Mumbai Court March 2006 Judgments

Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC673

1. The classification of the following items arises for determination in the present appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (A), Vadodara, who has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 67,88,646.63 against the appellants who are interalia manufacturers of parts of Induction Furnace for the period April 1993 to December, 1996: 2. The assessees claimed classification of all the Items under Chapter Heading 85.14 while the Excise authorities have upheld the classification under Chapter Heading 85.48 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985.3. We have heard both sides. As regards Induction coils, it is seen that they are specially matched for the Induction furnace and cannot be used in any other machines and apparatus. The affidavit of the appellants' Dy. General Manager sets out that within the frame/structure of induction furnace which uses the electro-magnetic principle for transfer of energy from a coil into the charge which is to be heated is placed on Induction coil which i...

Ajay Industrial Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants had imported mild steel sheets/plates against four Impressed Licence (Advance Licences for Deemed Exports as shown below:Sl. AL Date of Date of Quantity ValueNo. No. Issue Validity (M.Tons) (US$) 2. They discharged the export obligation in full and had therefore claimed exemption from customs duty in terms of Notification No.36/97-Cus dated 11.4.97 on the strength of above four advance licences.3. The Customs department raised a dispute that the imports were not within the validity period of the license. They had since paid the customs duty on the goods imported by them and cleared the same. In the appeal now filed, they are not pressing for the benefit of exemption notification so ordered, in view of the provisions of unjust enrichment.4. The order confiscating the goods in question and imposing penalty are however being contested.5. No material has been found in the show cause or in the impugned order that the description of the goods as given in the bill of entry ...

Cc Ex. Vs. Mahalakshmi Dyg. and Ptg. (i) Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)9STR587

2. This appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal dated 24.4.2001 in which the lower appellate authority has set aside the penalty on the respondents and the partner in the respondent firm, who arc a job worker, on the ground that they were not responsible for under valuation of the grey fabrics supplied by the merchant manufacturer. We find that the finding of the lower appellate authority is reasonable and hence, the same does not call for any interference. As such, we dismiss the department's appeal.3. This appeal is against the lower appellate authority's order dated 7.8.2002 in which he has dismissed the department's appeal filed in pursuance of Order-in-Review dated 18.10.2001 on the ground that the respondent's appeal against the order-in-original dated 19.10.2000 was already decided by his predecessor Commissioner (Appeals) and, therefore, both the orders have merged and he cannot hear any appeal against the same in view of the doctrine of merger.4. Shri S.S. Bhagat, learned SDR a...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Philips India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The respondents have taken input duty credit on Nitrogen Gas, which is received through pipeline. Most part of it has been used in manufacture of dutiable lamps and some part of it has been used for non-dutiable lamps.2. The learned Advocate for the respondents states that it is not in dispute that since the nitrogen gas is received through pipeline, is in not possible to segregate the same for use in dutiable and non-dutiable lamps. It has not also been possible to maintain any separate account.Hence, using a formula, they have reversed the proportionate amount of credit amounting to Rs. 62,827/'- and Rs. 14,743/- representing the input duty on nitrogen gas used in the non-dutiable lamps. He also states that the original authority has recorded in his order that the department is not disputing the correctness of the formula. The learned Advocate also makes a statement that this reversal was made before clearance of the non-dutiable lamps from the respondents facto...

Darshak Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appeal was dismissed for non prosecution and non appearance by the applicants on 22-9-2005. The dismissal is in contravention of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat decision in the case of Viral Laminates Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI 1998 (100) E.L.T. 335 (Guj.) which held that an appeal should not be dismissed for default.3. In this view of the matter, since the dismissal of the appeal is not on merits, the order of dismissal is recalled and the appeal restored to its original number and fix the same for hearing on 1-5-2006....

