Mumbai Court December 2005 Judgments

U.S. Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. According to the applicant herein, who is a CHA, the error apparent on record arises in the Tribunal's Final Order No. A/441, 442/WZB/05/C-I, dated 26-10-2005 inasmuch as the order only records the finding regarding other appellant viz., Rio Tinto India Pvt. Ltd. (importer) and no finding has been recorded on the pleas raised by the US Enterprises against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh upon them by the adjudicating authority, whose order is challenged in Appeal No. C/152/05. Ld. Consultant for the applicant takes us through the order of the Tribunal to support his contention and to substantiate his plea that all the findings recorded therein relates only to the importer and there is no finding at all in respect of the applicant herein, who is a CHA.2. The prayer for rectification of mistake is opposed by the Id. SDR, who draws our attention in Para 1 of the order, wherein the Bench has recorded that neither appellant disputed that the goods in question which were imported ...

Joint Commissioner of Vs. Abbot Laboratories (India) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)100ITD343(Mum.)

1. Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by the common order for the sake of convenience.2. The main issue arising from these appeals, relates to the disallowance of Rs. 17,51,91,740 on account of payment under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) and ex gratia payment pertaining to assessment year 1996-97 and Rs. 56,55,979 in respect of assessment year 1997-98, which have been deleted by the Learned CIT (Appeals).3. Briefly stated the facts as narrated in the assessment order are these. Assessee company had a unit for manufacture of Pharmaceuticals at Kurla. This unit was undergoing labour problems. Assessee company accordingly decided to close down this unit. Therefore, first VRS was brought out in August, 1995 in which 37 employees opted for the scheme.Total payment was of Rs. 1.39 crores. This was only a part of the assessee's proposal to close down the Kurla Unit. Since all the employees of Kurla Division did not opt for VRS, assessee devised the scheme o...

The Joint Commissioner of Income Vs. Abbot Laboratories (i) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by the common order for the sake of convenience.2. The main issue arising from these appeals, relates to the disallowance of Rs. 17,51,91,740/- on account of payment under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) and Ex-gratia payment pertaining to Assessment Year 1996-97 and Rs. 56,55,979/- in respect of Assessment Year 1997-98, which have been deleted by the Learned CIT (Appeals).3. Briefly stated the facts as narrated in the assessment order are these. Assessee company had a unit for manufacture of Pharmaceuticals at Kurla. This unit was undergoing labour problems. Assessee company accordingly decided to close down that unit. Therefore, first VRS was brought out in August, 1995 in which 37 employees opted for the scheme.Total payment was of Rs. 1.39 crores. This was only a part of the assessee's proposal to close down the Kurla Unit. Since all the employees of Kurla Division did not opt for VRS, assessee devised the sche...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Makers Laboratories Ltd. and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The department's appeal in Appeal No. E/2557/04 is against the lower appellate authority's order confirming refund amounting to Rs. 5,39,687/-. M/s Makers Laboratories Ltd.'s Appeal No.E/2048/05 is against the lower appellate authority's order confirming recovery of the very same amount of Rs. 5,39,687/-. As such, both the orders are contradictory relating to the same issue and the same amount in question. Therefore, with the consent of both sides, both the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to re-decide the matter and pass a single order after hearing both sides. The appeals are allowed by way of remand....

Shreenath Orgochem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The appellants made clearance for export under payment of duty on 26-7-2000 but the impugned goods were returned back on 28-8-2000. The appellants asked for restoration of credit of duty paid on the impugned consignments on 14-9-2000. However, they were advised to file a refund claim by the departmental authorities by letter dtd. 31-5-2002 and the documents submitted by them were also returned to them on 31-5-2002. Subsequently, the refund claim filed by them has been rejected on the ground of time bar.2. Considering all aspects of the case, I am inclined to hold that the refund claim filed subsequently can be treated as a continuation of their original claim filed on 14-9-2000. Since the same was filed in time, I am of the view that the appellants are entitled to refund by way of re-credit of the duty paid earlier. I order accordingly. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential benefits to the appellants....

