Mumbai Court July 2005 Judgments

Bombay Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(201)ELT167(Bom); [2008]14STT290

ORDERJ.H. Bhatia, J.1. To state in brief the petitioners are the holder of Central Excise Registration for the manufacture of 'Toys, Brand Mosquito Coils' (the Product in brief). According to them, the Product comes within the definition insecticides, classified under Tariff Item No. 68 and is eligible for exemption under Notification No. 55/75, dated 1-3-75 as amended by Notification No. 62/78 up to 31st October, 1982 and was exempted from 1-11-82 to 28-2-86 under Notification 234/82, dated 1-11-82. The product is classified under Chapter sub-heading No. 3808.10 of Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and is chargeable to 'NIL' rate of duty, up to 28-2-1994. The Assistant Collector Central Excise allowed the exemption but the Collector Central Excise (Appeals) disallowed the exemption. That Order was challenged before the CEGAT by the petitioners and Special Bench of the CEGAT by an Order dated 19th March 1990 (49) E.L.T. 431 (Tri) held that the product is insecticide. The ...

Sandesh K. Desai and anr. Vs. Dattaraj Keshav Prabhu Gaonkar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2006)BC151

V.M. Kanade, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is the original complainant. He is e challenging the Order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, South Gao. Margao in Criminal Appeal No. 22/2004. whereby the Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and has set aside the Order passed by the J.M.F.C. convicting the accused2. The applicant/petitioner had filed a complaint in the Court of J.M.F.C. under Section 138 of the said Act and it was alleged in the said complaint that the accused owed a sum of Rs, 39,700/- to him and a cheque for the said amount was issued in respect of the transaction of cement supplied between the applicant and the original accused. When the said cheque was presented in the Bank by the applicant, it was returned with a remark that the funds in the account of the respondent/accused were insufficient. The Trial Court convicted the accused on the basis of the evidence. From the judgment of the...

Endosys International Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Ap)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(194)ELT36Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The impugned goods are Cobra Scan X-ray Digitizer along with X SCAN tele radiology and tele medicine software which scan and digitize x-ray images for further analysis by Automatic Data processing (ADP) Machines. The appellant have claimed classification under sub-heading 9018.19 as "other electro diagnostic equipment" whereas the original authority has classified the goods as a unit of ADP machines under sub-heading 8471.90 The lower appellate authority has substantially agreed with the original authority but has ordered classification under heading 8471.60.2. The literature shows the impugned goods to be a dedicated medical equipment. The machine not only scans x-rays but can also correct over and under exposed x-rays for better diagnosis by doctors. It is specially made to digitize x-ray films up to 14"x18" which covers all films such as CT Scan, MRI, Ultrasound, Radiography etc. The appellants have also submitted a certificate from the Department of Radiology,...

Saheli Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Shri Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC539

1. All the three appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order of Commissioner of Customs vide which he has confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 42,31,027 against M/s. Saheli Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. alongwith imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under the provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. In addition he has confiscated 83,863 L.Mtrs. of Polyester fabrics of foreign origin totally valued at Rs. 82,54,742 imported by the appellant in excess of the quantity declared by them with an option to redeem on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 20 lakhs.He has also confiscated declared quantity of 78,605 L.Mtrs. of the fabrics under the provisions of Section 119 of the Customs Act with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 15 lakhs. Apart from the above, the adjudicating authority has imposed personal penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on Shri Ratan Kumar Ramvilas Goel, Director and of Rs. 50,000 on Shri Santraj Sing...

Nilkamal Plastics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(200)ELT254Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various articles of plastic such as chairs, stools, tables etc and were availing the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of inputs, in terms of Rule 57A.The had also taken the benefit of Modvat credit on various capital goods. In terms of the provisions of Rule 57Q.2. The appellant's factory met with a fire on 26.1.2001, in which various inputs and capital goods, on which the appellants had taken Modvat credit, were destroyed. However, some of the capital goods were subsequently salvaged by the appellants and were, either sold as such, or as waste and scrap on appropriate payment of duty leviable on the sale value of the goods.3. After due investigation, proceedings were initiated against the appellants for recovery of Modvat credit in respect of the destroyed inputs and the capital goods. The Show Cause Notice issued to them for the said purpose culminated into the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, confirming the demand of ...