Digambar B. Bhat Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(3)SLJ308CAT

1. The present O.A. is filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 31.3.2005 terminating the services of the applicant and directing the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with back-wages with all consequential benefits.2. The applicant's case is that he was appointed as a Billing Clerk vide order dated 31.8.2001 initially on temporary basis with a probation period of six months. It is contended that initially he was drawing a salary of Rs. 3000. It was increased to Rs. 3450 on 31st January, 2003 and consequently increased to Rs. 4200 w.e.f. January, 2004. It is contended that the employees of Unit Run canteen are treated to be Government Servant by the Apex Court decision in Mohammed Aslam and Ors. case. It is contended that after the decision in Mohammed Aslam's case, rules were framed on 6th January, 2003 and Circular to that effect was issued on 29th April, 2003. It is contended that the applicant has completed 3'/2 years continuous service with unblemished...

Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Montgomery Emerging Markets Fund

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)100ITD217(Mum.)

1. These two appeals, filed by the Revenue relate to the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. These appeals are directed against the orders of the CIT(A)-XVII at Mumbai passed on 23-11 -1998 and 12-2-2000, respectively. The appeals do arise out of the assessments completed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. These two appeals are placed before this Special Bench to consider and decide the following question referred to it by the Hon'ble President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, setting off of short-term capital gains against long term capital losses is permissible to compute the amount for taxation under the head 'capital gains'.3. This Special Bench has been constituted by the Hon'ble President as the relevant question was referred to by the regular Bench of ITAT, H-Bench, Mumbai, while hearing the appeal in ITA Nos. 829/Mum./1999 and 2400/Mum./2000. When the cases were taken up for hearing by the said Divi...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Modella Woollens Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)101TTJ(Mum.)1109

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue. The relevant assessment year is 1997-98. The appeal is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-II at Mumbai on 21st Jan., 2003 and arises out of the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961.2. We heard Shri A.K. Singh, the learned Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue and Shri F.B. Andhyarujma, the learned senior counsel for the respondent assessee.3. The first ground raised by the Revenue in this appeal is that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 4,94,648, being the legal fees paid by the assessee and treating it as revenue expenditure.4. The assessee had claimed a sum of Rs. 6,03,000 towards legal fee.Out of this, a sum of Rs. 4,94,648 was paid to the lawyers in conducting a case between the assessee and M/s Modella Knitwear Ltd., in connection with the matters relating to protecting patent rights owned by the assessee. The AO disallowed the claim on the ground that the said exp...

Van Oord Dredging and Marine Vs. Adit, (international

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)297ITR115(Mum.)

1. These cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue for the Assessment Year 2001-02 are directed against the order of the CIT(A).These are being disposed of with this consolidated order.2. The Appellant M/s. Van Oord Dredging And Marine Contractors BV (formerly known as BALLAST HAM DREDGING BV)) is a company incorporated in The Netherlands and is an International Dredging Contractor. The assessee is a tax resident of The Netherlands. During the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 2001-02 the assessee executed contracts in India and for this purpose the assessee has maintained project/site offices in India established with the approval of the RBI.The assessee has filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2001-02 on 30.10.2001 returning a loss of Rs. 12.80 Crores. In the return of income, in computing the returned loss of Rs. 12.80 Crores the income of Rs. 30,78,70,463/- received in relation to the New Mangalore Port Trust (NMPT) project was reduced on the basi...

Vidyt Metallics Ltd. and anr. Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Mum ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom204; 2006(5)BomCR303

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. By the present writ petition the petitioners are challenging the orders dated 17.12.1998 and 29.12.1998 and demand made by the 1st respondent dated 8.1.1999 as illegal and null and void. It is further prayed that the claim of demurrage and wharfage charges of Rs. 17,16,648/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum be declared is illegal and unlawful. Alternatively, by prayer (d) it has been prayed that in the event of the Court coming to the conclusion that the petitioners are liable to pay the said demurrage charges to the 1st respondent then the Court should direct the 3rd respondent to make the aforesaid payment. The 3rd respondent is the Collector of Customs. Some of the material facts of the present case, briefly stated, are as under :2. The 1st petitioner is a company inter alia engaged in export of various products. The petitioners manufacture Shaving Razor Blades, Twin Track Shaving Systems and machineries used for manufacturing the same. On 26.3.1996, the ...