Mumbai Court March 2005 Judgments

Modren Industries Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against Order dated 07.09.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V, wherein he had confirmed the demand of duty, imposed penalties and confiscated the goods.2. The issue involved is that the appellants have manufactured excisable goods and removed from the factory without filing Central Excise invoices and evasion of Central Excise duty.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Nail Polish and Stickers Kumkum falling under Heading No. 3304.00 and sub-heading No.3307.39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In respect of these products, they were not paying any duty since they claimed exemption under Notification No. 140/83-CE dated 5.5.83. On the basis of general intelligence that certain units in and around Sainath Industrial Estate, Off Aarey Road, Goregoan (East), Mumbai, were clearing goods at odd hours, the Central Excise Officers kept a watch and in the early hours of 20.2.98 noticed a tempo bearing Regist...

Nazerath Metals and Metal Link Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT38Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue in both these appeals being common, after hearing both sides, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants imported a consignment of copper scrap and declared the same to be of candy grade. On examination of the said scrap, it was found that it consisted of (photocopy attached).3. The goods were therefore ordered to be confiscated under the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the presence of serviceable capital goods/machinery parts and redemption fines were imposed, and penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act,. 1962 were arrived at. Hence these appeals.4. After hearing both sides, and considering the materials on record, it is found that the examination report as extracted hereinabove in extensio would reveal that the goods are articles of copper extracted from an embedded steel plant, where they were used as plant and machinery, some of them show extensive usage and some less use. The fact remains that they have been ...

Prachi Poly Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT100Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upholding demand of duty of Rs. 7,56,221/- as representing cenvat credit wrongly availed on yellow phosphorous supplied by M/s. Pentafour Products Ltd., ordering for recovery of the same together with interest under Rule 12 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2001 & 2002 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and imposing a penalty of equal amount under Rule 13 of the CENVAT Credit Rules read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and of amount equal to duty under Rule 25 and 27 of the Central Excise Rules 2001/2002.3. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants on 4.4.2003 alleging that M/s. Pentafour Products Ltd. (manufacturer/supplier of the inputs) have not paid countervailing duty @ 16% on the inputs on which the assessee availed cenvat credit and that the assessee had not taken reasonable steps to ensure that appropriate duties of customs had been paid, resulting in contraven...

Bell Ceramics Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The authorities below have confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 57,589/- on shortage of 1994.54 Sq. Mtrs of Ceramic Glazed Tiles found in the factory of the appellants on 10^th October 97, and imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Rule 173Q (i) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and confiscated 2361.68 Sq. Mtrs of Ceramic Glazed Tiles valued at Rs. 3,08,564.96 with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1 lakh. The excess and shortage has been arrived at on the basis of stock taking conducted on 10/10/97.2. I heard both sides. The appellants challenge the method of stock taking and submit that the directions contained in the demand order of the Commissioner (Appeals) (order dated 09/04/2001) have not been followed by the adjudicating authority for the reason that while the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the adjudicating authority to provide the manner and method of conducting verification of...

Vijyajyot Seats Ltd., Royal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)4STR163

1. The assessees challenge the confirmation of Service Tax demand on the ground that notices were issued to them only under the provisions of Section 70(2), 76, 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 covering the requirement of filing returns and liability to penalty for non-filing of returns and under covering demands for service tax, which can only be issued in terms of a notice under section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. In this connection they relied upon the Tribunal order in the case of Markfed Oil & Allied Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2002 (146) ELT 466 (T), which has been followed in Allied Instruments Pvt Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Vadodara, 2. Ld. DR re-iterates the findings in the impugned order, highlighting the aspects that all the ingredients required to put the appellants on notice that they were required to pay service tax, were spelt out clearly in the show cause notice issued to each individual appellant.3. After hearing...