Board of Cricket Control in India Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. We have heard both sides, perused the case records including the cited case laws and circulars issued by the Board and have considered all arguments advanced from both sides. The impugned order determines a service tax of Rs. 11,19,61,602/- and imposes penalties of Rs. 11,19,61,602/- plus Rs. 6,000/- plus Rs. 22,39,00,000/-against the appellants. The authorities below have also held the appellants to have suppressed and concealed the value of taxable service amounting to Rs. 2,23,92,32,038/-. (ii) permitting sponsors to use space for putting up advertisement in the stadia, and (iii) permitting logos on clothing and clothing accessories of players. The authorities below have held these activities to be covered under the taxable service of advertising agency which is defined as follows: - Advertising Agency means any commercial concern engaged in providing any service connected with the making, preparation, display or exhibition of advertisement and includes an advertising consultant...

Commissioner Of Central Excise Vs. Burlingtons' Exports

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The Department is in appeal aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai, wherein sanction of the refund has been upheld in favour of the appellants and set aside the transfer of the same to Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as ordered by the Asst, Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane. There is a clear finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that duty incidence has not been passed on to the buyers.3. On making enquiry on the last date of hearing, the Respondents have produced a letter dated 01.12.2001 addressed to them by their buyer, which shows that the amount shown in the invoice dated 05.05.2001 to the tune of Rs. 5,10,709.13 (Rupees Five Lakhs Ten Thousand Seven Hundred Nine and paise Thirteen only) does not include central excise duty as the buyer did not want to pay the same as per their earlier discussion in the subject matter. The aforesaid letter, which is produced today by the Respondents,...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. P and B Laboratories Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC29

2. The Department is in appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai, for reducing penalty amount to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) from Rs. 6,77,975/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Five only) and further waiving the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) under Rule 173Q.3. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of fixed dose combination (FDC) of Vitamin B1, B6 and B12 under brand name Aneudox-12 and classified the same under Chapter sub-heading 3003.00 of the first Schedule to the CETA, 1985 as patent of propriety of medicaments in their classification declaration. Whereas the Department wanted the classification under Chapter sub-heading 2936.00 as the appellants were mis-declared the same as medicaments with therapeutic uses. The appellants went before the Delhi Tribunal aggrieved by the order of the Department as the Tribunal has confirmed classification as sought...

Asahi India Glass Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The appellants clear the impugned glass (tinted and non-tinted) on payment of duty in about 9000 trucks in a year. In a few cases (50-60 trucks) the same get damaged and are returned and received back in the appellants' factory. The dispute is whether the appellants allowed to take credit in respect of duty paid on such glass received back in damaged condition.2. The appellants have cited the provisions of Rule 16 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 which read as under :- (1) Where any goods on which duty has been paid at the time of removal thereof are subsequently returned to the factory for being re-made, refined, re-conditioned or for any other reason, the assessee shall state the particulars of such return in his records and shall be entitled to have CENVAT credit of the duty paid as if such goods are received as inputs under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001 and utilise this credit according to the said rules. [2. If the process to which the goods are subj...

Bakul Aromatics and Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC26

2. The Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original No. RAIGAD/JOINT COMMR./106/02-03 dated 25.08.2003 denied the credit taken amounting to Rs. 7,66,515/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Five Hundred Fifteen only) and imposed equal amount of penalty on the appellants on the ground that the credit was availed on the invoices without receiving the inputs in the factory premises.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 28 and 29 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and availed Modvat/Cenvat facility as laid down under Rule 57A and 57Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944.During the relevant period, the inputs were directly sent to their job worker, for which the Department has taken objection for availing the Modvat credit since the inputs were not directly received in the factory of the appellants.Raymond Synthetics Ltd. v. Collector of C.Ex, Allahabad 2001 (135) ELT 170 (Tri.- Del.) (d) Bhilwara Mel...