Mumbai Court September 2005 Judgments

Uttam Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All the appeals are being disposed off by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by Commissioners of Central Excise, Mumbai vide which he has confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 33,62,475/- against M/s. Uttam Steels Ltd. along with imposition of personal penalty of identical amount under the provisions of Rule 173Q read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act. In addition personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed on Shri V.R. Bhayana, Director, of Rs. 25,000/- on Shri N.S. Money, Controller of Accounts and of Rs. 10,000/- on Shri S.K. Mighlam under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules.2. Appellant, M/s Uttam Steels is engaged in the manufacture of CR Coils and Galvanized Corrugated sheets falling under chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Demand has been raised and confirmed against the said appellant on two counts. Amount of Rs. 24.42 lakhs has been confirmed on excess recovery of interest on delayed payments from their customer during the peri...

Volant Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT18Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The appellants have used machinery imported duty free for manufacture of goods for clearance in the Domestic Tariff Area in their 100% EOU without obtaining permission of either the Development Commissioner or the Excise authorities.3. Shri V.S.Nankani, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants, fairly concedes that there is no case law on the subject, but argues that there is no bar on use of the facilities of a 100% EOU for producing goods for Domestic Tariff Area.4. He further states that the inputs, which were received duty free, have subsequently been charged to duty by the Excise authorities. It is also his contention that even if duty is to be paid on the impugned goods, it has to be correctly calculated in terms of applicable exemption notification and not at the tariff rate. According to him, at the most, the duty liability will be about Rs. 15 lakhs and not Rs. 1,51,52,762/- as wrongly determined by the adjudicating Commissioner.5. We have heard Shri C.Lama, Ld. JDR, who ...

Cce Vs. Caprihans India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri Hitesh Shah, Ld. SDR appearing for the revenue and Shri Rohan Shah, Ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents.2. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the correct classification of the printed PVC sheets. The Assistant Commissioner vide his order has held that the printed PVC sheets are properly classifiable under sub-heading 3920.39 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and has consequently confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 50,44,584.50. On appeal against the said order, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the assessee's stand on classification of goods under Chapter 49, as product of printing industry. Hence the present appeal.3. As per facts on record, the assessee is manufacturing plain PVC sheets and are discharging duty liability on the same under Chapter 39.Thereafter, the goods are issued to their printing section wherein the same are printed ...

Commissioner of Cus. (import) Vs. Alcobex Metals Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondents herein have imported a consignment of 18.520 MT of Brass Scrap with ISRI specification 'Honey' valued at approximately Rs. 9.95 lakhs and filed a Bill of Entry dated 12-8-97 for clearance of the same under OGL. The goods were examined and it was found that part of the consignment i.e. about 7 MTs contained serviceable articles such as nuts, bolts, imitation jewellery etc., the import of which was not permissible except under a specific licence as per 1997-2002 Exim Policy. The imitation jewellery was found to be in the form of bangles, chains and the other items in nature of bolts, screw appeared new and unused and therefore held to be liable to confiscation. The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 2.50 lakhs and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 75,000/- under Section 112(a) upon the importers. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the ...

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Vs. Otis Elevator Co. (i) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)99ITD73(Mum.)

1. Since common issues are involved in these Departmental appeals, the same are being disposed of by common order for the sake of convenience.2. The main common issue, arising in appeals pertaining to Assessment Year 1989-90 to 1993-94, 1995-96 and 1996-97, relates to the additions made on account of loss in respect of incomplete contracts.3. Briefly stated, the facts, as gathered from the assessment order are that the assessee company is a premier company engaged in the execution of long-term contracts for installation of elevators and escalators manufactured by it. The method of accounting adopted by assesses is explained hereafter. When a contract commences, the direct materials consumed in each of the contract is charged to the respective contract by way of works billing. The direct labour costs incurred on each contract are charged by way of hourly rates depending on the labour mix for each of the contract on the basis of time sheets maintained at the factory at standard rate. Va...

Wall Street Construction Ltd. and Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)101ITD156(Mum.)

