Mumbai Court September 2005 Judgments

Daimler Chrysler (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides and considered the material. The appellants are an assessee engaged in the manufacture of Motor vehicles. As per the provisions of General Exemption No. 66 Para 45 of the Notification No.3/2001, one car was cleared without payment of Excise Duty on the basis of documents provided by the Embassy of Bulgaria in India. The requisite permission was granted by the Assistant Collector to clear the car without payment of Excise Duty subject to the reversal/payments of credit as per Rule 57AD(2)(b) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The car was so cleared and an amount of 8% of the assessable value was debited vide Entry No. 115 dated 4-5-2001 in the CENVAT register under protest.The refund claim of the amounts so debited which was rejected. Hence this appeal.2. On perusal of the orders of the lower authorities no infirmity is found in the interpretation arrived to reject the refund. The plea on Rule 57AD (2)(b) & the question of differential treatment and application of C...

BhavIn Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The assessee is in appeal for denial of refund claim under Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for accumulated deemed Modvat credit for Rs. 1,58,793/- which remains in balance in their deemed credit register during the course of the exports under bond during the quarter October 98 to December 98.3. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Surat, by his impugned order denied the refund claim for non-fulfilment of condition 6 of Notification No. 85/87-C.E., dated 1-3-87, which reads as under :- The refund shall be allowed only in those circumstances where a manufacturer is not in a position to utilize the credit of the duty allowed under Rule 57A against the goods exported during the quarter to which the claim relates.The relevant period is October 98 to December 98, during which the credit is accumulated.4. The Id. Counsel for the appellants contends that during the quarter ending, the compounded levy scheme was introduced by 16th December, 98, as such they...

Supreme Petroleum and Prakash G. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue against the same order of the CCE (A). They are being disposed by this common order.2. a) the CCE (A), in a case made out in a case against the assessee wherein the Deputy Commissioner had held. (i). confirmed a demand of duty of Rs. 52000/-under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which had already been paid; (ii). confirmed demand for duty of Rs. 4583/-under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944. (iii). Confiscated the goods worth Rs. 228616/- seized on 15/3/03 under Rule 28 of the Central Excise rules, 2002, simultaneously, giving an option to redeem the seized goods on payment of fine amounting to Rs. 50000/- in lieu of confiscation under Rule 30, ibid; (iv). Imposed a penalty of Rs. 56583/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1944; (v). Imposed another penalty of Rs. 50000/-EACH on Shri Jayeshbhai chiman Shah, Accountant of the appellant unit, and Shri Prakash Gangaram Patil, Power of Attorney holder for pr...

Shivkripa Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are an assessee engaged in the manufacture of CTD bars, Officers visited their factory on 6-8-2002 for physical stock verification. The weight of raw materials stock was worked out on average basis (80 kg per ingots), which worked out to 470.865 MT as against recorded stock of 365.465 MT. Similarly stock of finished goods was found to be 60,440 MT as against recorded stocks of 100.44 MT. This excess and shortage, as worked out, were considered to be liable for seizure. The duty on the shortage amounting to Rs. 80,000 was paid immediately. The goods seized were ordered to be provisionally released. A Show Cause Notice was issued and matter was adjudicated.The Jt. Commissioner issued the order confirming the demand of Rs. 80,000 in respect of shortage of finished goods and appropriation of the amount already paid along with confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 9,49,200/- and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000 under Section 34 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and o...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sudarshan Capacitors Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The issue involved in the appeal is that whether re-assembling or remaking of the old capacitors/control panels after dismantling amounts to process of manufacture and liable to excise duty? 3. I have gone through the case record. The observations made by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Pune, in appeal 4 and 5 basing on the relevant case are well reasoned and justified one.Further, it lends support to the proposition laid down in the case of CCE, Jaipur-II v. Lipi Data Systems Ltd., . In the above case, it is found that used laser toner cartridge dismantled and worn out parts were replaced by new components and toner refilled by the appellants in re-assembled cartridge. It is held that the said process does not amount to manufacture since no new and distinct commercial commodity came into existence. This case law squarely covers the facts involved in the instant case. Therefore, I find no merits in the appeal filed by the Revenue. In the result, appeal i...

Central Bank of India Vs. the Jt. Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)99ITD34(Mum.)

