Mumbai Court July 2006 Judgments

Crown Consultants (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC339

2. The appellant is a member of National Stock Exchange and provides services of stock broking under the name and style of Crown Consultants (P) Limited. The appellant is required to pay service tax in terms of Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994. The business activity of the appellant started by 25th October, 1995. The law provides that within 30 days, the appellant has got to register under Service Tax Act. As a matter of fact, the appellant has applied within the period of 30 days i.e. 25th November, 1995. The registration certificate is finalized and handed over to the appellant in the last week of December, 1995. As seen from the data furnished there was no activity/business transaction in the month of October, 1995. However, there was some business in the month of November, 1995 and he has paid service tax by the calendar month ending December, 1995 on 19-1-1996 with a delay of 4 days. The appellant has been penalised to the tune of Rs. 1,328/- for late payment. It appears that ...

indo Green Textile Pvt. Ltd. (Now Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC258

1. All the appeals are being disposed off by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise vide which he has confirmed demand of duties against M/s. Indo Green Textiles Pvt. Ltd. (now known as M/s. Usha Fashions Pvt. Ltd.) and has imposed personal penalties upon various appellants.2. As per facts on record the appellant M/s. Indo Green Textiles Pvt.Ltd. were engaged in the processing of Man Made Fabrics classifiable under Chapter 54 & 55 of the first Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 Their factory premises were put to search on 21.5.2002, which resulted in seizure of documents/records/computer floppies etc. Proceedings relating to physical stock inventory of grey fabrics resulted in shortages of processed fabrics totally valued at Rs. 74.63 lakhs (Approximately). Another quantity of processed MMF totally valued at Rs. 31 .80 lakhs (Approximately) were found to be excess than the recorded balance, which was seized...

Anant Technocrats P. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The Service tax levied on the appellant amounting to Rs. 4,05,000/-along with interest has been discharged and only an amount of Rs. 20,295/-stands outstanding now required to be deposited. The penalty imposed by the original authority has been deposited in full.The Commissioner (Appeals) as a review authority enhanced the penalty from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 12 lakhs Under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.3. Since major part of the Service Tax was discharged even before the show cause notice was issued, the enhancement of the amount can be ordered to be waived as pre-deposit required Under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to Service Tax matters and order stay of recovery thereof pending regular hearing of the appeal....

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Shri Sunil Kumar and Shri Ram Nivas

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents reiterated the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed a well reasoned order. He submitted that the seizure in the present case is illegal because the respondent has duly produced the necessary evidence and have proved with the help of bill of entry and other documents that the goods were legally acquired by them. He also submitted that the panchanama drawn does not show any making on the goods seized. He submitted that the original authority has miserably failed to notice that the case of D. Bhoormull relied on by him relates to prohibited goods whereas the present case on the appellant relates to non notified goods. The respondent duly filed three bills of entry one at Nhava Sheva and two at Delhi. The bills of entry and the goods are duly co-related. The respondents have submitted that the legal documents showing that the 20 packages were purchased legally were prod...

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC422

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aerated waters of various brands classifiable under Chapter 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. They were served with two show cause notices dt. 29.12.2003 and 7.5.2004 raising demand of duty against them on the charges of clandestine manufacture and removal of aerated waters during the period April 1999 to March 2003 and/or April 2003 to March 2004 respectively.The above allegations were based upon the verifications conducted by the visiting Central Excise officers on 7.10.2004 and the statements of various official recorded during the course of investigation. As a result of such investigation and verification of the record, it was alleged that the yield of their final product recorded in the statutory records is less than the input output norms, when compared with the quantities of concentrate, sugar, CO2 gas and crown corks. The additional production, alleged to have been removed by the appellant without payment of duty has b...

