Mumbai Court February 2005 Judgments

Todi Rubber Industries P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT284Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applicants seek modification of the Stay Order No.S/962/WZB/2004/C-I, dated 5-8-2004, directing pre-deposit of the entire demand, dismissing the application for non-prosecution. They submit that the matter had come up earlier on 31-3-2004 and during the hearing, the question was raised as to whether the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would apply to a proceeding under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the counsel for the applicants had filed detailed written submissions and prayed for a decision on the basis of such submissions, but the submissions were not put up before the Bench for its consideration. They also point out that the order dated 5-8-2004 was despatched only on 3-9-2004 and therefore, compliance could not be made and reported on 3-9-2004 as directed by the Bench. On the merits of the application, they submit inter alia, that the recovery under Section 11D of the Act was not permissible in the absence of any machinery provisi...

Jagdish Mehta and Hareshwar Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeals were dismissed vide order No.A/752-53/WZB/2004/C-II Dated : 16.08.2004 on the ground that the appeals had been filed against the interlocutory order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and therefore not maintainable. Ld. Counsel for the applicants however relies upon Tribunal's order in the case of Autolite (I) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur reported in (2002 (139) E.L.T. 289 (Tri. Del.) wherein this issue namely as to whether the appeals are maintainable against interim order has been referred to Larger Bench. We have gone through the case law relied upon by Ld. Counsel and find in paragraph 4 & 5, the Tribunal has noted that in the order in the case of Jain Engineering Company the tribunal dismissed the appeal of the appellants on the ground that the appeals were not against the final order of the Collector of customs and the Supreme Court had upheld the Tribunal's order. therefore we are fortified in our view that no appeal lies against the tribuna...

Hindustan Lever Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT70Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants is a registered company & importers, of 'Dove' brand bathing bar and their officers. On such imports they were required to affix labels to declare MRP & the date of import. This they got. done after import, from an independent entity viz M/s Prime Agencies. While placing the labels depicting the MRP & date, the bars were also got bundled into one bundle and a slogan "Buy one get one free 'and' '3 bars for Rs. 100/-. This activity was considered to be 'manufacture under the Central Excise Act due to chapter note 4 to chapter 33 where 'Dove' was proposed to be classified. Duty demands were issued & confirmed along with penalties and interest. Hence these appeals.2. The issue of duty & of classification of bathing bar 'Dove' under the Central Excise Act 1944 read with Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 is no longer res integra, having been settled by the apex court, for such brand bars being manufactured by the company in India. No material is brought out on...

Commissioner of Cen. Excise Vs. Sterlite Industries India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT369Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above applications have been filed for stay of operation of the orders of the Commissioned Appeals) who has allowed the claim of the assessees for refund of balance unutilised credit and directed the Dy.Commissioner to re-calculate the balance of credit and allow refund in cash, under the provisions of Rule 57AC(7) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. We have heard both sides. The respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of copper cathode and copper rod. They filed two claims for refund of Rs. 18,17,67,645/- and Rs. 52,54,06,510/- on 26.9.01 and 31.1.03 respectively under the provisions of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002 on the ground that they had exported goods during the period April, 2001 to August, 2001 and May 2002 to December 2002 for which copper anode was used as raw material and they were unable to utilize credit of duty paid on inputs allowed under erstwhile Rule 57AU of the Central Excise Rules as the goods had been exported. Show cause not...

Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC155

1. The appellants are aggrieved from the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore wherein he demanded duty and imposed penalty: (a) Duty was demanded under the proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 amounting to Rs. 2,08,47,542/- towards A, Central Excise duty, allegedly payable on the Ready Made Garments (RMG for short) during the period from 1.5.2001 to 31.1.2003; (b) penalty imposed of Rs. 2,08,47,542/- under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944; (c) penalty imposed of Rs. 21,00,000/- under Rule 25 of the Central excise (No 2) Rules 200 I/Central Excise Rules, 2002, and (d) it was ordered to pay interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, on the ground that the imported RMG were subjected to 'refinishing work' which would amount to manufacture as per Chapter Note. Since they were not cleared on payment of Central Excise duty, demands were confirmed by invoking the larger period of limitation.2. Brief facts of the case, r...

