Mumbai Court July 2006 Judgments

Unique Creations Ltd. Vs. Ccex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC103

1. Heard both sides. The duty liability in respect of the appellants was fixed under the provisions of Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. The appellants filed a declaration on 16.12.1998 declaring two stenters with five and four chambers. They had also declared that one of the stenter is working and other is sealed and accordingly provisional capacity was fixed and communicated to them on 23.12.1998. On 15.1.1199, the appellants intimated that one stenter having five chambers was sealed on 20.12.1998 and sought permission for dismantling the said stenter.On 3.2.1999, permission was granted to dismantle the said stenter and on 12.2.1999, the appellants intimated that seal of the stenter with five chambers was opened on 9.2.1999 and it was dismantled on 12.2.1999 but subsequent verification showed that it was dismantled only on 9.3.1999. Accordingly, while fixing annual capacity, the duty liability was reduced w.e.f. 9.3.1999 only.2...

Sanghvi Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides the appellant is aggrieved by the order of Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 amounting to Rs. 75, 000/- imposed for having disposed five second hand machine cleared on actual user condition. The violation of the condition on no sale resulted in liability to confiscation under Section 11(d) and 11(o) of the Customs Act 1962, Since the machines were not available a penalty of Rs. 75,0007- has been arrived under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. There is force in the Ld. DR. submission, that, penalty in lieu of confiscation cannot survive moreover, the notice appears to be issued under Section 112 and not specifically 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962.Thus, they could not defend themselves adequately.3 In this view of the matter, it is found that the proceedings taken out & arrived for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act cannot be sustained However, since liability confiscation, for the said machines disposed, in violation of ...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Chhaganlal Mohanlal and Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal of revenue. The facts of the case are that M/s.Chhaganlai Mohanlal & Co. are holders of CHA licence who were transacting CHA business in Bombay. Some investigations revealed that one Shri Ashwin Shah was clearing the consignments for imports by using the licence of M/s. Chhaganlai Mohnalal & Co. for a monetary consideration of Rs. 200/- per documents since 1-4-93 and Shri Ashwin Shah was not holding any custom pass of M/s. Chhaganlai Mohnalal & Co.It was further found that two employees of M/s. Chhaganlai Mohnalal & Co. namely Shri Ajay M. Wadkar and Shri Gulab S. Choudhary were infact employees of Shri Ashwin Shah and were drawing salaries from him. In view of this the CHA was served with a memorandum wherein it was alleged that due to above acts of omission and commission, the CHA had contravened provisions of Regulations of 14(b) and 13 of the CHA Licensing Regulation, 1984 and asked to explain as to why action should not be initiated against hi...

Nikivik Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC576

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of copper tubes and condenser evaporator coils falling under heading 7411 and 8415. Their factory was visited by the Central Excise Officers on 17/06/95, who conducted various checks and verifications. As a result, 1602.280 Kgs of final product was found unaccounted for in the statutory records and quantity of 40 Kgs of scrap was found short as against the book balance. Statements of Shri Sanjay K. Vakharia, Director of the company accepted the above discrepancies. However, subsequently on 27/06/95, the said statement was retracted. The officers also checked the various records and on comparing the same with the opening balance of Form IV register, opening balance of RG-1 register, receipts of raw materials as reflected in RG-23 Part-I and clearances effected, they entertained a view that there was production of around 6578.850 Kgs of final products, which was removed by them without payment of duty.2. On the above basis, the appellants...

Jak Exim Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellants are aggrieved by the imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for having delayed filing of the return ER-3 for the month of Feb. & March 2004 which was required to be filed, every quarter & was to be filed on 20-5-2005 but was filed on 30-6-2004 (sic). The assessee was Registered on 4-2-2004 under Central Excise Act, 1944, & this was the first return. Revenue has failed to show the prejudice or and loss caused by this delay, on the first occasion of filing. Power to impose a Penalty, under the act and the rules, is not a crop in hand to be unleashed on an assessee, especially one who is new to the procedures and compliance required. There has to be a nexus of the delay with certain advantage to the assessee and correspondence disadvantage to the Revenue. None shown. Therefore, the penalty is therefore set aside & appeal allowed as this step, after waiver of pre-deposit....

Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellant purchased Heavy Melting Scrap (HMS) weighing 301.480 Mt.on High Seas Basis from M/s. Shubhkaran & Sons. The Bill of Entry was filed by the appellant. Respondent on examination alleged that out of 301.480 Mt. of HMS, 120.592 Mts. were re-rollable scrap. Hence the adjudicating authority held the goods liable for confiscation Under Section 111(m) alleging mis-declaration and levied a redemption fine of Rs. 1,40,000/- and penalty of Rs. 70,000/- Under Section 112.2. The Commissioner (A) upheld the confiscation but reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 1,00,000/- and penalty to Rs. 40,000/- on the ground that the appellant is actual user and is likely to use the goods for melting purpose.3. (a) Since in para 12 of the impugned order the appellant gave a categorical finding that the appellant is likely to use the re-rollable scarp for the purpose of melting. If there is no doubt about the fact that the scrap imported by the appellant was to be used for melting in the factory o...

Sushmita Holdings Ltd. Vs. Joint Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The appeal filed by the assessee-company is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the following grounds: 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in disallowing deduction in respect of interest expenditure of Rs. 2,01,64,247 in computing the business income. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have directed the assessing officer to allow deduction of the interest expenditure of Rs. 2,01,64,247. 2. Without prejudice to the ground No. 1 above, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in restricting the deductionin respect of interest expenditure to Rs. 77,78,630 in computing the income under the head "Income from other sources" and in thereby disallowing an amount of Rs. 1,23,84,617 in respect of interest. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have directed the assessing officer to allow the full deduction of Rs. 2,01,64,247 in resp...

industrial Development Bank of Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)107ITD45(Mum.)

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order dt..27th Aug. 1997 passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of penalty imposed on the assessee under Section 221 r/w Section. 193 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the asst. yr.1994-95.2. The core issue requiring our adjudication in this case pertains to the scope of Explanation to Section. 193 of the Act. To be more specific issue that we are required to adjudicate here is whether or not Section. 193 of the Act requires tax deducted at source in respect of the provision for interest accrued but not due made by an assessee where the ultimate recipient of such interest accrued but not due cannot be ascertained at the point of time when the provision is made.3. The case before us also raises another important legal issue about the scope of Section. 221 per se, and whether a penalty under the said Section can be imposed at all, as a consequence of non-deduction of tax at source after the ...

Sunanda Ashok Bhosale and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)MhLj720

D.G. Karnik, J.1. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the communication dated 4th July, 2002 by the Deputy Director, Vocational Education and Training Department (Respondent No. 3 herein) to the Principal and the letter dated 1st April, 2004 written by the Principal, Industrial Technical Institute (Respondent No. 4 herein) to the Chief Officer of Municipal Council, Chalisgaon, informing him that the property taxes in respect of the property taken on rent by respondent No. 4 should be recovered from the petitioners i.e. owners of the premises.3. Petitioners are owners of their respective premises. By a written agreement (Exhibit 'C'), the petitioner No. 1 let out and the respondent No. 4 took on lease her premises with effect from 1st July, 1996. By a written agreement (Exhibit 'D'), petitioner No. 2 let out and the respon...

Jasjit Singh and anr. Vs. Foreign Exchange Regulation Board and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR214; 2007(3)BomCR854

Mhase S.B., J.1. These three appeals have been directed as against the order passed by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board on April 29, 1980 in Appeal Nos. 329, 371 and 372 of 1979. These three appeals were filed before the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board by the appellants as against the orders passed by the Assistant Director of Enforcement under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 bearing No. T-4/154/ AD (ONC)/B/79 dated 30th July, 1979. The appellant in appeal No. 371 of 1979 and 372 of 1979 are the directors of Associated Capsules Private Limited which company is appellant in appeal No. 329 of 1979. These two Directors and the Company, namely, Associated Capsules Private Limited are the persons who have challenged the above referred order. The penalty has been imposed by the Assistant Director of Enforcement for violation of provisions of Section 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The said order was conf...