Mumbai Court June 2005 Judgments

Standard Radiator Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT394Tri(Mum.)bai

1. An appeal was filed against an Order in original of Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara wherein an order of duty of demand of Rs. 5,47,705/- was determined on Radiator under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and fine of Rs. 25,000/- and penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs for violation of the rule was imposed.1.2 The appellants are engaged in the business of manufacturing of Radiators, Radiators cars, radiator pressure cap and composite coolers at the material time classified under erstwhile Tariff Item No. 68.They had obtained the required licences from Ministry of Industry and the Central Excise authority and were in business.1.3 The case of the appellants is that their General Manager Shri Nareshbhai Patel runs another unit by name and style of Super Care (Gujarat) at Vadodara on its own premises sole proprietary firm and machinery and capital as a and (sic) was not under control or related to the appellants in any other fashion. The appellant had entered into an agreement with Supercare dated ...

Fiat India P. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1.1 These appeals arising from the same issue are being disposed off by this common order after hearing both sides.1.2 M/s Fiat India Pvt. Ltd previously known as M/s. India Auto Ltd (herein after referred to as Fiat) are the appellants. They are inter alia engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles. Various parts were supplied by M/s. Premier Auto Vehicles Ltd (for short PAL) on job work basis and motor vehicles assembled & cleared on payment of duty. Fiat raised invoices on PAL for the job charges. PAL issued commercial invoice to the dealers for the sale price of the said cars Procedure under notification 27/92 was follows; thus PAL was exempt from the provision of rule 174 as they had given the authorization to Fiat and had undertaken to pay duty differential if any on the sale price sale being incorrect.1.3 Sr. No. 195 of notification 4/97 exempted motor vehicles which after clearances were registered for use solely as 'TAXI' and were chargeable at 25% ad valorem rate inste...

Commissioner of Customs (Ep) Vs. Frost International Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT122Tri(Mum.)bai

1. There are Revenue's appeals against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai. In the impugned order, the Commissioner upheld the order of the lower authority and rejected the Department's appeal. All these appeals arise out of a single order of the Commissioner. The issue involved is valuation of export goods namely, 100% Cotton Knitted T-Shirts under DEPB. The respondent declared the FOB value as Rs. 309 to Rs. 333/- per piece, declaring PMV as Rs. 120/- per piece. The subject goods were allowed to be exported provisionally pending determination of PMV. The original adjudicating authority held that the declared value appeared to be fair and can be accepted. However, he restricted the amount of DEPB claim to the amount calculated to 50% of the PMV. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this finding of the lower authority. The Revenue, however, contends that FOB price has been misdeclared to be Rs. 310 to Rs. 315 per piece. The Revenue submits that similar goods were procured fro...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Jct Electronics Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT538Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Revenue challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who has held that the respondents herein are eligible to capital goods credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules on (a) decofoam, (b) Air Handling Unit, (c) Dust Collector, (d) Liquid Chiller etc.2. We have heard both sides. We find that Decofoam and air Handling Unit have been rightly held to be capital goods, as they are used to create dust free environment to maintain the plant in condition for manufacture of final products by the respondents, following the ratio of the Tribunal's order in the case of Mahindra & Mahrindra Ltd v. CCE, Aurgangab-1996(65) ELT 71. As regards Dust Collector, it reduces the dust available in the Getter Welding Area and the entire area to reduce dust particles. From the above, it has been rightly held that it is essential to the manufacture of colour picture tube by the respondents and it would be covered by the definition of capital goods. As regards Liquid Chiller, it is a ma...

Commr. of Cus. Vs. Shimnit Machine Tools and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT302Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue in this appeal relates to eligibility of benefit of concessional duty in terms of Serial No. 174 of table to the Notification 11/97-Cus., dated 1-3-97 to CD-R Blank (Recordable) imported by the respondent herein.2. We have heard both sides. The assessment of the goods has been done under Customs Tariff Act sub-heading 8523.90 which covers "unrecorded media". Serial No. 174 of the table to the Notification covers Compact Disc - Read only Memory (CD-ROM). Therefore, the benefit under the Notification would be available only to recorded media and not unrecorded media. It is not the case of the respondent that the description of the goods under Serial No. 174 covers even unrecorded media. Since serial No. 174 is very clear, we find that the benefit thereunder is not applicable to the goods in question, since as per the respondent, what has been imported is unrecorded media, but which gets subsequently recorded.3. We therefore, set aside the impugned order by which the benefit...

