal with the consent of both sides.2. We note from the impugned order that the appellants have admitted the liability to pay duty. What is contested before us is the interest liability, on the ground that the language of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, as it stood during the relevant time provided for levy of interest only in the event of fraud, collusion or wilful misstatement etc. while Commissioner (Appeals) has given a clear finding that the company did not collude with their employee for short payment. The further prayer before us is for some time to make the payment of duty.3. On a careful perusal of the section as it stood during...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Vazir Polymers Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC482

1. None appeared for the respondents. Heard Shri S. Singhal, learned D.R. for the Revenue. In this case, the respondents had declared the value of the impugned consignments of LLDPE/HDPE as US$ 225 per meter tone. The Additional Commissioner of Customs who has passed the impugned order in original enhanced the value to US $ 352.35 for the purpose of assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the impugned order in appeal setting aside the order in original mainly on the ground that the department has not provided evidence of contemporary import prices.2. Shri S. Singhal, learned D.R. appearing for the department states that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the department has not provided evidence of contemporary import of higher prices in as much as in the cross objection filed by the department range of prices at which imports were noticed was clearly mentioned.He, however, admits that specific instances of contemporary imports were not provided but the same...

income Tax Officer Vs. Smt. Shanuur J. Farooqui

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)98TTJ(Mum.)65

1. This appeal by the Department is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-XXVII, Mumbai, on 26th March, 2003, by which he cancelled the penalty of Rs. 3,31,560 imposed on the assessee under Section 271(l)(c) of the IT Act.2. The assessee was a lady engaged in the manufacture of school bags, the demand for which is at its peak in the months of April to August.The assessee was enjoying cash credit limit of Rs. 4,00,000 from the bank. For the year ending 31st March, 1997, which is the year under appeal, the stock of raw material was shown at Rs. 3,12,000 in the books of account. There was no stock of finished goods. However, in the stock statement sent to the bank, the assessee declared stock of Rs. 5,39,175 which consisted of raw material of Rs. 1,12,050 and finished goods of Rs. 4,27,125. While completing the assessment, the AO took note of the above and considered the amount of Rs. 4,27,125 as the assessee's income. The assessee took a position before the AO that the stock f...