Mumbai Court May 2005 Judgments

Javed Mohd. Peshimam Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)100TTJ(Mum.)434

1. This appeal filed by the assessee relates to the block period from 1st April, 1988 to 17th Sept, 1998 and is directed against the order of the CIT(A) Central-V at Mumbai dt. 3rd Oct., 2001. The proceedings arise out of the assessment made under Section 158BC of IT Act.2. There are nine grounds of appeal raised by the assessee but effectively there are only two grievances of the assessee. The first grievance is that the assessment framed under Section 158BC is barred by the time-limitation and other one is that the assessment has been wrongly made at Rs. 8,00,000.3. The brief facts as stated, are that the assessee is a partner in M/s Al. Samit International and is also having other sources of income. His main source of income is from M/s Al. Samit International, which is engaged in the business of recruitment for foreign companies located in the middle east.4. A search under Section 132(1) was initiated in the case of the firm M/s Al. Samit International as well as on its partners o...

Whirlpool of India Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The present appeals are directed against the Order dated 31.05.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) holding that the goods imported by the appellants are liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of refrigerators in India. For the manufacture of refrigerators, the appellants import among other things Hydro Chloro Fluro Carbon (HCFC), which is a refrigerant used in the refrigerator The appellants had applied for and obtained an import licence dated 25.08.2000 for import of HCFC. The licence permitted to import HCFC upto 200 NTs. The value up to which HCFC permitted to be imported was up to Rs. 1,98,00,000/- (CIF value).The licence described HCFC by its brand name Forance. Later on, the description of the goods was amended as Forane. Forane is the brand name of HCFC manufactured by Pacific Chemical Industries Pty. Ltd. This is evident from page 321 of book titled Gardner's Chemical Synonyms an...

Commr. of Cus. Vs. Shree Ram Steel and Rolling

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT80Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Revenue is aggrieved by the Commissioner's order. The issue pertains to assessable value of a vessel which is brought for breaking.2. Briefly the facts are that a vessel "M.V. Ithaki" entered Alang anchorage on 14-11-2001. The shipping agent presented a copy of MOA dated 12-11-2001 entered into between the buyer and the seller (M/s.TDD Ship Breakers). The said vessel was sold at the lump sum price of US $ 711,125/-. Thereafter on 19-11-2001 the importer vide his letter dated 19-11-2001 addressed to the seller, informed that they have no interest in the vessel as the said vessel was not found as per the MOA and that they had no objection if the subject vessel was sold to a third party. Accordingly, another MOA was entered into on 20-11-2001 between the owner of the vessel and the respondent in this case. The revised price appeared to be US $ 638,369/-. The respondent thereupon filed a bill of entry for ...

General Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT120Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeals arise out of two separate orders-in-appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) : one appeal arises out of the classification dispute while the other is against the demand confirmation as a result of classification under Chapter Heading 3909.40.2. We have heard both sides. The adjudicating authority had accepted the appellant's claim for classification of "Amigen R" and "Amigen Conc. 50" under Heading 3809.00, on the basis of test report dated 1-6-1994 of the Deputy Chief Chemist who opined that the product is aqueous solution of condensation product of amide dicyandiamide and formaldehyde and such compositions are known to find use as textile dye fixing agent. This order was reviewed and appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) by the Revenue. The lower appellate authority accepted the contention of the Revenue based upon test report dt.10-6-96 which is reproduced hereunder : Sub : Test Memo in respect of M/s. General Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. reg. Please refe...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Chaudhry Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT95Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is the Revenue's appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad.2. Briefly the facts are that the respondents imported a vessel by name "Solon of Athens" for the purpose of breaking. The vessel entered Alang anchorage on 6-6-1999. The shipping agent presented a copy of MOA, dated 7-6-1999 entered into between M/s. Cane Shipping and Trading and M/s. Chaudhry Industries (respondents). As per the MOA, the vessel was sold at a price of US$ 17,61,588 @ US$ 108 per LT of the vessel. The ship was boarded on 9-9-1999 and the import general manifest was handed over to the customs department on the same date. Later, a survey report at the behest of the respondents was drawn and in the said report, the surveyor has not pointed out any discrepancy regarding the electrical capacity of the diesel generator of the vessel. Neither the surveyor nor the importer brought to the notice of the boarding officer about any discrepancy in the diesel generator. The master ...