J.R. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT16Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Miscellaneous Application is for restoration of the appeal dismissed earlier for non-compliance with the stay order. The matter has a chequered history. The appellants filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, vide which penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/- was imposed upon the applicants herein under the provisions of Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules (erstwhile).The applicant is Director of M/s. Sunil Mills, which was the main noticee. An application for dispensing with the pre-deposit of penalty in terms of provisions of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was also filed. The said application was taken up by the Bench and vide in its Stay Order Nos. 1404-1412/WZB/98, dated 24-6-1998, the appellant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 20,000/- within a period of two months from the date of passing of the order, subject to which condition, pre-deposit of balance amount of penalty was dispensed with.It is seen that the appellant di...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The dispute in the present appeal of the revenue involves correct classification of motor vehicle for transport of 10 or more persons including driver. Whereas both the authorities below, riginal as well as appellate has accepted the assessee's claim of classification under Heading 87.02, the revenue's contention is that the vehicle's correctly classifiable under Heading 87.03. In support of their above stand, they have referred to the provisions of Maharashtra Motor Vehicle Rules, 1988. For better appreciation of revenue's stand the reproduce below the grounds of review, as noted by Commissioner (Appeals) in his order: The Rule 171 of Maharashtra Motor Vehicle Rules, 88 (hereinafter called as MMVR' 88) lays down the parameters for transport category of vehicles in respect of its seating capacity. This rule specifies that for each passenger a reasonable comfortable seating space of not less than 381 mm is to be provided. The dimension of two seals placed in the rear of vehicles, pa...

Commr. of Customs (import) Vs. Lorex International

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard the learned S.D.R. The respondents were not present. We have considered the case records and the submissions made. The original authority has enhanced the declared value from US $ 1.75 to US $ 3.75 under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 after rejecting the declared value under Rule 10A. His finds are as under :- The Department conducted further market inquiry in the matter of value of SD Terminator Game (TV Game). The value represented by Cash Memo No. 189, dated 23-1-2001 of M/s. A to Z Trading, New Crawford Market, Mumbai, is Rs. 405 per piece. Similarly, the value of the SD (Terminator) Game represented by cash memo dated 23-1-2001 of M/s. Narendra Paper Market is Rs. 425 per piece. It has been noticed that there are wide fluctuations in the market piece, which may have been influenced by the factors like dumping of old stock of goods or goods under clearance sale. Under the circumstances, the value declared by the importers appeared to be low. The Department ha...

Homa Engineering Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The prayer in the stay petition is to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of service tax amounting to Rs 68,50,50,147/- and penalty of Rs 1,37,00,000/- along with personal penalty of Rs 5,000/- imposed under section 77 of the Finance Act, 1944 @ Rs 200/- per day, during which they failed to pay service tax.2. As per facts on record, the appellants are engaged in the business of repairing, chipping, cleaning and painting of the vessels of Coast Guard, Naval Dock and ONGC at Mazagaon Docks Ltd. During the period 16.07.2001 to 30.09.2003, the appellants did such job under contract with their customers for a value of Rs 12.93 crores approximately. They were issued a show cause notice dated 23.01.2004 alleging that the said services undertaken by the appellants are "Port Services" which are liable to service tax. The appellants took a categorical stand before the lower authorities that the services rendered by them for repairing of the vessels, under a contract with their custome...

Dy. Cit (inv.) Circle 14(1) Vs. Dharmesh H. Doshi

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)4SOT748(Mum.)

This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of CIT(A)-wherein it was held that there is no cost of acquisition of Detachable Warrants (DWs) acquired by the assessee along with Non-convertible debentures (NCDS) from the market and therefore the capital gains could not be worked out on the sale of DW.The facts of the case are that the assessee purchased renunciation rights of 57.15 16% NCDs of the face value of Rs. 325 along with DW of Mukund Ltd. (ML) from the market through broker for Rs. 60,385 vide contract No. 174, dated 9-10-1992. Thereafter, the assessee paid application money of Rs. 160 per debentures. The balance of Rs. 165 was required to be paid on demand. Before the assessee could receive letter from the ML for the balance payment, the assessee sold these partly paid debentures in the assessment year 1993-94, i.e., in the earlier assessment year and incurred a loss of Rs. 3.00 lakhs, which was offered in the relevant assessment year. The assessee retained the DW...