Mumbai Court May 2005 Judgments

Vipul A. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On 29.3.1996, Custom Officers, Bhavnagar, raided the residence of the appellant and seized 7 air-conditioners valued at Rs.2,45,000/- and also some contraband goods, the confiscation whereof was ordered by the additional Commissioner who allow the goods to be redeemed on payment of a fine. The Penalty was also imposed upon the appellants. The redemption fine and penalty was paid by the appellant and he redeemed the goods in April 1997. Against the order of confiscation, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide his order dt. 8.4.1999 reduced the redemption fine and ordered refund of duty amount collected by the department from the appellant. The appellant applied for refund; the claim was partly rejected on the ground that it was time barred and further on the ground of unjust enrichment. Part of refund was sanctioned. Against such order appeal was once again filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) for refund of duty with interest; the appeal was all...

Trico Process Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT126Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue involved in this case is whether under the CENVAT rules, the dispatch of inputs and process undertaken by the job worker on and resulting in the emergence of Laminated fabrics which are not covered by Notification 214/86 would result in duty demands to be made on the job worker as manufacturer of Laminated fabrics.2. (a) The issue is well covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M. Tex and D.K. Processor, 2001 (136) E.L.T. 73 & CCE v.Noorani Textile Mills, 2000 (122) E.L.T. 744 (Tri.) as in both decisions it has been held & a view taken on dutiability on fabrics when fabrics are returned to the principal manufacturer from a job worker, is the plea made by the ld. Advocate for the appellant.(b) The ld. DR however contends that these decisions were arrived under the erstwhile Rule 57F of the Modvat Scheme and the Cenvat rules do not have specifically the provisions of Rule 57F(4)(i), (ii), (iii) & (iv) in Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, there...

General Motors India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. These two appeals arise out of an Order-in-Appeal No. COMMR(A)/374 & 375/VDR/2001 Dated 15.10.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Vadodara. The issue involved in these appeals is about denial or Modvat credit on capital goods.3. M/s. General Motors India Limited are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff.A Show Cause Notice dated 19.03.96 for an amount of Rs. 3,35,75,215/- was issued to the assessee asking them as to why Modvat credit availed by them under Rule 57Q of the Central excise Rules, 1944 should not be disallowed/recovered from them under Rule 57U on the ground that the items in question do not appear to fall within the purview of the definition of the capital goods as per the explanation given under 57Q(1) of the Central Excise rules, 1944, in as much as the said items are not used or capable of being used for producing or processing of any goods with a view to bringin...

Wadhwa Infracore Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT210Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the denial of Mod-vat credit of Rs. 28,394/- claimed by the appellants as transitional credit under the provisions of Rule 57H. The appellants was working under compounded levy scheme, being re-rolling unit. However, the appellant opted out of the said scheme on 1-4-2000 and started availing the Modvat credit in respect of the raw materials lying in the factory.They claimed transitional credit in terms of provisions of Rule 57H in respect of two invoices. It was seen that though the appellant had original invoices, they were not in possession of duplicate copies of the invoices, hence Modvat credit was disallowed on this ground.2. The appellant's contention is that during the period, when the raw material in question was received by them, they were not availing the facility of Modvat credit. As such, they were not maintaining proper records. When original copies of the invoices were handed over to them, they did not enquire into loss of ...

Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. Gangadhar Hotchand Rohera

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: II(2006)BC167

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant Bank/Original Applicant Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Ltd. being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31st March, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of D.R.T.-I, Mumbai in Original Application No. 3098/1999. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Presiding Officer dismissed the Original Application filed by the appellant Bank. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed in this appellate Tribunal. The appellant Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Ltd. is a Banking company incorporated in the United Arab Emirates. It is the case of the applicant Bank that the defendant Gangadhar Hotchand Rohera was carrying on business alongwith one Mr. Hassan Ali Attar in the name and style of Golden Market General Trading Establishment, Dubai (Golden Market). The said Golden Market had availed credit facilities from the applicant Bank at Dubai. One Mr. Hussain Quasim Ali Al Shraif was the guarantor. The said Golden Market had failed and neglected to...

