Mumbai Court June 2004 Judgments

Mafattal Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT164Tri(Mum.)bai

1. When the matter is called the appellants were not represented since the issue is pending for a long time, the DR was heard and the appeals are taken up for decision. The issue involved in both these cases is the levy of duty on the process of sizing of yarn, by considering the same to be a process of manufacture.The period involved is subsequent to the amendment of the chapter notes 2 to chapter applicable, ie chapter 52 or & chapter 55. The Show cause notices, issued alleged that notification 35/95 CE dated 16/3/95 as amended by notification No. 84/95 dated 18/5/95 was not applicable to the applicant herein.2. The lower authorities did not accept the applicants contentions that the sizing of yarn was not a process of manufacture in view of Supreme Courts decision in the case of J.K. Ltd 1987 52 E.LT 234 Supreme Court.Hence these appeals.3. After considering chapter note 1 to 52 and note 2 to chapter 55 of the Central Excise Tariff schedule introduced by the budget of 1995 &...

Maneksha Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal involves the denial of credit on capital goods under modvat rules, on account of the fact that the appellants also simultaneously availed the benefit of depreciation under the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is not permissible. Though, the appellants claimed that they had reduced the claim of depreciation in the relevant income tax return, the Additional Commissioner held that, reduction was not to the extent of Rs. 64,251/-. Hence, the modvat credit of Rs. 84,715/- on the capital goods was denied. The Commissioner (Appeals) while set aside the penalty, confirmed the demand of Rs. 84,715/- under Rule 57U (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Rules) read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, (Act). Hence, the instant appeal.3. I have perused the relevant income tax returns. In the revised income tax returns, the plant and machinery value is shown as Rs. 8,44,427/- claiming a depreciation of Rs. 2,72,516/- as against the corresponding figures of Rs. 9,08,678/- an...

B.B. Associates Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT204Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Miscellaneous Intervention application to bring the other partner as a co-appellant in this appeal and the appeal are being disposed of by this common order.2. When the Miscellaneous application was called none appeared for the applicant and is therefore dismissed.3. The appeal is taken up for disposal. The appeal is against the older of the Commissioner, who after considering the request to reconstitute the partnership firm to a proprietary concern, since one of the partners Mr Vivekanand R Bhanushali, had expressed his willingness to resign from the firm and on considering that Vivekanand R Bhanushali vide his letter dated 2.8.2002 had requested for issue of Rule 9 Customs Pass which he is stated to have surrendered on 14.9.1987 and since the requests made were contrary, he heard both the partners and after hearing found that as per Clause 13 of the Partnership Deed between the two partners, which clearly states that "In case of dispute amongst partners, the same shall be ref...

Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd., S.K. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC396

i) Demand of Rs. 1,54,102/- in respect of 64,397 L.Metres of manmade fabrics and 59,918 L.Metres of cotton fabrics found short during the course of search at appellant's premises on 25-1-1994. ii) Imposition of redemption find of Rs. 50,000/- in respect of goods valued at Rs. 85, 305.10 seized from the godown of appellant. iii) Imposition of redemption fin of Rs. 3,00,000/- in respect of manmade fabrics admeasuring 54,990 L.Metres valued at Rs. 7,80,797/- and cotton fabrics admeasuring 42,398 L.Metres valued at Rs. 7,03,476/-, which were seized from appellant's premises on account of their not being entered in the RG1 register. iv) Demand for duty of Rs. 52, 73,773/- in respect of processed manmade fabrics allegedly cleared in the guise of cotton fabrics by claiming exemption in terms of Notification No. 253/82-CE dated 8-11-1982. v) Penalty of Rs 10.00 lakhs on the assessee, Rs 1.00 lakh on the Director, Rs 2,5000/- on P.M. Gohil, godown in-charge and Rs 5000/- on H.G. Gehani, appell...

