Mumbai Court December 2006 Judgments

Pratap Singh and Sons Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)6STT390

1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.BR(01)01/STC/2005 dated 11-7-2005 by which he has upheld the order of the Dy. Commissioner No. 4447/2004 dated 21-2-2005 in a Service Tax matter.3. The appellant is purchasing and reselling the products of several prominent manufacturers like Sundaram Fasteners Ltd., M/s Timken and M/s Eicher. There are agreements between the appellant and the respective manufacturers. Their agreements with the appellant stipulate provisions to improve marketing conditions and sale of the products of the company and for the said purposes the appellant is required to establish facilities and deploy sufficient trained and suitable labour, to advertise and to display the products of these companies.4. The department has taken the view that the above activities of the appellant are relatable to the clearing and forwarding operation of the three companies and therefore, appellant is liable to pay service tax, even if, no service charges a...

Nrc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(209)ELT22Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The matter has been posted today for deciding upon the appellant's plea of limitation. After hearing both the sides, we find that the show cause notice was issued on 23-6-03 for the period 16-7-1997 to 31-8-1999 on the alleged ground that the appellants, who are basically Commission Agents, are liable to pay Service Tax as Clearing and Forwarding Agents. The notice proposed invocation of longer period of limitation.2. The above allegations were based upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Prabhat Zarda Factory (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna 2006 (2) S.T.R. 584 (T) : 2002 (50) RLT 326 (CEGAT Cal.).We find that the said decision stands over-ruled by the Larger Bench of Tribunal in the case of Larsen & Tonbro Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai 2006 (3) S.T.R. 321 (Tri.-LB). As such, we find that very basis of the proceedings initiated against the appellant was Tribunal's decision in the case of Prabhat Zarda Factory (India) Ltd. 3. In view ...

Jetha Drums and Containers (P) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)106TTJ(Mum.)1047

1. This is a bunch of 4 appeals relating to a common asst. yr. 1986-87; all the appeals are filed by the assessee.2. The appeal in ITA No. 996/Mum/2004 is an appeal arising out of quantum assessment completed under Section 143(3).3. The appeal in ITA No. 5783/Mum/2004 is a penalty appeal arising out of the proceedings completed under Section 273(1)(b).4. The third appeal in ITA No. 5784/Mum/2004 is again a penalty appeal, but arising out of the proceedings concluded under Section 271(1)(a).5. The fourth appeal in ITA No. 5785/Mum/2004 is another penalty appeal arising out of the proceedings completed under Section 221(1).6. First, we will consider the quantum appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 996/Mum/2004. The first point to be considered in this appeal is regarding condonation of delay of about 13 years caused in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. This ground has been directly taken by the assessee in its grounds of appeal. The assessee has also filed an affidavit stating ...

Premier Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. AT/433/M-II/2005 dated 29-8-2005 by which he has set aside the order of the original authority, which dropped the proceedings seeking to recover duty of Rs. 1,75,727/-. (i) The appellant is a manufacturer of motor cars and market the products in different parts of the country. In respect of the cars marketed within Maharashtra state, they are required to adhere to specific statutory requirement under Maharashtra Motor Vehicles (MMV) Rules, 1989 according to which they have to supply motor cars along with the toolkit and jack assembly. However, such a stipulation is not there in respect of states like - Bihar & Orissa. In such cases these items viz tool-kit and jack assembly are supplied only on optional basis. (ii) The department has taken the view that the tool-kit and jacks cannot be considered as inputs in terms of Rule 57A and therefore, not eligible for the credit.4. The learned Advocate for the appellan...

Safe C. and F. Agency P. Ltd. Vs. C.C. (Export)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After admitting the appeal and allowing the stay petition, I proceed to decide the appeal itself inasmuch a short issue is involved.2. Appellant is a CHA and has been penalized with personal penalty of Rs. 15,000/- on the finding that he has failed to perform his duties as per CHA Regulations, 2004 and has contravened Regulation 13(d) of CHA Regulations, 2004.3. The allegation against the appellant is that he did not inform the Custom Officers about the non-examination of the two containers and allowed the said containers to be loaded in the ship without let export orders by the Customs. On going through Para 2 of the impugned order it is seen that it is the CHA, who informed the department about non-examination of the two containers and the fact of loading the same in the ship. It is also seen that the ship was subsequently called back, containers examined and nothing objectionable was found. While concluding the appellant liable to penal action, Commissioner has observed as under...