Kusum Electrical Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal arises out of the order of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai. who in the impugned order upheld the order of the lower authority confiscating the imported goods and imposed a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.2. Briefly the facts are that the appellants imported a consignment of Digital Multimeters with a brand name but without showing any inscription as to the country of origin. Under Notification No.1/64-Cus dt. 18.1.64 goods without such an inscription are not allowed to be imported into the country. During the currency of this notification the importers imported the above said goods and they were provisionally released on execution of a bond. Subsequently this notification has been rescind w.e.f. 10.10.2000 by notification No.161/2000-Cus(NT). The original authority as well as the appellate authority were of view that this notification is only perspective in nature and cannot be applied to goods which had already been imported.3. The Ld. Consulta...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Picasso Exports

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT74Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Revenue challenges by way of this appeal the order of the Appellate Commissioner made on 26-11-1998 by which the order-in-original made by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad, on 29-9-1998, confiscating the goods in question under Section III(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with option to clear them on payment of appropriate duty and fine of Rs. 6,50,000/- enhancing the invoice value to US $ 0.75 per piece CIF and imposing penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Section 112(a) of the said Act, was set aside.2. The respondent imported 25,500 pieces of Electronic Organs (Electronic Organ Piano small size) declaring CIF value as US $ 10,200 (Rs. 4,39,895/-) @ US $ 0.40 per piece at ICD, Vadodara, and filed Bill of Entry No. 115 dated 17-9-1998. Clearance was claimed under Heading 9207.10 without import licence as musical instruments which were freely importable in terms of Heading 9207.10 of the ITC (HS) Classifications of Export and Import items notified in the Exim Po...

Actis Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT121Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants are a company who had imported various brands of multimedia projectors and the Director of the Company. The present appeal relates to the consignment of EPSON Multimedia Projector BMP 7300 FM 7500 & EMP 7200 Models, in one, one & two pieces respectively, whose declared values have been impugned. The imports were from Singapore, The BE was assessed on 3-8-91 and goods cleared on payment of duty, 1.2 Based on certain information, the imports were enquired and a notice dated 4-2-2000 calling upon the appellants as to why - (i) FOB unit price of EMP 7200, EMP 7300 & EMP 7500 model projectors should not be taken as USD 6200. 9114 & 6200 per piece respectively and differential duty demands on value reworked be not made under Section 28 of the Central Excise (sic) [Customs] Act, 1962. (ii) Imported goods not be confiscated under Sections 111(d) & 111(m).1.3 The notice alleged that the appellants are the sole dealer of EPSON Singapore Pvt. Ltd. in India &...

Nighar Fashions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(103)ECC65

1. The appellant's factory was visited by the Central Excise Officers on 22.12.99, who conducted various checks and scrutinized various records. A a result of search of the said factory, ten Central Excise invoices showing details of the fabrics dispatched to various parties were found. On verification, the said invoices were found to be fictitious and details of duty debit particulars were found as not matching with the Central Excise statutory records. The appellants authorized representative Shri Naresh Balubhai Gajjar, in his statement admitted that the said fictitious invoices were used for the clearances of the fabrics without payment of duty. He also clarified that all the particulars mentioned in the said invoices as regards consignees, etc., were bogus. The excise clerk of the appellant's company Shri Dharmesh T. Waghela and the Director of the company Shri Mohasin Yasin Akukara, also admitted the fact of clandestine removal of the goods and agreed that the fictitious invoice...

Lmp Gujarat Agro Export Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(103)ECC55

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara who has confirmed Customs duty demand of Rs. 19,79,927/- and Excise duty demand of Rs. 8,14,137/- and imposed penalty of amount equal to Customs duty in terms of Section112 read with Section114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The demand of Customs duty has been confirmed on imported furnace oil/L.D.O by denial of the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 13/81. Cus dated 9.2.81 as amended by Notification No. 53/97-Cus dated 3.6.97 and Notification No. 38/98 Cus dated 26.6.98. The excise duty demand has been confirmed on indigenously procured furnace oil/L.D.O. by denial of the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 1/95-CE dated 4.1.95 as amended by Notification No. 31/98-CE dated 15.9.98.2. We have heard both sides. The appellants are registered 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture and export of dehydrated onions and other vegetable products. The furnace oil/LDO im...