Modern Suiting Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT168Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Pursuant to intelligence that the appellants (hereinafter referred to as M/s MS who imported under EPCG scheme import of capital goods under exemption notification 110/95, Customs dated 5.6.95 had failed to meet the requirements of the said notification were visited by the officer who caused on enquiry and a show cause notice dated 27.11.2000 issued, as it appeared:- The importers availed of the concessional rate of Custom duty under Notification No. 110/95-Cus dated 5.6.95. However, the importers do not appear to have complied with the conditions of the Notification subject to which clearance of the goods was allowed under the exemption Notification. The exports do not also appear to be have been made by the use of the goods imported against the EPCG licence in question as laid down in paragraph 41(1) of Chapter VI of the EXIM Policy 1992-97 and explanation (v) of the Notification No. 110/95 Cus dated 5.6.95. Admittedly there does not appear to be any legal and valid evidence on r...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This revenue appeal is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondents took modvat credit on 30/06/95 on the basis of gate passes issued prior to 31/03/94 which was held as irregular by the adjudicating authority under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944, gate passes issued prior to 31/03/94 and credit taken after 30/06/94 was not permissible. On appeal from the respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order-in-original placing reliance on the judgments of the Tribunal, holding that the claim of credit was permissible under Rule 57H in terms of which provisions of Rule 57G are excluded. It is only under Rule 57G that the credit on the basis of gate passes issued prior to 31/033/94 was required to be taken before 30/06/94.3. The revenue appeal says that Rule 57G and 57H are not mutually exclusive. In this case, the respondents had made a declaration dated 20/03/95 to the Divisional Central Excise Office for availment of modvat credit ...

Burlingtons Exports, Taj Mahal Vs. the Acit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)278ITR106(Mum.)

1. These appeals have been filed by the assessee arising out of the orders of ld. CIT (A) III, Mumbai for the assessment years 1988-89 & 1989-90, both dated 31/10/95. The issue involved in these appeals is identical, therefore, consolidated and hereby decided by this common order.2. The only issue as per ground of appeal is regarding claim of deduction Under Section 80HHC of Rs. 11,75,891/- for the assessment year 1988-89 and Rs. 41,79,604/- for the assessment year 1989-90 in respect of exports made by the appellant assessee through a third party.3. As the ground indicates the short and interesting issue is whether an assessee is entitled for claim of deduction Under Section 80HHC in respect of the exports made through a third party who was held as the main exporter being granted export quota. The facts of the case as enumerated from the order of the A.O can be summarized that the assessee has received foreign exchange from the foreign buyers. Foreign Exchange was received by the ...

Kinetic Engineering Limited and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR750; 2004(3)MhLj1034

A.P. Deshpande, J. 1. The petitioner No. 1 is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and it carries on business inter alia of the manufacture, production, distribution and sale of 'Mopeds'. The petitioner No. 2 is the Chairman of the petitioner No. I/Company. At the relevant point of time, the respondent No. 2, Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation, was a Municipal Council, governed and regulated by the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. The petitioner No. 1 started manufacturing activity at Ahmednagar sometime in the year 1972 and from 1972 to 1977, the petitioners were not required to pay any octroi by virtue of an exemption granted by the then Municipal Council. However, after the year 1977, the then Municipal Council commenced levying and collecting octroi from the 1st petitioner under the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965...

Balkrishna Dinkar Gondhalekar Vs. Kashiram Sonu Karabele and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR693; 2005(1)BomCR954; 2005(1)MhLj60

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel appearing for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Mr. Shetye and Mr. Phadke waive notice for the respective Respondents. As short question is involved, this petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent.2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, dated December 1, 1999, in Revision No. Ten.R.A. 169 of 1998. The present proceedings have emanated from the inquiry under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (for short, 'the Act') for determination of purchase price in respect of the suit land. The first authority, by order dated October 31, 1996, fixed the purchase price in respect of the suit land, against which the Petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, who, in turn, dismissed the appeal by judgment and order dated July 6, 1998. The Petition...

Shri Laxmi Oil Mills Vs. Mohanlal Harikisan Kabra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR751; 2005(2)BomCR417; 2004(4)MhLj346

D.G. Karnik, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 5th September, 1980 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Sangli reversing the judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Sangli and regular Civil Suit No. 1171 of 1981.2. The petitioner is the owner and landlord of the premises which consists of a godown in City Survey No. 75, Shivaji Nagar, Sangli. The only ground on which the suit for possession was filed was default in payment of the rent. According to the petitioner, the respondent had agreed to pay rent of Rs. 431/-. For every Samvat year and respondent had not paid rent for the Samvat year 2036. The petitioner therefore, by a notice dated 13th November, 1981 demanded the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 545.99. The rent was claimed on the basis that agreed rent was Rs. 431/- and the balance sum was represented permitted increases. As the respondent failed and neglected to play the rent within a period of one month, the petit...