Mumbai Court December 2005 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Hoganas India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(212)ELT37Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The issue involved in this appeal is the entitlement of Modvat credit by the receiver of the goods (repaired materials), duty has been paid by the supplier on the exempted goods. It appears that the issue is no longer res integra. The Id. DR relied upon Board's Letter No. F.No. 93/13/90-CX.3 (Circular No. 2/91/91-CX. 3), dated 4-1-91, it has been considered in the case of Collr. of Central Excise, Mumbai-I v.Noel Pharmaceuticals, and order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is proper and correct, who has allowed Modvat credit of the duty amount paid by the supplier in spite of the exemption. The above decision refer to Catena of decisions.3. The Id. DR does not show any decision contrary to the above decision except the Board Circulars. The Board Circular is already considered in the above Tribunal decision of Noel Pharma. The Order-in-Original was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Ahmednagar, in favour of the revenue and has been set aside by the Com...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Plastart Electronics (i) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard Shri Hitesh Shah, learned S.D.R. for the applicant Commissioner. None appeared for the respondents. The following grounds have been advanced in support of the appeal:- Commr. (A) has erred in not referring to the goods covered by the tariff description of CH 8529.00. CSH 8529.00 covers "Parts suitable for use solely or principally with the apparatus of goods falling under CSH No. 8525.00 to 8528.00". It may be seen that Hdg. No. 8525.00 covers "Transmission apparatus for radio-telephony, radio telegraphy, radio broadcasting or television whether or not incorporating reception apparatus or sound recording or reproducing apparatus; television cameras". The chapter subhdg No. 8526 deals with "Radar Apparatus, radio navigational apparatus and radio remote control apparatus chapter sub. Hdg. No. 8527 deals with the "Reception apparatus for radio telephony, radio telegraphy or radio broadcasting for radio telephony, radio telegraphy or radio broadcasting whether or not combined in ...

Gandhi Fibres Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides, and considering that the core issue in this appeal revolves around whether deemed export can be reckoned for considering the DTA quota for a 100% EOU. The Commissioner, vide the impugned order before us, relies on the decision of Sanju Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Surat and the Id. Commissioner relies on this decision to come to a conclusion that deemed exports cannot be reckoned and it is only physical exports outside India which has to be considered for the purposes of DTA sales.2. We have considered at this prima facie stage of waiver of pre deposit, the findings in the case of Sanju Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Surat The learned Advocate has cited the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shabnam Synthetics Ltd. v. C.C.E. & C, Surat . We find that Shabnam follows the decision of Ginni international Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur . However, the impugned order clearly notes that the decision in the case of Ginny cited supra was rendered in the context of Noti...

Fag Precision Bearing Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Acc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The validity of import of H.P. Grade/Super Precision Bearings arises for determination in the present appeal. The Commissioner of Customs has held that import of these types of bearings were not permitted under OGL at the relevant point of time and therefore upheld the confiscation with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine.2. We have heard both sides. We find that, by Order dated 28-1-1987, the goods were initially confiscated by the Collector with an option of redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 1,60,000/-. This order was appealed against before the Tribunal; By Order No 2044/94/WZB, dated 2-11-1994, the Tribunal remanded the case to the Collector for de novo decision, in the light of the clarification produced from the DGTD that clearance of such bearings were permitted under OGL. The Collector upheld the earlier adjudication order in its entirety. We have gone through the Tribunal's order dated 2-11-1994 and find that it has been held that the clarification, although...

Blow Plast Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT395Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In all the sixteen appeals filed by the appellants M/s. Blow Plast Ltd., the issue involved is identical and, as such, a common order is being passed. We have heard Shri C.S. Lodha, Id. Advocate, appearing for the appellants and Shri Vimlesh Kumar, Id. SDR appearing for the Revenue.2. Vide his impugned orders, the authorities below have confirmed demand of duty against the appellants by treating them as manufacturer of office fumiture system/work station (hereinafter referred as OFS/WS) falling under chapter sub-heading 9403.00 of the Schedule to CETA, 1985. The Revenue has alleged that the appellants has manufactured OFS/WS from the various parts of furniture purchased by them from different manufactures like M/s. Kemp & Company, Allwyn, Godrej, etc.On the other hand, the appellant's contention is that they are only marketing OFS/WS and the entire system, on which duty already stands paid by the manufacturer of such OFS/WS, is only erected and installed by them at site of cust...

