Mumbai Court May 2006 Judgments

ito Vs. Patel Wood Syndicate

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order dated 31-1-2005 of the Id. Commissioner (Appeals)-XX, Mumbai pertaining to the assessment year 2001-02. 1. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law and in the circumstances of the case in directing the assessing officer to calculate the claim of Bdeduction under Section 80HHC(3)( b) amounting to Rs. 31,40,823 without appreciating the manufacturing activity carried on by the assessee in purchasing rough logs of wood which were sold as teak wood sawn timbers. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the assessing officer has allowed the proportionate deduction under Section 80HHC(3)(a) treating the assessee as manufacturing exporter. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the assessee has not maintained separate books of account for export sales and local sales and the fact that the export sale out of total turnover is of 19.81% only, hence, the assessing offic...

Guru Kripa Marbles Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides and considering that the liability of confiscation of marble blocks under import in this case is required to be upheld. The question reduced is only of determination of redemption fine and penalty consequent to such import having been effected in contravention of the Exim policy.2. The question of quantum of redemption fine, in case of marble imports, has been a subject matter of decision of this Tribunal in many cases and the issue went up to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the High Court in the case of Marmo Classic in a appeal filed by Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva upheld the Order of this Tribunal in a series of cases ordering redemption fine at a level of the 20% of the assessable value determined and penalty at 5% of such assessable values. In on other case which the learned D.R. relied on, Bombay High Court on impopts made by M/s. Sophisticated Marbles and Granite Industries v. Union of India upheld the higher redemption fine and penalties impo...

Fristom Pumps India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of an amount of Rs. 33,96,201/- being the amount of interest levied upon the applicant herein in terms of Section 11AA of Central Excise Act.2. We have heard both sides. We find that show cause notice issued to the applicant herein proposing recovery of duty, recovery of interest under Section 11AB and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules was adjudicated by confirmation of duty demand, and imposition of penalty under the provision of Rule 173Q and levy of interest under Section 11AB. The applicants carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal which vide its order dated 27.03.01 upheld the duty demand and penalty (but reduced the same) but set aside the interest levied under Section 11AB. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's order of confirmation of duty and imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q. Subsequent thereto the department once again sought to levy interest upon the applicants bu...

Commissioner of Customs (E.P.) Vs. Kosmos International

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue is in appeal. Commissioner had adjudicated a case of attempted export of Garments overvalued to claim in eligible drawback.The goods were ordered to be confiscated under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and a redemption fine of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs was given along with penalty of Rs. 1 lakh each on the Exporting Company as on Shri Jayant Singh under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and partner of M/s. NSR Enterprises and suppliers of the goods.1.2 Revenue has filed the appeal on the grounds: An appeal against the said order has been preferred by the Board on the following grounds: 1. That the portion of order passed by the Commissioner is not proper, legal or correct inasmuch as imposing of lesser fine and penalty is concerned for the following reasons: (a) In the present case the exporter sort undue and extra drawback to the tune of Rs. 42 lakhs approx. (When the fact of gross over-invoicing was detected, the exporter came out with fancy excuses with a view to bef...

Dhanlaxmi Fabrics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC102

1. After hearing both sides for some time it transpires that the main appeal can be disposed of the since the issue revolves in a narrow compass. Therefore, with the consent of both sides and after waiver of pre-deposit, the main appeal is taken up for disposal.2. The appellants have processed certain fabrics on behalf of few principals and sent back such processed fabrics to the said suppliers who had given requisite undertakings to discharge duty liabilities, if any, on the said goods. These facts are not being disputed. The duty demands have been made on the job worker and not the principals on the grounds that Notification No. 214/86 does not cover AED. We find no reasons in this case to come to a finding that the duty demands should be made on a job-worker for having processed fabrics and sent them back to the principals. In view of the Apex Court upholding the decision in the case of M. Tex. & D.K. Processors Pvt. Ltd. 2001 (136) E.L.T. 73 : 2002 (146) E.L.T. A309. The C.B.E...

