Mumbai Court June 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd Vs. Asstt. Cit, Inv. Circle (3)1
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)4SOT59(Mum.)
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) for assessment year 1988-89 raising several grounds therein. They are being disposed of sequentially as under : (1) We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and learned Departmental Representative and also considered the material on record.(2) The first ground is regarding addition of Rs. 29,000 about disallowance of set off of interest received on share application money (over subscription) against share issue expenses. This issue is covered by the decision of Mumbai ITAT in Dy. CIT v. XLO GWB Cardon Shaft Ltd. (IT Appeal No. 6113 (Bom) of 1995 and IT Appeal No. 2931 (Mum) of 1998, in favour of the assessee. As per section 69(4) of Companies Act, 1956 the assessee was required to keep the amount received on share application money in a separate bank account until the share allotment was over. Thus, there was direct nexus between interest income earned and share issue expenses. Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Co...
Cce Vs. Nirma Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-02-2005
Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT1058Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad.2. The respondent, M/s. Nirma Limited, is manufacturing excisable goods falling under Chapter 34 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act.It was noticed by the Department that, consignment agents of various manufacturing units of Nirma Group of Industries were incurring advertisement expenses, such as, wall paintings, sign board, cinema slides etc. and payment of such expenses were being made by the agents.They were transmitting bills for such advertisements for reimbursement to the respective units and the units had issued credit notes in favour of the agents for 70% of such amount and remaining 30% expenses of the bills were borne by the agents. The case of the Revenue is that, the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly dropped the demand of duty of 30% of the expenses incurred by the agents.3. Shri D.N. Choudhary, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue...
Modern Communication and Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-02-2005
Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT555Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants are manufacturer of Wide Band Line Amplifier and classified the said product under Heading 85.29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Department issued show cause notice to them proposing to classify the same under Heading 85.43 and the adjudicating authority accordingly classified the product in dispute under Heading 85.43 and confirmed the demand of duty short paid by the appellants. On appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that, the Department had already proposed classification of the impugned goods under Heading 85.43 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and the same has been decided by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the argument before him that the Trade Notice cannot be made applicable retrospectively, is not acceptable.2. Shri K.V. Parmar, learned Consultant appeared for the appellants, pleaded that the Board has issued clarification which was communicated under Trade Notice No. 189/94, dated 20-11-1994, that the d...
Madhukar Ssk Ltd. and D.H. Barole Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-02-2005
Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT508Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants are an assessee of Central Excise engaged in manufacture of sugar, molasses and Ethyl Alcohol, and their Managing Director.2. The assessee has been denied the benefit of notification 67/95 claim on molasses used up in intermediate stage of manufacture of Ethyl Alcohol which was partially cleared on payment of duties and partially used for potable purpose and therefore no excise duty was paid on such potable Alcohol/spirit.3. In view of the fact that the appellants are reversing 8% of the price off the exempted final product at the time of their clearance from the factory when Alcohol/Spirit is manufactured from molasses purchased from outside and on which duty input credit has been availed will not ipso factor obviate the applicability of notification 67/95.The end product being non-excisable when cleared without payment of duty, then such quantity of molasses which were used in the manufacture of that Alcohol/Spirit cannot be eligible to the benefit of 67/95. The no...
Ceenik Exports Ltd. Vs. Cc (Exports)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-01-2005
Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT172Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant is a manufacturer exporter and is a recognized Export House. He filed 7 Shipping Bills under claim for Drawback in respect of export of ready-made garments i.e Ladies Blouses made of Cotton Power-loom fabrics as well as Rayon power-loom fabrics. The FOB value declared for full sleeve blouse is U.S $8/- per piece for rayon fabrics and U.S $7.50 per piece for cotton fabrics. It is contention of the department that export consignments were over valued. The Commissioner in the impugned order assumed that only 80 cms to 1.25 mtrs of fabric is needed for making a ladies blouse. It is not clear from the order as to which type of blouse, the Commissioner has in mind. He feels that ladies blouse does not require more than 80 cm to 1.25 mtrs of fabrics.He accordingly re-calculated the value and fixed U.S $3/- per piece and allowed drawback accordingly.2. It is contention of the appellant that the Commissioner has not taken in to consideration the difference between Cotton and R...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Suvidha Appliances Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-01-2005
Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT107Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revenue challenges the order of the Appellate Commissioner passed on 12th April, 1999 holding that in view of the CBEC Circular No. 82/82/94-CX., dated 5th December, 1994 and the HSN Explanatory Notes to Heading 84.37 of the Excise Tariff and in view of the specific description of grinding machines, domestic flour mill was appropriately classifiable under Heading 84.37 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and not under Heading 85.09 which covered "electro mechanical domestic appliances with self-contained electric motor".2. By the order-in-original passed by the learned Asstt. Commissioner on 13-6-1996, it was held that the "Gharghanti" manufactured by the assessee was classifiable under sub-heading 85.09. He, therefore, confirmed the demand of Rs. 4,60,315/- covered by the show cause notice for the period from 1st August, 1994 to 14th September, 1994 under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.3. There is no dispute about the fact that, the respondent/a...
R.M. Bhat Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-01-2005
Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT493Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Heard both sides. The ld. Counsel for the appellant inter alia submitted that the appellant was the Managing Director in M/s. Om Lamipack Pvt. Ltd. (for short-company). The said company was engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods. The charges were labelled against the said company for contravention of the provisions of the Central Excise Rules without preparing Central Excise invoice and without paying proper excise duty. The show cause notice dated 11-4-2000 was issued by the Commissioner to the said company for the contravention mentioned above. He submitted that it is pertinent to mention that no show cause notice was issued to the appellant at the time of issuance of the notice to the company as mentioned above. The said show cause notice was adjudicated upon by the ld. Commissioner on 27-12-2000 and the company has accepted the contravention and paid the duty and penalty as imposed on it. Thus, the matter stood duly extinguished.However, without any fresh show cause of a...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›