Mumbai Court February 2005 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Canon Domestic Appliances

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue. In spite of notice having been served, the respondents are absent. We proceed to decide the matter after hearing the Ld DR.2. This case involves, inter alia manufacture & clandestine removal of 22224 Nos. of Electrical Kinetisers without payment of appropriate duty which was established consequent to the interception of a vehicle on 5.9.97 by the officers when the challan and invoice dated 5.9.97 were produced showing the time of removal as 18.15 hrs. where as the vehicle were intercepted at 18.10 hrs. on 5.9.97, far away from the respondent factory. This created suspicions and consequent enquires were launched which resulted in detection of 64 kinetisers in fully manufactured and ready for despatch condition bearing Sr. Nos. sticker on them which were having the same Sr. Nos. as shown, in invoice accompanying the tempo which had been inter alia by the officers. Further, it was noticed that 11 nos. of kinetisers were found on the shop floors...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Varun Dyeing and Printing Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals one by the Revenue and other by the appellant in the form of cross-objections are taken up for disposal.2. The Revenue's contention is that the Commissioner (Appeals) ought not to have reduced the penalty imposed on the respondents from Rs. 4,08,116/- to Rs. 81,600/-. The issue pertains to delay in payment of duty under Rule 96ZQ(5) (ii) by four days. The assessee paid the duty amounting to Rs. 4,08,116/- along with interest for the delayed payment. Invoking the provisions the above said rules read with Rule 173Q (1) of the Central Excise Rules, the lower authority imposed an equal amount of penalty. In appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced it to Rs. 81,600/- the Revenue is aggrieved that the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty in spite of the provisions of the above said rules where an equal amount of penalty is imposable.Commissioner of Central Excise v. GMP Finishing Mills have interpreted the provisions of Rule 96ZQ (3) of erstwhile Central Exci...

Osman Jusab Jasraya and Abdul Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT47Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals arise out of the common order and hence they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Appellant Osman Jusab Jasraya in Appeal No C/643/98, father of two sons, one was the tindel i.e. master of a vessel owned by the other son and his brother the appellant herein Abdul Rajak Osman Jasraya, who is appellant in Appeal C/644/98. The vessel was intercepted by officers and 150 bars of gold with foreign marks were found concealed in the engine room under the stan shaft and cemented to avoid detection. The vessel was ordered to be confiscated and to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 30,000/- considering it to be used in connection with smuggling of foreign mark gold which was ordered to be confiscated. The tindel has been imposed a penalty of Rs. 10.00 lakhs. No penalty has been imposed on the owner i.e. the appellant herein Abdul Rajak Osman Jasraya. His appeal filed against imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 30,000/- is required to be dism...

El-o-matic (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC296

1. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Electric Actuators and accessories of Actuators and they entered into an agreement with the foreign collaborators who held 41% of the equity to manufacture and sell the same in India.2. The Assistant Commissioner, GATT Valuation Cell, Mumbai Customs, after going through the agreement entered with the foreign collaborators concluded as he found that the payment of Dutch Guilders 2,25,000/- paid to the collaborator under Article 5 (a) of the agreement did not stipulate a condition of sale and there was no import of capital goods and payment was not made in relation to the capital goods. He therefore did not order inclusion of the payment of Dutch Guilders 2,25,000/- under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.It was also found that the declared value of the goods imported by the appellants from the foreign supplier could not be accepted on account of the proviso (d) to Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, since the importe...

Divgi Warner Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT885Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The issue involved is whether the royalty paid for technical know-how is includible in the assessable value of the imported components.2. For the sake of reference, the clause relating to 'Royalty' is reproduced as under: - "6.1) In consideration of the obligations undertaken by BWA under this Agreement, LICENSEE shall, among other things, pay BWA an earned royalty for the duration of the Agreement, including any extensions thereof, beginning from the date of commencement of COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION of the applicable Group of LICENSED PRODUCTS sold during the term of this Agreement in the PRIMARY TERRITORY by the LICENSEE, net of any income tax of India on such royalties (such Indian Income Tax to be borne and paid by the LICENSEE), equal to: b) three percent (3%) of NET SALES of Group II LICENSED PRODUCTS; and provided that the total payment of royalties for all Groups of LICENSED PRODUCTS does not exceed eight percent (8%) of net sales over a period of ten (10) yea...