Ruia Aquaculture Farms Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appearing in support of the miscellaneous application for rectification of mistake in the Tribunal Order No.A/65-70/WZB/06/C-II/EB, dated 10-1-2006 2006 (199) E.L.T. 241 (Tri.)L Shri Naresh Thacker, Id. Advocate submits that in though time was granted to the appellants to file the submissions by 30-11-2005, the same has not been filed, whereas the fact is that written submissions were filed on 29-11-2005. As such, he submits that there is an apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal, inasmuch as the issues raised in the said written submissions have not been considered.2. After hearing the Ld. DR, we find that the appellants were heard in person through their Advocate and orders were reserved on 11-11-2005.The Ld. Advocate raised all the pleas and contention and it was only as a matter of convenience that he was directed to reduce the said arguments in writing, to be filed by 30-11-2005. As such, it cannot be contended by the Ld. Advocate that the issues raised in the said writ...

Akay Organics Ltd. and Shri Laxman Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC256

1. Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by Commissioner confirming demand of duty of Rs. 3,29,564.56 on the allegations and findings of clandestine removal, In addition goods under seizure have been confiscated with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fina of Rs. 75,000/- further penalty of Rs. 25,000/- stands impose on the manufacturing firm along with imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on Director of the Company.2. As per facts on record, appellant M/s. Akay Organics Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of various grades of Sodium Carboxy Methyl Cellulose falling under heading 3912.31 of Central Excise Tariff Act.Their factory was visited by the Central Excise Officers, who conducted various checks and verifications. As a result, officers noticed that though the appellant has prepared Central Excise gate passes No. 2, 3 & 4 all dt. 6.4.1991 showing removal of 910...

Classic Shares and Stock Broking Vs. Dy Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These are two appeals filed by the assessee and the department against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) relating to assessment year 2000-01.2. First we shall take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2324/Mum./04.3. First ground relates to upholding the action of the assessing officer in invoking the provisions of Section 142(2A) of the Act was not presses and therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed.4. Second ground relates to upholding the disallowance of Rs. 13,74,975 made by the assessing officer under Section 43B for non-payment of provident fund.4.1 The amount in question could not be paid for the reason that the assessee applied for code number with the appropriate authorities and the same was not allotted therefore, the payment on account of provident fund could not be paid by the assessee before the due date.The code number was allotted to the assessee on 20-7-2000 and immediately thereafter the dues were paid on 28-7-2000. The assessing officer as well as the...

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Additional Director of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)106ITD521(Mum.)

1. On these appeals coming up for hearing, we noticed that there were no orders passed by the AO in these cases and the CIT(A) had actually adjudicated upon the correctness of certificates issued by a firm of chartered accountants, certifying certain rates as the rates at which taxes were required to be deducted at source from the remittances made by the assessee tax deductor.2. An interesting preliminary issue, therefore, arises. We have to first determine whether it was indeed open to the CIT(A) to entertain an appeal, under Section 248 of the IT Act, 1961, against a chartered accountant's certificate holding that tax at a particular rate is required to be deducted by an assessee tax deductor, from a particular remittance to a non-resident, where that assessee tax deductor is of the view that no such tax is required to be deducted by him. The certificate in question is issued by a chartered accountant under CBDT Circular No. 759, dt. 18th Nov., 1997 (1997) 143 CTR (St) 290 as modifi...

Dai-ichi Karkaria Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Special Range-37, Dcit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)106ITD453(Mum.)

1. The Departmental appeals and Cross Objection by assessee have been heard together and, therefore, are being disposed of by the common order for the sake of convenience.2. The major issue arising in these appeals and Cross Objection is, whether the amount of Rs. 50,11,297/.- received by the assessee is assessable to tax either as capital gain or income Under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) either in Assessment Year 1993-94 or 1994-95.3. Briefly stated, the facts are these: The assessee is a company engaged in business of manufacture and sale of chemicals. In the Balance Sheet for the year ending 31.3.1993, a sum of Rs. 50,11,297/-was shown on the liability side under the head "Capital Reserve", as accretions during the year. Note-7 to Schedule-17 to the Balance Sheet read as under: Advance of Japanese Yen 2,80,00,000/- paid to Dai-Ichi Kogyo Seiyaku Company Ltd., Japan towards technical know-how fees has been valued at TT selling rate of Rs. 100- J.Y. 367.5 as on 31...