Mumbai Court July 2005 Judgments

Almeida Brothers Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The classification of rotary screen set and vibratory screen set manufactured by the appellants herein arises for determination in this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has upheld the Assistant Commissioner's order approving the classification list for these items under CET sub-heading 8474.90 as parts of machinery for sorting, screening,...crushing, grinding stones, ores or other mineral substances....3. We note that the issue of classification of these two items came up before the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of classification list No.5/94-95 and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 27-1-1999 accepted the contention of the assessees that the two items in question are independent machines capable of functioning independently, not linked or attached to the stone crushing machine. He accepted the classification claim of the assessees under CET sub-heading 8474.10 as all goods of Heading 84.74 other than parts. We find that the Commissioner (...

Tata Ssl Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT256Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal before him on the ground that the order appealed against is not an appealable order. The lower original authority has communicated to the appellants that they need to take two separate registrations for two separate premises and has rejected their request for a single registration. Against this communication, the appellants went in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).3. We observe that the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have dismissed the appeal before him on the ground that the lower authority's communication was not an appealable order. Under the Central Excise Act, any person who is aggrieved by any order or decision can appeal against such an order or decision. We find that the communication under reference is an appealable order. The Commissioner (Appeals) should have decided the appeal on merits. We remand the matte...

Steelco Gujarat Ltd., H.N. Desai, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara, holding that countervailing duty of Rs. 42,65,801/- is recoverable from the appellant company under Section 72 read with Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, on 120 hot rolled coils illicitly removed from bonded warehouse, and ordering appropriation of the duty amount since it had already been paid, setting aside demand of basic customs duty and special customs duty, disallowing modvat credit of the CVD paid and imposing penalties as under:-------------------------------------------------------------------(1) M/s Steelco Gujarat Ltd. Rs. 45 Lakhs------------------------------------------------------------------(2) Shri S V Kulkarni, Vice President Rs. 2 lakhs------------------------------------------------------------------(3) Shri H N Desai, Dy. Manager (Foreign Trade) Rs. 1 lakh------------------------------------------------------------------(4) Shri H G Mahida, Asstt. Manger (Excise) Rs...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT110Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Revenue challenges the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upholding classification of valves for fuel injection pumps under CET sub-heading 8413.00 as parts of pumps for liquids, whether or not fitted with measuring devices, as according to them, the goods are pressure reducing valves specifically covered under CET sub-heading 8481.80.3. Heading 84.81 covers "Taps, cocks, valves and similar appliances for pipes, boiler shells, tanks, vats or the like, including pressure-reducing valves and thermostatically controlled valves", while heading 84.13 covers "Pumps for liquids, whether or not fitted with a measuring device... and parts thereof." There is no dispute that the delivery valves in question are necessary in diesel pumps to regulate diesel at very high pressure and are therefore pressure reducing valves. Therefore, Note 2(a) to Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff, which states that parts which are goods included in any of the headings of Chapter 84 o...

The Simplex Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals arise out of the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals).In the impugned orders, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision of the lower authority who directed the appellants to apply for provisional assessment and execute a bond covering the differential amount even though show cause notices have already been issued in regard to the valuation of yarn captively consumed by the appellants.The grievance of the appellants is that when a show cause notice is already issued on the same issue, the department should not have directed them to execute a bond and follow the route of provisional assessment. A similar issue in the appellants' own case has come up before the Tribunal in . The Tribunal held that demand notices once issued to the appellants, they are not required to execute a bond or give a bank guarantee for provisional assessment. Following the ratio of this decision, we hold that the appellants' plea that they are not required to go through the route of provisio...

Times Internationals Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT388Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The adjudicating Commissioner has confiscated the impugned goods valued at Rs. 10,69,936/-, allowed redemption on a fine of Rs. 3,50,000/- and has imposed a penalty of Rs. 35,000/-. His findings are as under : "I have carefully examined the records of the case and considered the submissions both written and oral made by the importers. There is overwhelming evidence in the form of opinion given by an independent textile expert that the goods under import are weft knit fabrics which merit classification under CTH 6002.93. During the course of personal hearing the importers were informed that the textile expert had given his opinion about the quality of the fabric (i.e. they are weft knit fabric). This was not disputed by the importers. Goods classifiable under CTH 6002.93 are restricted for import and can be imported only against a licence or in accordance with a public notice issued in this behalf as per the provisions of the ITC (HS) Classifications of Export and ...

Jayant R. Kanani Vs. Bank of Baroda

Court: DRAT Mumbai

1. This substantive appeal is filed by the appellant/original defendant J.R. Kanani being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23rd April, 2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the D.R.T.-II, Mumbai in Original Application No. 2970 of 2000. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application in favour of the applicant bank and against the defendant and ordered the defendant to pay to the applicant bank various sums as mentioned in CIs. (b) and (c) of the operative portion of the impugned order. The learned Presiding Officer also gave certain consequential declarations and directed issuance of recovery certificate in the above stated terms. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed. The bank sued the defendant by filing Original Application against him for recovery of:1. Rs. 52,60,705/- with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum with quarterly rests being due under CC2. Rs. 16,18,455/- with interest as above being dues und...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Jasubhai Business Service (P)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)100TTJ(Mum.)951

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(l)(c). As laid down in the case of CIT v. Jeevan Lal Sah (1994) 117 CTR (SC) 130 : (1994) 205 ITR 244 (SC), the onus is on the assessee to establish there were bona fide reasons to claim the deductions but in the absence of any reason, penalty has to be levied. 2. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the AO be restored.2. The only grievance of the Revenue is that CIT(A) had wrongly cancelled penalty of Rs. 69,87,500 levied under Section 271(l)(c). (1) The assessee-company was in business of purchase of frozen marine products and yellow soyabeen during the financial year and in addition providing composite services, management services, etc. for which it was receiving1 fee from the constituents during the earlier financial year as well as in the current year, as reflected from Sch. 15 'service charges r...

Hawkins Cookers Ltd. Vs. Zaverchand Liladhar Shah and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(31)PTC129(Bom)

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners inter alia seeking cancellation of the registration of design No. 164949 granted in favour of the Respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 3 herein. Some of the facts of the present case are briefly stated as under:2. Petitioners are claiming to be the manufacturers of Pressure Cookers and Marketers of other kitchen appliances such as Fry Pan, Deep Fry Pan, Tava etc. It is the case of the petitioners that the original name of 'Pressure Cookers & Appliances Ltd., has been changed to 'Hawkins Cookers Ltd.' since September 1986 and, therefore, fresh Certificate of Incorporation has been issued to the petitioner company. The Respondent No. 2 is a firm also carrying on business of marketing kitchen appliances such as Tava. Respondent No. 1 is a manufacturer and also is selling Tava through Respondent No. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have a full fledged Research and Development Department and in t...

Gadhinglaj Taluka Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Collector of Kolha ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR626; 2005(6)BomCR160; (2005)107BOMLR51; 2005(4)MhLj515

ORDERS.A. Bobde, J.1. This petition is by the Gadhinglaj Taluka Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. The Petitioner has challenged the order of the Collector, Kolhapur, deleting the names of 29 voters being member societies, from the voters' list for the elections to the Managing Committee or the Petitioner-Society. All the voters who are deleted are the Members, Co-operative Societies of the Petition.2. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the 29 members - Society have been deleted, principally on the ground that there is a non-compliance of Section 27(3) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and in particular the proviso therto. The proviso lays down that new member - Society shall be eligible to vote only after completion of the period of 3 years from the date of its investing in the shares of the federal society. Sub-section 3 reads as follows :-' A society, which has invested any part of its funds in the shares of any federal society, may appoint one of its members to...