integrated Container Feeder Vs. Joint Director of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)98TTJ(Mum.)327

1. This is a miscellaneous application filed by the assessee and it seeks rectification of certain mistakes said to have crept in Tribunal's order dt. 26th Feb., 2004 [reported as Integrated Container Feeder Service v. Jt. CIT (2005) 98 TTJ(Mumbai)69--Ed.].2. By way of this rectification petition, the assessee/applicant points out that the Tribunal's aforesaid order is vitiated by a mistake apparent on record inasmuch as the said order holds that the provisions of Article 7 of the Indian Mauritius DTAA are not applicable on the facts of this case whereas the authorities below have held that Article 7 will apply to the facts of the case and that the appellant could not have been placed at a disadvantage by the outcome of its appeal before the Tribunal.3. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered factual matrix of the case as also the applicable legal position.4. The AO as well as the CIT(A) have given categorical finding that the provisions...

Akbar Ali Mohmad HusseIn and ors. Vs. Tahsildar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR652

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners are proprietors of Rice Mills situated in District Raigad. They are challenging the compulsory levy on rice under the Maharashtra Rice (Levy on Rice Millers) Order, 1989. Now, the policy of Government is changed and the Government has decided not to coercively recover levy on rice from the mill owners. Mr.Nargolkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, has stated to the same effect. This statement is made on the basis of the Government letter dated 17th July 2002, which was produced in Writ Petition No.83 of 1994 before another Division Bench and that petition came to be disposed of since the grievance did not survive.3. In view of the same statement being made here, Mr.Hiranandani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners-Rice Mill Owners, states that the grievance no longer survives.4. Under the circumstances, the petition stands disposed of since the grievance no...

J.K. Pharma and Shri Ramesh Patel Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC406

1. Both the appeals are being disposed off by a common order as they are directed against the same impugned order passed by the authorities below vide which duty of Rs 1,13,331/- has been confirmed against the first appellants along with imposition of personal penalty of identical amount under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act. In addition, personal penalty of Rs 15,000/- has been imposed upon the second appellant, the director of M/s. J.K. Pharma under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules.2. The said duty has been confirmed on the finding of shortage of modvatable inputs as also clandestine clearances of finished products detected by the officer during the course of visit in the appellant's factory on 04.01.1999 Out of above amount, duty of Rs 43,789/- is on account of clandestine clearances of finished products.3. Shri Prakash Shah, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants does not dispute the confirmation of demand of duty. However, he submits that the entire duty having been...

Vividh Traders Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT332Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs imposed upon the applicants herein on the ground that they had imported Tin Plate Waste, which required a licence, which the importers did not possess, for the reason that the value declared was less than 465-US$ PMT, which was specified as per Para 2.7 of the Export & Import Policy 2002-07 and import licensing note of ITC (HS) Classification, prescribed under Chapter 72 of the Exim Policy arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs.2. We have heard both sides. The relevant invoice for the goods describes them as "EC Origin Defective and Rejects non alloy steel sheets with tin coating". The contention of the applicants that the coating of tin on non alloy steel sheets will not make them tin plate sheets or waste has prima facie force as we find that goods of the same description have been cleared by customs even when the value is below the value specified, without insisting on licence as seen from Bi...

Vinod Kumar Vs. Sigmalon Equipment P. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR84; [2005]127CompCas54(Bom); (2005)6CompLJ450(Bom); [2005]62SCL332(Bom)

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. Both these appeals are filed against the order passed by the Company Law Board on 5.5.2003 in Company Petition NO.12 of 1992. Both the parties to the said company petition have preferred the present appeal.2. The present appeal is filed under section 10(f) of the Companies Act, 1956 raising two substantial questions of law as framed by the learned Single Judge of this court in Company Appeal No.6 of 2003 and by an order dated 15.1.2004 are as under :(1) Whether the market value determined in respect of the shares held by the Respondent can be said to be just and proper ?(2) Whether the Respondent would continue to exercise rights as Director of the Appellant Company until the amount towards the valuation of his shares held by the Respondent is paid over to him ?'3. The aforesaid questions of law arises on the following background of facts which are briefly enumerated as under :4. The petitioner Mr. Vinod Kumar who is holding 40% of the shares in the respondent no.1 co...