Swan Mills Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)6SOT420(Mum.)

This miscellaneous application is filed by the assessee contending therein that the Tribunal ought to have proceeded on the basis of statutory requirement of separate Profit & Loss Account for the purpose of section 115JA(2) and ought to have decided the appeal after calling it from the assessee or directing the lower authorities to consider such Profit & Loss Account after obtaining it from the assessce.In course of arguments before us, it was submitted by learned authorised representative of the assessee that surplus on revaluation should have been credited directly to Revaluation Reserve Account and not to Profit & Loss Account as per the provisions of the Companies Act and Accounting Standards particularly AS-10 issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. It was submitted that as per this Accounting Standard, surplus on revaluation is to be credited to Revaluation Reserve Account. It was contended that this submission of the assessee was rejected by the ...

Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of Ind ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR439; 2006(1)BomCR524; 2006(195)ELT257(Bom); 2006(2)MhLj46

Gokhale H.L., J. 1. Heard Mr. Madon, Senior Advocate in support of this petition. Mr. Pakale appears for the respondents.2. The first petitioner herein is a company established under the Companies Act and carries on the business of printing and publishing newspapers including one known as Indian Express. The other two petitioners are its subsidiary companies. Some time in the year 1981-1983 the petitioners imported printing machineries of photo composing equipments with accessories and spare parts from M/s. Linotype Associates Pvt. Ltd., United Kingdom. In 1987, two show cause notices were issued to the petitioners by the Customs department, one was dated 19-20th October, 1987 and second was dated 11th December, 1987 alleging that there was under-invoicing in the price at which the machinery was imported in India. The petitioners sent their reply to the notices on 29th January, 1988 seeking time to file further reply and seek inspection of certain documents. In this reply, they mention...

Dama S/O Sakharam Gongale and ors. Vs. Bija S/O Dharma Khobragade

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR47; 2006(3)MhLj384

R.C. Chavan, J.1. Being aggrieved by the decree passed against them by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandrapur, in Regular Civil Suit No. 330 of 1960 and confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1984 by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandrapur, the original defendants have preferred this appeal.2. One Ramabai, widow of Dharma Khobragade, mother of the respondent and appellant No. 3, had filed the said suit for declaration that the sale-deed executed by appellant No. 1 Dama, original defendant No. 1, in favour of appellant No. 2 Shantabai, original defendant No. 2, in respect of the suit, field and house was null and void and for recovery of possession thereof. Ramabai died during the pendency of the suit and the suit was prosecuted further by her son, respondent-original defendant No. 4 Bija.3. The relationship of the parties could be stated as under:Ramabai, original plaintiff, was the wife of Dharma, Dharma had two sons - Bija, respondent/plaintiff,...

Suman Madanlal Bora Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)MhLj369

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith by consent. Respondents waive service.2. This petition challenges an order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing process upon a complaint filed for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The order issuing process was also challenged by the petitioner in revision and the revision application was dismissed by Sessions Judge, Pune vide order dated 26th February, 2003. Both these orders passed by the learned Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge are impugned in this petition.3. Mr. Jamdar, learned Counsel appearing in support of this petition contends that the petitioner is original accused No. 6. She is so arrayed because she is mother of Madanlal Bora. The said Madanlal Bora along with petitioner were partners of one Bora Transport Company. Petitioner had resigned/retired from the firm on 22nd June, 2001. The cheque which was subject-matter of the complaint was issued on 23rd November, 2001. Same was ...

Jaika Automobiles Private Limited Vs. Joint District Registrar (Class- ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR452

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner, a private limited company has challenged the order dated 5/8/2005 passed by Chief Controller, Revenue Authority i.e. respondent No. 2 herein as also the demand notice issued by first respondent No. 1 dated 1/1/2005 under the provisions of Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as Stamp Act). Considering the nature of controversy, I have heard parties finally by consent at the stage of admission itself. I have heard Advocate S.V. Manohar for petitioner and learned AGP Advocate Mrs. Taiwade for respondents. 2. The facts are not in dispute. The sister concern of petitioner by name M/s Jaika Motors (independent company) raised loan from United Commercial Bank worth Rs. 7 Crores. Rs. 5 Crores was against hypothecation of stocks while Rs. 2 Crores was against book debts of the other company. Said concern executed two deeds of hypothecation, one in relation to stocks an...