Mumbai Court May 2005 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Amee Products

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT454Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue in all these appeals filed by Revenue is challenge to the classification and consequent duty demands and penalty consequences on allegation of clandestine unaccounted removal and invoking the proviso to Section 11A(1) for the larger period of duty demands. They are being disposed by this common order.Sl. No. Product Classification by Claim by Assessee Department(a) Lemon squeezer 3924.9 8201(b) Handy juicer 3924.9 8479.9(c) (i) Two way Chapper 3924.9 8214 (ii) Three way scrapper 3924.9 8214 (iii) Three in one 3924.9 8214 (iv) Fruit scrapper 3924.9 8214(d) Vacuum juicer 3924.9 8479.9 Since, on the two items i.e. kitchen express & Beater cum the ld.Advocate for the respondents had no contest to the department proposal to classify the same under 8210.00. Our findings are restricted to the item 'a' to 'd' above.1.3 On considering the section and lead notes to the HSN and CETA 1985, for the competing entries and considering the functions of the disputed items, it is found ...

Peterplast Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT842Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Vadodara. In the impugned older, the Commissioner upheld the demand for duty under proviso to Section 11A, imposition of penalty under Section 11AC and demand for interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act. The period involved is 1992-93.2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant is a manufacturer of HDPE woven bags made out of HDPE fabrics. He has been discharging duty on these bags without including the value of liners which are inserted in the bags before removal. The allegation is that the liner being an essential part of the bag, its value should have been included in the value of the bag while discharging duty. The department claims that the appellant has not disclosed the fact that such value is not included in the assessable value of the HDPE bags. Larger period of limitation is invoked on this ground.4. The learned advocate argued that the value of the liners need not be includ...

Fascel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)STR103

1. The appellant is a cell phone service provider and is liable to pay service tax on the services provided. The appellant were separately registered at Ahmedabad, Baroda and Surat. During the year 1997-98, in respect of Baroda unit, duty to the extent of Rs. 2,95,155/- (Two lakhs ninety-five thousand one fifty-five only) was excess paid by them.Subsequently, the appellant applied for the centralised registration, which was granted to them. They adjusted the above excess payment of duty towards the confirmed demand of duty at Ahmedabad which was objected to by the revenue and the matter was adjudicated by Ahmedabad Central Excise Authorities confirming the demand of duty in question.On appeal, the appellate authority remanded the matter. In remand proceedings, duty was again confirmed against Ahmedabad and the appellant also paid the same, with the result that the excess payment at Baroda became due to them. The order in remand proceedings, confirming the demand of duty against the Ah...

Prakash Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard the DR and considered the material. Appellants had taken credit on certain Capital Goods brought in their factory for use in the manufacture of excisable goods.1.2 It is found that, the proceeding were initiated by denying the benefit of eligibility to Capital Goods under Rule 57Q vide notice dated. 29-11-1996. The appellants voluntarily made debits on 31-7-1997 in RG 23C Pt II & RG 23A Pt II of the total amount of Rs. 16,18,747/- and these debits were confirmed by order of Assistant Commissioner dated 10-10-1997. Appeal resulted in CCE(A) modification of this order dated 10-10-1997 and grant of eligibility to the extent of Rs. 1 1,42,826/- already debited. This amount was claimed as refund.1.3 The claim was denied on ground of unjust enrichment and that the refund application was not complete.1.4 CCE(A) upheld the case as not covered by Rule 57F(13) and since the appellants reversed/debited the credit in RG 23C Pt II and RG 23A Pt II they were not eligible for refund in ...

Mardia Copper Extrusions Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT402Tri(Mum.)bai

1. By Order Nos. A/187 to 190/WZB/2004-C-II, dated 29-4-2004, the above appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution. The applicants now seek restoration of the appeals on the ground that the companies were taken over by financial institution and hence no notice of hearing of the appeals was received by them.2. We have heard both sides. We find that no steps were taken by the applicants to intimate the Tribunal either about the take over by the financial institution or the address where the notice was to be served for the hearing of the appeals. We also find that the matter had come up for regular hearing on two occasions and they were not present. We, therefore, see no reason to grant the prayer for restoration of the appeals. The applications are accordingly dismissed....

Cadbury Schweppes Beverages Vs. Joint Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)5SOT647(Mum.)