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Oscar Investments Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)98ITD339(Mum.)

1. The above mentioned two cross appeals, one filed by the Department and the other filed by the assessee, for assessment year 1996-97 are consolidated and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience since common points/contentions are involved therein. These are directed against the order dated 21-2-2000 of CIT(A)-XLVI, Mumbai.2. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and have also perused the records.3. First we take up the appeal filed by the Department being ITA No.2703/ M/2000. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal before the Tribunal: (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,39,37,000 being deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in admitting the new evidence in contravention of Rule 46A of the IT Rules. (iii) While doing so the CIT(A) has erred furth...

Jcit, Sr-6 Vs. K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)102ITD414(Mum.)

1. This appeal is filed by the revenue. The relevant assessment year is 1996-97. The appeal is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-XLII, Mumbai on20-03-2001. The appeal arises out of the assessment completed Under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee company is engaged in the business of real estate investment in partnership firms, investment in shares and also in financing business. As part of its real estate business, the assessee company has undertaken developments of certain properties. The assessee company had about seven such development projects in its hand, during the relevant previous year. As far as the development and construction of properties are concerned, the assessee company is following the completed contract method for recognizing its income/loss. The return of income was filed by the assessee company for the impugned assessment year, on the above basis.3. In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing authority has observed ...

Raymond Limited Vs. Cce and C

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC553

1. M/s. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd., Jalgaon (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') are engaged in the manufacture of "other woven fabrics of synthetic staple fibre" falling under sub-heading 5513.10 and 5513.29, Woollen Blankets/Shoddy Blankets under 6301.20, Shoddy Shawl under sub-heading 6202.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and availing Cenvat credit on the inputs and capital goods as per Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.2. Notification No. 24/94-CE(NT) 20.5.94 issued under erstwhile Rule 57-A of Central Excise Rules, 1944, specifies the final product viz Fabrics of Cotton or man-made fibre subjected to any process or whether processed or not falling under Chapter 52, 54, 55 and 58.02, 58.06 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 in respect of which the credit of:- (ii) the Additional duty of excise under Section 3 of Additional duties of Excise [Textile and Textile Articles] Act, 1978 (iii) the Additional duty of excise under Section 3 of the Additional duties of excise [goods of s...

Joint Cit Vs. Alchemic Financial Services Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)7SOT616(Mum.)

All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed by the common order for the sake of convenience since the issues are almost common.The first issue common to all the appeals relates to the disallowance of loss on the sale of shares under section 74 read with section 73 Explanation of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).Briefly stated the facts are, that the assessee was engaged in the business of money lending, leasing, finance and trading in shares as well as fabrication of chemical equipments. In all the years under consideration, the assessee incurred loss on sale of shares and securities to the extent of Rs. 22,54,544 in assessment year 1997-98, Rs. 6,48,793 for assessment year 1998-99 and Rs. 5,08,699 for assessment year 1999-2000. The requisite details regarding losses on sale of shares were filed by the assessee before the assessing officer vide letter dated 21-1-2000, as is apparent from para-7 of the assessment order pertaining to the assessment year 1997-98. It was no...

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alchemic Financial Services Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109TTJ(Mum.)240

1. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed by the common order for the sake of convenience since the issues are almost common.2. The first issue common to all the appeals relates to the disallowance of loss on the sale of shares under Section 74 r/w Section 73 Explanation of the IT Act, 1961 (Act).3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee was engaged in the business of money lending, leasing, finance and trading in shares as well as fabrication of chemical equipments. In all the years under consideration, the assessee incurred loss on sale of shares and securities to the extent of Rs. 22,54,544 in asst. yr. 1997-98, Rs. 6,48,793 for asst. yr. 1998-99 and Rs. 5,08,699 for asst. yr.1999-2000. The requisite details regarding losses on sale of shares were filed by the assessee before the AO vide letter dt. 21st Jan., 2000, as is apparent from para 7 of the assessment order pertaining to the asst. yr. 1997-98. It was noticed by the AO that purchase of shares h...