Mumbai Court May 2006 Judgments

Vikram Ispat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC84

1. The appellants in this case have been denied Modvat credit on M.S.Plates, M.S. Angles, M.S. Channels, Aluminium Sheets, Ceramic Blankets, Nuts and Bolts, Laping Paste, Graf Seal Tapes total amounting to Rs. 1,93,877.79 on the ground that they cannot be considered as parts, components, accessories of capital goods as per the definition of the capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Learned advocate for the appellants submits that so far the admissibility of the M.S. Plates, M.S. Angles, M.S. Channels is a concerned CESTAT has in their own case allowed the credit on the same vide Order No. C-IV/1380-83/WZB/03 dated 25.11.2003, Order No.C-IV/1313/WZB/03 dated 24.11.2003 and C-IV/1295/WZB/03 dated 24.11.2003. The Tribunal while allowing the credit has placed reliance on the decision of CEGAT in the case of Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Ltd. v.Commissioner of C. Ex., Meerut - 2001 (135) E.L.T. 1239 (Tri.-Del.), which in turn was upheld by Apex Court. The abov...

Float Glass India Ltd. Vs. Joint Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 18-12-1998 of Commissioner (Appeals)-XLVII, Mumbai. The first ground of appeal pertains to'confirmation by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) of the assessing officer's finding that expenditure of Rs. 6,28,588 cannot be added to the actual cost of the project for the purposes of allowing depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act.2. The facts are that the assessee company, during the year, was in the process of setting up the project for manufacture of glass. The assessee company commenced trial production on 27-11-1994 and commercial production on 24-3-1995. The accounting year for the present assessment year ended on 31-3-1995. The assessee claimed before the assessing officer that all expenditures incurred by the assessee prior to commencement of business were for the purpose of bringing into existence the various assets and put them in working condition. It was claimed that all such expenses have to be ...

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Shri Vijay V. Meghani

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)106ITD362(Mum.)

1. These cross appeals relating to the assessment years 1991-92 and 1993-94 are disposed of by this common order as under: 2. This Departmental appeal arises from the order dated 26^th December, 2001 of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXVIII, Mumbai. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in rectifying his original order Under Section 154 on 26.12.2001 on the basis of the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of MAE Paes reported in 230 ITR pg.60 with was decided on 17.9.1997 subsequent to the original appellate order dated 23, 1997. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has failed to take into cognizance the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Murlidhar Dalmia reported in 145 ITR (st.) 4 relied upon by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order under consideration. Further, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.S. Sundaram...

Floatglass India Ltd. Vs. the J.C.i.T., Special Range 50

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)103ITD426(Mum.)

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 18.12.98 of CIT(A)-XLVII, Mumbai. The first ground of appeal pertains to confirmation by the ld CIT(A) of the Assessing Officer's finding that expenditure of Rs. 6,28,588/- cannot be added to the actual cost of the project for the purposes of allowing depreciation Under Section 32 of the IT Act.2. The facts are that the assessee company, during the year, was in the process of setting up the project for manufacture of glass. The assessee company commenced trial production on 27.11.94 and commercial production on 24.3.95. The accounting year for the present AY ended on 31.3.95. The assessee claimed before the AO that all expenditure incurred by the assessee prior to commencement of business was for the purpose of bringing into existence the various assets and put them in working condition. It was claimed that all such expenses have to be capitalized and added to the cost of the assets for the purpose of allowing depre...

Shri K.Y.P. Kulkarni, Ultratech Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC529

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 9,34,88,183/- on finalization of certain bills of entry filed by M/s.Ultratech Cement Limited (hereinafter referred to as the importer) plus Rs. 4,60,83,141/- and penalty of Rs. 9,43,88,183/- under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalties of Rs. 1 crore (Rupees one crore only) on M/s. Narmada Cement Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as NCCL) and Rs. 1,00,000/- each (Rupees one lakh only) on Shri K.P.Y. Kulkarni, Vice President of the importer company and Shri S.K. Shah, Manager (Materials) of M/s. Narmada Cement Company Ltd. arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar. The demands have been confirmed by denying the benefit of DEEC Scheme and benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No.43/2002-Cus. and 94/2004-Cus to the importer on the ground that during the period in dispute viz April 2002 to October 2004, the importer had transferred/sold Rs. 413145.360 MTs of non-coking coal i...

Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2006)BC148

1. The main questions that are raised in this appeal are firstly whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the validity of the lease created in favour of the respondent No. 1 Corporation and secondly whether the creation of lease is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens.2. This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 5.8.2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT, Nagpur partly allowing the application filed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and directing the appellant Bank to deliver physical possession of the property to the respondent No. 1 on payment of rent and giving undertaking to pay the monthly rent in advance to the Bank.3. The brief facts, which gave rise to the present appeal are as follows: The respondent No. 2 M/s. Kamakshi Hotels (P) Ltd. had taken loan from the appellant Bank by executing documents like term loan agreem...

Sika (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)8STR501

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 1,97,373/- and penalty of Rs. 1000/-under Section 77, Rs. 1,08,600/- under Section 76 and Rs. 100/- per day from the date of show cause notice till the actual payment of Service Tax imposed upon M/s. Sika India Pvt. Ltd. and pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 1,64,351/- and penalty of Rs. 1,09,500/- under Section 76 and Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 imposed upon M/s. Ciba Speciality Chemicals Inc. arising out of two separate orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Goa, involve common issue viz. as to whether the Service Tax can be levied on the applicants herein as Consulting Engineer on payment of royalty.2. On hearing both sides, we hold that a strong prima facie case for total waiver has been made out in the light of Tribunal's order in the case of Navinon Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai which has been followed in the case of Araco Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore ...

R.M. Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC87

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 3,27,792/- and penalty of equal amount and Rs. 1000/- imposed under Sections 75, 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Nasik.2. The case of the department is that the applicants were not entitled to exemption from payment of Service Tax as per Notification No.43/97-ST dated 05/11/97 as amended, which exempts the taxable service provided by a Goods Transport Operator from the levy of service tax on taxable service rendered by such operator to a customer in relation to carriage of goods by road, ... to certain factories or companies including any factory registered as Small Scale Industry with the Stare Government, for the reason that the applicants were not a Small Scale Industries Unit during the relevant period, but became a SSI Unit with effect from 16/03/1998, which is the date of issue of permanent registration certificate as SSI.3. We have he...

Halcyon Labs Pvt. Ltd., Shri Viren Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC77

1. This is a stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 57,28,737/- (Rs. Fifty Seven Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Seven Only) and imposition of penalty of Rs. 50 Lakhs under Section 11AC on the appellants and penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs on Shri Viren A. Merchant, Director, Rs. 4 Lakhs on Shri Sudhir A. Merchant, Director and Rs. 1 Lakh on Shri Ajitkumar G. Merchant, Director.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Bulk Drugs. The appellants as per their say were not making profit and therefore, in the year 1995-96 they received an offer from M/s CHT India Pvt. Ltd. to manufacture and supply various Textiles Auxiliary Chemicals and finishing Agents, as per their specifications and quality standards and under their brand name, for exclusive sale to them. M/s CHT India, during relevant period was a joint venture company formed by CHT Germany and Merchant group. Since appellants were ma...

Vikram Processors, Shri Inder B. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC537

1. The application for waiver of duty amounting to Rs. 1,28,09,535/-(One Crore Twenty Eight Lakhs Nine Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Five only) and imposition of penalty of equivalent amount on M/s Vikram Processors and penalty of Rs. 10 Lakhs each on Shri N.U.Kantharia, Shri Sushil Gupta partners and Rs. 5 Lakhs on Shri I.B. Bam arises out of the order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai.2. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of transit check and subsequent visit to the factory premises various documents, loose papers, packing slips, job cards etc. were recovered which showed that the quantity of processed fabrics cleared on payment of duty was much less than the quantity of grey fabrics received for processing.Searches were conducted at the premises of the merchant manufacturers and their statements alongwith statements of the partners were recorded in which they admitted the clandestine clearances and receipt of processed fabrics without payment of duty. Som...