This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order of CIT(A) passed on 23-11-2000 for the assessment year 1996-97 confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 41,40,000 under section 271(1)(c).The facts, in brief, are that the assessee filed return of income on 30-11-1996 declaring a total income of Rs. 7,10,10,760 and was finally assessed at a loss of Rs. 5,20,61,940 vide assessment order dated 29-1-1999. The assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. An appeal against quantum was filed before CIT(A) but the same was withdrawn by the assessee and the assessing officer received the dismissal order of appeal in his office in January, 2000. Thus, the quantum of loss as determined in the assessment order dated 29-1-1999 became final. In the assessment order, the assessing officer mainly made two additions viz., 1. Bottle support expenses of Rs. 80 lakhs, 2. Bogus purchases at Rs. 10 lakhs. About these two additions, ...

Blue Star Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)105TTJ(Mum.)974

1. These appeals are by the assessee and the Revenue, pertaining to asst. yr. 1991-92.2. HA No. 1464/Bom/1995 : The first ground of objection by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,80,40,772 as revenue receipt, being the amount received as non-compete fees from Hewlett Packard India (P) Ltd. 3. The assessee filed the return on 30th Dec, 1991, declaring income at Rs. 34,88,780. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a), taking the income at Rs. 2,13,05,795. Assessee is in the business of manufacturing and selling of packed water coolers, commercial refrigeration equipments, air conditioners, air handling units, etc.and also trading in electronics and other appliances, having factories at different places. Assessee had a total turnover of Rs. 1,85,62,38,358, which includes commission also.4. While framing the assessment order, AO noticed, assessee received Rs. 1,80,40,772 from Hewlett Packard India (P) Ltd. (for short 'HPI'...

Topaim Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT950Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants imported Marble Blocks in various consignments. On examination after arrived was found and alleged that excess goods were imported than as declared. The excess was valued and duty determined on the same and redemption liability for confiscation under Section 111(1) & 111 (m) of Customs Act 1962 & penalty under Section 1.12(a) of the act were arrived. Hence this appeal.Bill of Declared Ascertained Difference CIF value Ass. Value Duty onEntry Nt.Wt.Mt Nt.Wt.Mts of of excess of excess Excess Qty Wt. Mts Qty. Rs. Qty. Rs. @ 40% Rs.613773 159.184 211.100 51.916 671949/- 678668/- 271467 / -5.5.99613774 67.424 83.150 15.726 203542/- 205577/- 82231 /-5.5.99613775 65.240 90.01 24.770 320598/- 323804/- 129522 /-5.5.99613776 65.032 78.380 13.348 172763/- 174491/- 69796/-5.5.99613778 58.632 67.860 9.228 119438/- 120632/- 48253/-5.5.99613779 40.930 50.685 9.755 126259/- 127522/- 51009/-Total 456.442 581.185 124.743 1614549 1630694 652278/- b) The appellant contest the excess ...

Rajesh Gade Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Adj)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT753Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides and considering the material on record it is found- a) appellant had purchased a Mitsubishi Pajero car having chases no V-46-402 4851 & engine no 4M 40-AJ-3897 and having registration No. MH-01-R-29 through a broker Shri Vinay Saraf. b) The car was imported by one Shri K.C. Mathew & cleared on BE no 279 dated 4.9.95 through Mumbai Customs under PN No. 202/(PN)192-97 dated 30.03.94. c) The car was seized on 30.8.96, by DRI Officers, on the grounds that the said car was liable to confiscation under the provisions of Custom Act 1962. They conducted enquiries and issued a show cause notice on 27.03.98. This notice was issued to S/Shri K.C. Mathew, Vinay Saraf, Afzal Nadir Ali and the appellant herein asking to show cause why the car in question should not be confiscated, why penalty should not be imposed why the value of the car not be enhanced to Rs. 11,41,520/- and why the Bond executed by the appellant in the time of provisional release of the car sh...

Mira Silk Mills and Suresh Chand Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(103)ECC290

1. All the four appeals are being disposed of by a common order, though they arise out of two orders impugned before us. However, the issue involved in both the orders is identical and the matters were also heard together when identical submissions were advanced by the Ld.Advocate appearing for the appellants.2. Vide impugned orders, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 1,02,71,439 and Rs. 35,31,655.23 under Section 11A (2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the proviso to Sub section (1) of Section 11A and Rule 9 (2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 against M/s. Mira Silk Mills along with imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 1 crore and Rs. 35 lakhs under Rule 173Q(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. In addition, land, building, plant, machinery etc., belonging to the said appellants has been confiscated with an option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 15 lakhs in each case Penalty of Rs. 35 lakhs an...