1. The only issue arising in this appeal is whether service charges received by the assessee from its customers (credit card holders) are liable to interest tax under the provisions of Interest Tax Act, 1974 (Act.).2. Briefly stated, the facts are these. The assessee had issued credit cards to its customers who are entitled to make purchases on credits.The assessee pays the bills of vendors from whom credit card holders make purchases and in turn the assessee raises bills on its customers.The customers are required to make the payments by a specified date i.e., 15th of the next month. If payment is not made by the due date, the service charge is debited to the account of card holders and the same is included in the billing for the next month. Such charges are debited @ 2.5% per month. The assessee was asked by the Assessing Officer to show cases as to why services charges should not be included in the total chargeable interest. The explanation of assessee was that the amount due from ...

Parshuram D. Patil Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)102ITD241(Mum.)

1. These appeals of the assessees are directed against the block assessment years each dated 28-3-2002 passed by ACIT, Central Circle 2, Thane under Section 158BC(c) read with Section 254 of the Income-tax Act.2. I. T.SS(A) NOS. 222 & 223/Mum/2004 - The following grounds of appeal (as concised) have been raised in these appeals- 1. The Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by not following the directions given to him by the Tribunal in its Order in Appeal. 2. The Assessing Officer erred in going beyond the findings of his predecessor's earlier Order and thereby sitting in Appeal over the said Order of his predecessor. 3. The Assessing Officer ought not to have disturbed the cost of acquisition, the cost of improvement and the Development Expenses arrived at by his predecessor in the Order for giving effect to the directions. In fact, he should have confined himself only to the directions given to him by the Tribunal. 4. The Assessing Officer erred in computing the capital ga...

The Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri Rasiklal N. Satra

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)98ITD335(Mum.)

1. The only issue arising in this appeal relates to assessee's claim for exemption Under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).2. Briefly stated, the facts are that assessee declared capital gain of Rs. 6,68,698/- on sale of shares and claimed exemption Under Section 54-F by investing the same in purchase of residential flats at Vashi, Navi Mumbai. In the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that assessee was co-owner of a flat in Sion (West), Mumbai. Accordingly, assessee was asked to explain as to why exemption Under Section 54F be not denied. In reply, the assessee contended that he was not an independent owner of the house and exemption can be denied only where assessee is absolute owner of the house. He also filed details of purchase of the house which showed that he along with his wife had purchased the house on 13.4.1994 for a total consideration of Rs. 3,05,000/- out of which assessee had invested Rs. 1,60,000/- and balance amount w...

Shri Haji Abdul Razak Yasim Patel Vs. Bara Imam Masjid Trust and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR746; 2006(1)BomCR776; 2006(1)MhLj184

ORDERS.A. Bobde, J.1. These Civil Applications are made in the above Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India which challenge an order dated 19.4.2005 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Region, Pune. Same contentions have been raised in both the Civil Applications. They are, therefore, being decided by this common order.2. The Civil Applications are made in the Writ Petitions challenging the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Region, Pune, refusing permission to Bara Imam Masjid Trust to alienate certain immovable properties for a consideration of about Rs. 5 crores. The permission has been applied for and refused under section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The parties are hereinafter referred to in their original capacity as the petitioners and the respondent.3. The respondent, by the present Civil Applications, has applied for return of these Writ Petitions for presenting them...

Ramnarayan S/O Madanlal Khandelwal Vs. Proprietor, Daulat Enterprises ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2007)BC390; 2005(4)MhLj796

K.J. Rohee, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner/original complainant seeks to quash the judgment dated 31-3-2004 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision No. 1047/1999 quashing the order of issuance of process dated 19-6-1999 by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Narkhed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 100/1999 and dismissing the complaint.2. According to the petitioner he is the Director of Omkar Polymer Private Limited, Narkhed and is engaged in the business of manufacturing Chetak Rigid PVC Pipe. Respondent No. 2 is the proprietor of respondent No. 1 dealing in PVC pipe and is the customer of the petitioner. In pursuance to the order placed by the respondents the petitioner supplied PVC pipes. In order to discharge the liability on account of credit purchase made by the respondents they issued cheque for Rs. 3,64,764/- on 28-3-1999 drawn on Bombay Mercant...