Mumbai Court January 2007 Judgments

Castrol India Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC388

1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various types lubricating oils. These lubricating oils are packed in bulk packs of 205 L and 180 kilogram barrels and in retail packs ranging from 50 L to 0.5 L. The appellants have a duty paid warehouse at the premises of their C & F agent M/s. Om Warehousing Pvt.Ltd. where duty paid lubricating oils manufactured by the appellants from its factories were received and stored. They are registered under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as a dealer for issuing modvatable invoices to their customers who were eligible to avail modvat credit under Rule 57GG from the premises of M/s. Om Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. However, modvatable invoices are issued in respect of bulk packs of 205 L and 180 Kilogram barrels. No modvatable invoices were issued to their customers in respect of the retell packs ranging 50 L to 0.5 L as such retail customers did not require to take any modvat credit. It is the ap...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) imposing penalty of Rs. 15,000/- on the respondents herein, which amount is lesser than the duty of Rs. 1,85,348/- confirmed against them, on the ground that penalty of amount equal to duty should have been imposed in terms of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.3. The Revenue places reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Delhi-IV v. Illpea Paramount Pvt. Ltd. holding that once penal action is found to be warranted, quantum of penalty under Section 11AC is not at the discretion of the authorities and the same has to be equal to the amount of duty confirmed.4. I find that in this case the entire duty amount was paid prior to the issue of show cause notice, albeit after detection of the case by the Central excise authorities. In these circumstances, the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CCE v. Gaurav Mercantiles ...

Mustang Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The authorities below have disallowed deemed credit of Rs. 73,547/- to the appellants and also imposed penalty of equal amount upon them.Credit has been disallowed on the ground that it was wrongly availed during the month of April, 2003 by the appellants who are manufacturers of knitted socks, in terms of Rule 9A(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 on the ground that no written declaration of inputs lying in stock or in process or contained in final products lying in stock on the date on which the goods became excisable, had been filed by them and therefore they were covered under Rule 9A(1) which stipulated production of duty paying documents which they could not do for the above mentioned amount.3. Vide letter dated 1-4-2003, the appellants had furnished a stock statement of finished goods lying in the factory as on 31-3-2003 (knitted socks became dutiable from 1-4-2003). Although during the month of April, 2003 they cleared the goods at concessional rate of duty in terms of Not...

indorama Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(117)ECC65

1. The appellants M/s Indorama Textiles Ltd. (IRTL) are engaged in the manufacture of Spun Yarn and were availing Cenvat credit in respect of input used in the manufacture of final product. They vide letter dated 31.03.2003 intimated the jurisdictional officer of their intention to send furnace oil to M/s Indorama Synthetics (India) Limited (IRSL) for the manufacture of electricity on job work basis in terms of Notification No. 214/86-CE. The entire quantity of electricity so generated by IRSL would be supplied to them. They undertook to produce the evidence that the goods have been used in the manufacture of final product on which the duty shall be discharged by them. They accordingly took credit of Rs. 1,13,17,607/- on furnace oil said to have been sent by them and used in generation of electricity on job work basis which in turn was used by them for the manufacture of final product.2. Certain investigations were carried out by the department, when it was gathered that M/s IRTL was ...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. B.S.E.S. Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)113TTJ(Mum.)227

1. These cross-appeals pertain to the same assessee on various issues arising out of the respective orders of CIT(A). For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.2. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1999-2000, on the following ground: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 18.17 crores incurred on replacing 1,85,000 electricity meters, treating the same as revenue expenditure.3. Thus, only issue is with regard to the disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 18.17 crores incurred on replacing 1,85,000 electricity meters, treating the same as revenue expenditure.4. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee pointed out that there was a delay in filing the appeal by four days. The reason given for the same was stat...