1. The Hon'ble President of Tribunal has constituted this Special Bench in the abovementioned two cases to consider and decide the following issue arising in these appeals: Whether, where an assessee is following project-completion method of accounting, the interest identifiable with that project should be allowed as deduction in the year when the project is completed and income is offered from the project or it should be allowed on year to year basis? 2. The relevant facts, briefly stated, leading to this reference are that both the assessees are engaged in the business of construction.The admitted position is that they are following project-completion method of accounting, which means that the profits arising from a particular project are offered for taxation in the year in which that project is complete or substantially complete. In the present cases, the assessees are simultaneously constructing multiple projects and accounts are separately maintained for each project. The assesse...

Ganpat @ Ganesh Tanaji Katare Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ1542; 2006(1)MhLj510

A.S. Oka, J.1. On the last date, these Petitions were finally heard. Though the facts of these Petitions may be different, some of the questions argued in these Petitions are common and therefore, it will be convenient to decide these Petitions by a common Judgment.2. In these three Petitions the challenge is to the orders of externment under the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as said Act of 1951) and confirmation thereof in the statutory appeals.3. In Criminal Writ Petition No.548 of 2005, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that in the impugned order of externment, there is a reference to the activities of the Petitioner in the Ramlal Chowk area. He submitted that this fact is not mentioned in the show cause notice and therefore, the impugned order is vitiated as reliance is placed on extraneous material. He submitted that order of externment passed against the Petitioner relates to Districts Solapur, Osmanabad and Pune when even according to ...

Shri Raosaheb Anand Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR724; 2006(1)BomCR756; 2005(4)MhLj1137

P.V. Kakade, J.1. The Appellant has preferred this Appeal against the Judgment and Order passed by Addl. District Judge Sangli dated 18.8.1989 dismissing the Appeal and confirming the Judgment and Order passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangli dated 30.12.1982 dismissing the Plaintiff's suit for declaration and injunction against the State.2. One Anand Krishna Shinde, father of the present Plaintiff, died on 8.3.1980. He held agricultural land bearing R.S.No. 422, which was situated at village Kupwad, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli as an owner subject to restrain regarding impartibility. The deceased Ananda bequeathed the suit land to the present plaintiff under his Will. Therefore, the Plaintiff acquired title thereto on the death of his father Ananda. The deceased Ananda sought permission for changing the tenure of the suit land in 1965. The land was Class II Inam land as contemplated under Section 29 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. He then transferred the portion of the s...

The Commissioner of Customs Vs. Gaurav Enterprises

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR797; 2006(193)ELT532(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. Heard. This appeal is at the instance of the Revenue. It was admitted by this court vide order dated 9th June, 2005 on the following substantial questions of law:a) Whether the Commissioner of Customs (Adj.) was right in invoking the extended period of limitation as provided under the Customs Act, 1962 particularly in view of the fact that the Respondent had made mis-declaration for claiming benefits of notification no. 11/97 dated 1.3.97? b) Whether the importer is liable for penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act when duty was short levied due to mis-declaration made by him? c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the Order-in-Original CAO No. 339/CAC/CC/K.M.T. dated 16.08.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adj.), Mumbai who has rightly held that the importer i.e. the Respondent firm has willfully mis-declared the goods under reference and wrongly availed the benefit of Notification ...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Govind Goma Govari and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)MhLj55

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Both these appeals arise from the judgment passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference No. 75 of 1987 on 31st August, 1988. The Appeal No. 710 of 1989 has been filed by the State of Maharashtra whereas the Appeal No. 1063 of 1989 has been filed by the claimants.2. The land in question bearing Survey Nos. 283, 286, 280, 322, 277, 278, 220 and 334 totalling to an area of 27610 sq. metres situated in the village Kamothe was sought to be acquired for New Bombay Project by issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called as 'the said Act', on 3rd February, 1970, which was published in the Government Gazette on 24th December, 1971. After issuance of declaration under Section 6, a notice under Section 9(3) of the said Act came to be issued on 22nd September, 1975 and the same was served on the claimants on the very day. In response to the said notice, the claimants did not put forth any claim regarding the...