Cobra Personnel and Intelligence Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC239

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 35,79,441/- and penalty of equal amount together with interest and penalty of Rs. 5,06,200/- arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Goa. Service Tax has been levied upon the applicants herein, who are 'Security Agency' in terms of Section 65(94) of the Finance Act, 1994.2. We have heard both sides. We find prima facie force in the submission of the Id. Counsel for the applicants that the demand raised vide show cause notice dt. 14.3.05 for the period from 16.10.98 to 31.3.04, is time-barred as the relevant dale for the purpose of importation as per Section 73(b) was the date 'for' filing the returns and this was subsequently changed to the date 'of filing return. The amount of tax payable for this period is approximately Rs. 10 lakhs (Rupees ten lakhs only). We also find prima facie force in the submission that the applicants are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 56/98-ST...

Prince Swr Systems Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC458

1. The appellant are engaged in the manufacture of PVC Rigid Pipes and fittings falling under chapter No. 39. The raw-material used for manufacture of these pipes is PVC granules. During the course of manufacture of pipes certain waste materials in the form of pulp arises which is sent by the appellants to job workers for re-generation of granules. They have intimated the Judicial Asstt. Commissioner about their intention to send this waste materials for generation of granules and subsequently removed such waste under Rule 56F(4) challan. The waste material are cleared without payment of duty. They were however, issued a show cause notice stating that materials could not have been cleared under Rule 57F(4) procedure and that they were required to pay duty on said waste material at the applicable rate.2. The appellant submitted that they are duly covered by Rule 57F (4) procedure as waste was used for regeneration of PVC granules which in turn was again used for the manufacture of thei...

Essex Group Inc. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)6STT320

1. After hearing both sides in this application made for waiver of the entire amount of service tax liability of Rs. 27,68,985/- and penalties @ of Rs. 200/- per day and amount of Rs. 1,000/-arrived at by the lower authorities on the applicants for having entered into an agreement with M/s. Finolex Ltd. The clauses of this agreement, especially paragraph 2.1(a) and 2.1(b) provides for consultancy service for an engineering service, Article 2.1(a) of the agreement provides for services to be rendered in India while 2.1(b) provides for deputing the technicians of M/s. Finolex to observe the manufacturing process.2. The Ld. Advocate for the applicant look us through the agreement, details and decisions in the case Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bihar v. New Consolidated Gold Fields Limited (London) of Patna High Court 143 ITR 599 and decisions of the Supreme Court . The Ld. Advocate submitted that no services have been infact provided for in terms of Article 2.1(a) and only techn...

Shree Parleshwar Co-op. Housing Vs. Ito, Ward 21(2)(4), Mumbai

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)8SOT668(Mum.)

All these four appeals filed by the assessee against the consolidated order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2001-02 involve some common grounds, Therefore, we proceed to dispose of these appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.The common issue in assessment years 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 relates to taxability of loan taken from incoming members when the existing (198) members transferred their interest in favour of the incoming members.The assessee before us is a, housing co-operative society, registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The assessee falls in the category known as "tenant co-partnership housing society".The main feature of this society is that it owns both land and building either on leasehold or freehold basis and on construction of tenements they are allotted to its members. The society in this case constructed 198 flats from 1954 till 1956 and allotted them to members, who, among o...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Surendra Re-rollers Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The respondents defaulted payment of Compounded Levy amount for Rs. 1,68,650/- for the period 1-2-1999 to 31-3-1999 and Rs. 75,521/- for the period 10-8-1999 to 31-3-2000. The amounts have been ultimately paid after long delay on 1-7-2004. Shri S.K. Jawalkar, Accountant of the respondent company submits that no interest payment for the delayed payment has been made so far but submits that the same would be paid within 30 days from today. The lower appellate authority has set aside the penalty imposed on the respondents on the ground that the management of the company has changed and that no penalty is imposable on the new management of the company.2. Shri S.K. Jawalkar, Accountant of the respondent company states that in the case of Bhomi Re-Rolls Pvt. Ltd. v. CCEx, Aurangabad Order No.A/489/W/SMC/WZB/06 dated 14-3-2006, the Tribunal has held that no penalty is imposable in compounded levy cases following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mitra Steel &am...