Modi Industries and Nilesh Dinesh Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of balance duty of Rs. 8,18,920/- (out of the total duty demand confirmed of Rs. 10,18,920/-, Rs. 2 lakhs stands deposited) and penalty of Rs. 11,14,797/- on the Modi Industries and Rs. 1,50,000/- on its Sole Proprietor arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), who has dismissed the appeals filed before him on the ground of non-compliance with his direction for pre-deposit of the entire duty amount and penalty under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. We have heard both sides. We find that the case relates to alleged clandestine clearance of goods namely PVC Casings N Capings under the cover of parallel invoices during the period in dispute. The contention raised before us is that the applicants are eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000-CE wherein the ceiling limit prescribed was Rs. 1 crore and their clearance recorded including the alleged clandestine clearance during the period in di...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Standard Batteries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT42Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of Under Water Electric Storage Batteries falling under Chapter Sub-heading 8507.00 during the period from 1.12.98 to 30.11.93. They cleared the goods declared as "Under Water Batteries" at Nil rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 68/86 dt. 10.2.1986. On investigation it was found that they were clearing cells for sub-marine Batteries and not Under Water Batteries manufactured for use by the Indian Navy and the Notification did not exempt cells and therefore the benefit of the notification was found to be not available to cells cleared by the assessees. Show cause notice were issued on 3.1.1994 covering the period 1.12.1988 to 30.11.1993 proposing recovery of duty of Rs. 7,17,83,720.14. Three more notices were issued; (1) notice dt. 3.6.1994 for the period 1.12.1993 to 31.3.1994 covering an amount of Rs. 1.30 Crores, (2) Notice dt. 1.11.1994 for the period 1.4.1994 to 31.8.1994 covering an amount of Rs. 1.95 crores., (3) No...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Boston Consulting Group Pte. Ltd ...

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)94ITD31(Mum.)

1. The appeal is filed by the Revenue and is directed against the order dt. 17th Oct., 2000 passed by the CIT(A), in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the asst. yr. 1997-98. "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the income of the assessee amounting to Rs. 40,50,000 representing gross receipts from Indian clients is not liable to be taxed in India in terms of the DTAA between India and Singapore. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the facts that as per Article 7(3) of the DTAA between India and Singapore, the income of the assessee from business is to be computed in accordance with the provisions of and subject to the limitations of the taxation laws of that state, which includes Section 44D which provides for taxation of income on gross basis." 3. Whatever be th...

Mrs. Meena Dinesh Parmar Vs. Shri Dinesh Hastimal Parmar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom298; 2005(3)ALLMR426; 2005(4)BomCR672; 2005(2)MhLj305

R.S. Mohite, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant Mrs. Meena Dinesh Parmar (hereinafter referred to as 'wife') against the respondent Dinesh Hastimal Parmar (hereinafter referred to as 'husband') seeking to quash and set aside the Judgment and order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Pune on 26.2.2001 In Petition No. A-354 of 2000 and Petition No. E/810/1998. Petition No. A/354/2000 is a petition filed by the husband for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Petition No. E-810/1998 was filed by the wife claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. By the impugned Judgment and order the Judge, Family Court granted dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce on both the grounds and granted Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance to a son Bhushan who was born out of the marriage, while rejecting the claim of the wife for grant of maintenance.2. The case of the...

Bharat Purohit Mithaiwala Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the Wester ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom355; 2005(4)ALLMR195

S.A. Bobde, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith.Mr. Suresh Kumar waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order of the learned 2nd Addl. Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai, dated 3.10.2003 in Misc. Appeal No.201 of 2003 by which the appellate Court has upheld the eviction order dated 25.7.2003 directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorised construction from the railway land. 3. Mr. Panday, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the entire proceedings initiated by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', is vitiated since the petitioner's structure was in existence in the year 1978. According to the learned counsel, the respondents were not entitled to issue a notice to the petitioner to remove his unauthorised construction under section 5A of the Act which was subsequently inserted by Act no.61 of 1980 and broug...