ito Vs. Mansi Enterprises

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These five appeals by the revenue are against the separate orders of Commissioner (Appeals)-XXV, Mumbai, dated 19-9-2003 for assessment years 1995-96, 1997-98, 1999-2000 and dated 22-9-2003 for assessment years 1996-97 and 1998-99 against the orders under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.2. Common ground of appeals have been raised by the revenue in all the aforesaid appeals which is as under: The assessment proceedings were reopened as one of the persons Smt. Ramaben Patel is the benami of Shri Vasantlal Patel which has been agreed by Shri Ramaben Patel in her statement recorded on 22-9-1997 and for these reasons, the firm is treated as AOP. The interest and remuneration paid also needs to be disallowed.3. The revenue has raised another ground of appeal in assessment years1995-96, 1997-98 and 1999-2000 which is as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the assessee fulfils...

Tetsuo Etoh, Hitachi Cg Motor Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order dated 16-9-2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of assessment under Section 144 read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' in short), for the assessment year 1998-99.2. The only grievance pressed before us by the assessee is that since the employer had already paid all the tax dues of the employee, in deference to the demands raised by the assessing officer (TDS) under Section 201 read with Section 192 for the relevant period, the very foundation of reassessment proceedings in the case of the assessee was legally unsustainable. There was no income which escaped the assessment; the tax liability of the employee was duly taken care of by the employer. Under these circumstances, according to the assessee, the reassessment proceedings should have been dropped by the assessing officer. The grievance of the assessee is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the reas...

income Tax Officer Vs. Lanyard Foods Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)112TTJ(Mum.)334

1. These two appeals are of Revenue for asst. yrs. 1997-98 and 1999 2000 directed against two separate orders of CIT(A)-X, Mumbai, dt. 4th June, 2003 for asst. yr. 1997-98 and dt. 2nd June, 2003 for asst. yr.1999-2000. The cross-objection is filed by the assessee for 1997-98.For the sake of convenience, both these appeals and cross-objection are being disposed of by this common order.2. First, we take up the Revenue's appeal for asst. yr. 1997-98 in ITA No. 5549/Mum/2003. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,24,16,500 made by the AO under Section 68 of the IT Act as unexplained share capital.4. The learned Departmental Representative supported the assessment order and reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. . It was submitted that as per this judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the AO is empowered to make addition under...

Kikabhai Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)9STJ79CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for modification of the final order dated 27/01/2006 of the Tribunal.2. This was listed earlier on 06/12/2006 and the learned advocate was present and sought adjournment and accordingly adjourned to today (29/01/2007). Today none represented the appellant. Heard the learned DR. Perused the records.3. The grounds on which modification of the final order of the Tribunal dated 27/01/2006 was sought is that recently the Hon'ble CESTAT, Bangalore bench in the case of Mass Marketing & Advertising Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore 2006 (75) RLT 50 (CESTAT-Bang) has held that interest is not leviable when service tax is paid before issue of show cause notice. He also sought setting aside the penalty in toto.4. It is noticed that the order of the Tribunal dated 27/01/2006 is a reasoned order and it was also subject to further appellate remedies.There is no error apparent on record and therefore no valid grounds have been made out by the applicant to allow his praye...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Jyoti Structures Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is a Departmental appeal against order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. CEX.XI/AKD/151/NSK/APL/05 dated 14-10-2005 by which Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the penalty of Rs. 1000/- imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1944 (sic) (1994).2. Heard the learned DR. None appeared for the Respondents. Perused the records.3. The learned DR submits that in this case there is a delay of 160 days in payment of Service tax and therefore the penalty under Section 76 would be minimum of Rs. 16,000/- to a maximum of Rs. 32,000/-. The imposition of penalty of Rs. 1000/- which was confirmed by the Commissioner is simply in violation of mandatory minimum penalty of Rs. 100/- per day under Section 76, as held in the case of ETA Engineering Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 429 (Tri-LB) : 2004 (174) E.L.T. 19 (T.-LB).4. I find the submissions of the learned DR convincing and therefore set aside the order of the original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) in so far as ...