P. Jayantilal and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)97TTJ(Mum.)100

1. There are three appeals in all for the asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1991-92. For the asst. yr. 1989-90, there are cross-appeals, one by the assessee and the other by the Department, directed against the order of the CIT(A)-X, Mumbai, dt. 28th Sept., 1993. The other appeal of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1991-92 is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-X, Mumbai, dt. 5th April, 1995. As common issues are involved, these appeals are being disposed of, by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. The first issue involved in the appeal for the asst. yr. 1989-90 relates to disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 3 lakhs under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the AO noticed that the assessee had cash in its cash book far in excess of its cash requirements. He took note that while opening and closing cash balances came to Rs. 2.21 lakhs and Rs. 3.05 lakhs, the peak cash balance during the year reached a figure of Rs. 38.62 lakhs and when compared...

P. Jayantilal, and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)97TTJ(Mum.)100

There are three appeals in all for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1991-92. For the assessment year 1989-90, there are cross-appeals, one by the assessee and the other by the department, directed against the order of the CIT(A)-X, Mumbai, dated 28-9-1993. The other appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 1991-92 is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-X, Mumbai, dated 5-4-1995. As common issues are involved, these appeals are being disposed of, by a common order for the sake of convenience.The first issue involved in the appeal for the assessment year 1989-90 relates to disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 3 lakhs under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessing officer noticed that the assessee had cash in its cash book far in excess of its cash requirements. He took note that while opening and closing cash balances came to Rs. 2.21 lakhs and Rs. 3.05 lakhs, the peak cash balance during the year reached a figure of Rs. 38.62 lak...

Shri Suryakant @ Bandu Ranoji Andekar Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Th ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ4478

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. 2. The petitioner seeks declaration to the effect that his detention in Yerwada Central Prison by the respondents for the period from 19.5.2003 to 30.12.2003 was illegal and on that count seeks direction to the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.2 lacs. The basis for allegation regarding detention for the said period is that the petitioner, under letter dated 8.7.2002 by the Superintendent of the said jail, was informed about the date of release of the petitioner to be 19.5.2003 but he was actually released only on 30.12.2003. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that the intimation given to the petitioner by the Jail Superintendent under letter dated 8.7.2002 was not a correct information and once it was realised that the petitioner was not entitled to avail the benefit of the period spent by him on parole and furlough leave as well as the period during which he did not surrender after availing the leave, for the purpose of calculati...

Reserve Bank of India Vs. Arvind S. Joshi and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR462; 2005(4)MhLj81

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The employer namely Reserve Bank of India challenges the Award dated 4th August, 1992 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government, Labour Court at Nagpur in C.G.I.D.A. Case No. 31 of 1989. The said award is delivered in the proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act moved by the present respondent No. 1 claiming the stagnation increment after completion of 23 years of service as per the provisions of Dighe Award which is applicable and which governs the subject-matter.3. The case of respondent No. 1 before the Labour Court was that he joined the services on 20th November, 1963 and completed 24 years of service on 20-11-1987. As per the provisions of the Dighe Award he should have been given stagnation increment from 20-11-1987. He states that he was drawing his pay in time scale of Group A category and because of his improvement in qualifications namely passing of graduation examination a...

Lakhani Filaments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT141Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The stay petitions have been filed for waiver of the penalty amount of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on M/s. Lakhani Filaments Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 1 lakh imposed on Shri Jayantibhai V. Lakhani, Director of M/s. Lakhani Filaments Pvt. Ltd. It is seen from the impugned Order that no penalty has been imposed on the main accused. Therefore, it is not understood as to how the Commissioner has chosen to impose the penalty on the co-accused. Since the penalty has not been imposed on the main accused, we find that there is a strong prima facie case for dispensation of pre-deposit of the penalty amount on the appellants. We, waive the pre-deposit of the penalty amount. The case is fixed for regular hearing on 21-3-2005....