Rameshkumar Rajeshkumar and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT265Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These two appeals have been filed by a partnership firm and its partner, who have been penalised under Rule 209A.2. After hearing both sides, it is found that the penalties have been held to be imposable on these two appellants as they are traders of iron and steel who are alleged to have obtained subsidiary gate passes from the Range Officer by producing forged duty paying gate passes before the Range Superintendent.3. There is no provision shown to us analogous to Section 132 of the Customs Act, 1962 under the Central Excise Act, 1944 or the rules made thereunder, that Section 132 for wrongly producing a forged/fabricated document in a transaction would call for prosecution and not penalty by quasi judicial authority. Therefore, on considering the charge, even if it is established, it is to be held that obtaining a fraudulent and forged documents by inducement or otherwise of the Superintendent and thereafter obtaining Modvat credit by others cannot call for a penalty under the C...

D. Kishorekumar and Co. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)2SOT769(Mum.)

This is an appeal filed by the assessee, and is directed against CIT(A)'s order dated 31-3-1997, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1993-94.The assessee's grievance, as raised in this appeal before us, is two fold - first that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the adjustment made by the assessing officer of reducing 90% of the premium received on cancellation of forward contracts of the foreign exchange, for the purpose of computing depreciation allowable under section 80HHC of the Act; and - second, against CIT(A)'s holding the 90% of the interest on fixed deposits is to be reduced for the purpose of computing section 80HHC deduction.We will take up the second grievance first. As far as second grievance of the assessee, is concerned, learned representatives have fairly agreed that this issue is now covered by the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lalsons Enterprises v. Dy. CIT (2004) 89 ITD 25 (Del). ...

Manoj Gulabrao Patel Vs. the State of Maharashtra,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR68

S.B. Mhase, J.1. None present for the appellant and the respondents. 2. The appellant herein has filed writ petition No. 2891 of 2002 challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of State Excise, Maharashtra State dated 30th March, 2002 since there was no prosecution as against the petitioner under Rule 31, 31(4), 33 of Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules of 1972, the Commissioner has taken cognizance of the said report and also pendency of the investigation being satisfied prima facie that the breaches are severe and the case being fit for suspension of licence. However, the said power is with the Collector, the Commissioner has directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.1,00,000/-so as to keep the licence allowed to facilitate the detail enquiry. The said reasoning is reflected from the impugned order when the writ petition appeared for admission. The statement was made by the learned A.G.P. for the State of Maharashtra that the amount is only taken as deposit and that amount is refundab...

Shailendra Sahedeo Mondkar Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Through the C ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR690; (2005)IIILLJ602Bom; 2005(3)MhLj379

R.M. Lodha,J.1. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, challenges the order dated 19th June 2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai. By the said order, the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's Original Application challenging the order of reduction of pay dated 31st December 1999 and the orders of the Appellate, Revisional and Reviewing authority. 2. The petitioner was selected as stamp vendor-postman and joined his post on 13th October 1979. During the period from 21.01.1985 to 08.09.1993, the petitioner was posted as Departmental stamp vendor in Tajmahal Post Office. On 6th September 1993, three foreign parcels were booked at the said post office. The petitioner in respect of one parcel accepted the sum of Rs.2955/-for the postage stamps; prepared in his own handwriting the postal receipt bearing no.188 for Rs.2955/-and affixed the postage stamps worth Rs.2625/-only on the said parcel. He failed to account for the sum of...

P.B. Samant Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR345; 2005(4)BomCR684

Dalveer Bhandari, C.J.1. In this petition, it is alleged that the petitioner is an active social worker, and has filed this petition in public interest.2. The central issue involved in this petition is that the constitutional functions of the President of India are to be exercised by the President in his discretion and not by the Council of Ministers. According to the petitioner, the President also enjoys executive powers. Constitutional functions by the President are not comfortable on officers under Articles 53(3)(b) and 258 of the Constitution. According to the petition, constitutional powers of the President cannot be exercised by the Ministers under 'advice'; these powers can only be exercised by the President in his discretion on the 'aid and advice' given to him by the Council of Ministers. It is alleged that in the matters of exercise of executive powers of the Union, the last word rests generally with the Council of Ministers and not with the President, though rarely, he can e...