Commissioner of Customs (Ep) Vs. Viraj Alloys Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The present application has been filed by the Revenue for rectification of mistake in the Order No. A/133/IV/SMC/WZB/06, dated 4-1-2006, on the ground that the expert opinion as regards description of the imported goods on the disputed issue as to whether the same were serviceable sheets of second and defective nature or as to whether the same was scrap has not considered by the Tribunal. It is seen that the impugned order of Commissioner no where discusses the expert opinion and his views and findings are not based upon the same. As such the Tribunal was correct in not considering the said opinion, which was not the basis of the Commissioner's order. In any case the said opinion was never brought to the notice of the Bench by the learned D.R., during the course of hearing. Even today, D.R. has not been able to place any expert opinion on record. As such, I find no merits in the above contention of the Revenue.2. It has been further contended in the application that the issue invol...

Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. S.K. Services

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)9STJ157CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. This is revenue's appeal. There is a delay in filing the appeal of 104 days on account of the fact that order-in-appeal alongwith concerned file was lost and could not be located and as soon as the same was located an appeal was filed within a period of one month. We are satisfied with the cause of delay and accordingly condone the same and took up the appeal for decision on merits.2. The facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in providing courier services. Though they were registered with the Central Excise and recovered service tax from their clients, they failed to pay the same to the department. They were accordingly issued a show cause notice demanding service tax amounting to Rs. 9,58,666/-with interest for the year 1999-2000 to 2001-2002 under Section 73(a) of the Finance Act and proposing penalty under Section 76 & 77 of the act. The show cause notice was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner demand service tax amounting to Rs. 9,58,666/- with interest...

The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)BomCR48; (2007)5VST137(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Heard. 2. These two reference applications are filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax ('Commissioner' for short) under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short 'the Bombay Act') read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short 'the Central Act'). These two reference applications arise from the order of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal dated 6th August, 2005. 3. During the period relevant to Assessment Year 1992-1993, the respondent who was a registered dealer under the Bombay Act and the Central Act had imported and sold to its customers certain items of steel and iron and claimed that the sales were in the course of import covered under Section 5 of the Central Act and consequently not liable to tax under Section 75 of the Bombay Act. 4. The Assessing Officer, however, by his order dated 30th March, 1996 held that the local sales and the inter state sales of iron and steel effected by the respondent were neither covered under th...

Ramrao Chudaman Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR579; 2007(1)BomCR931

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties.2. Both these petitions are being disposed of together inasmuch as identical questions of law and facts are involved therein. All these petitioners were members of village panchayat. They have been declared as disqualified from membership under Section 14(1)(h) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, on the ground that they failed to pay the property taxes due from them within the prescribed period. So, they were held as ineligible to remain in the office of the village panchayat as members.3. The respondent No. 5 Narendra raised dispute about eligibility of in all 8 members of the village panchayat, Hol. The application of respondent No. 5 Narendra was duly enquired into by the Additional Collector, Dhule. Consequent upon verification of facts, it was noticed that the petitioners had committed defaults in payment of house property tax which was due from them, inspite the demand n...

Kuresh Taherbhai Rajkotwala Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(209)ELT347(Bom)

ORDERS.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This is an application for bail in an offence allegedly committed by the applicant under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant was arrested on 24-11-2006 by the 2nd Respondent under Section 104 of Customs Act. The allegation is that the applicant is concerned with the fraudulent import of the goods i.e. Fabrics against Advance Licence under DEEC Scheme issued in the name of M/s. Suvidh Overseas Mumbai, which has also been fraudulently obtained and diverted the same in the local market. In other words, there is a violation of provisions of Customs Act, 1962 and Import policy.2. Applicant was produced before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM for short) on 24-11-2006 and his remand was sought, inter alia, on allegation that he procured IEC from other arrested persons and imported large number of Fabrics at Tuticorin Port which were cleared duty free against actual user condition. Applicant's application for bail was rejected ...