Mumbai Court January 2007 Judgments

Harsh Marketing Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC579

2. This appeal was dismissed for non filing of the certified copies of Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal on 14.8.06. It is submitted that the representative of the appellant company came late from Pane on the date of hearing. By the time he came to the Tribunal, the appeal was dismissed. On the same date the appellant said to have been complied with the objections raised in the show cause notice and filed all the documents. The covering letter under Exhibit -A also shows endorsement of the Registry regarding filing of the documents. As sufficient cause is shown for restoration of the appeal the same is restored hereby.List the appeal on 5.3.07. No further notice....

Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Dharamsi Morarji Chem. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. ZBN/365/M-VII/2000 dated 19-12-2000. a. The respondent who are manufacturers of various chemicals cleared Diethyl Sulphate Sludge (DES Sludge) and dilute sulphuric acid. These were treated to be by-product by the original authority and held the product Diethyl Sulphate Sludge (DES Sludge)/Spent Sulphuric Acid as classifiable under Chapter 28.07 and chargeable to central excise duty. b. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that DES Sludge is not a by-product arising out of manufacture. His findings are reproduced below: DES Sludge is cleared to their fertilizer plant for dumping in view of its nuisance value of pollution. The DES Sludge is mere sediment and cannot be deemed as a by-product arising out of manufacture. Once it is beyond the scope of "manufacture", the sale, internal consumption, etc., are irrelevant. I find that the impugned order is silent on the DES Sludge vis-a-vis its mar...

Nidhi N. Gupta Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner No.01/RECOVERYCELL/MV/2006/COMMR/RH dated 19-1-2006 by which the Commissioner has attached the property, namely, the factory premises situated at 143A, Government. Industrial Estate, Kandivli (W), Mumbai towards duty, interest and penalties due from the company M/s.Sensotherm and its Directors. Shri Harishchandra Gupta has submitted during the proceedings before the Commissioner that the property belongs to him in his individual capacity and produced certain documents in support of his claim, but the Commissioner held that the property belongs to M/s. Sensotherm (I) Pvt. Ltd., and passed the attachment order.2. Now during the present appellant proceedings it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that there is a letter dated 11-1-2007 from Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited addressed to the Central Excise authorities, which will prove that the title of the disputed property is in the name of Mr. Harishchandra Gupta.3...

Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(117)ECC163

1. The assessees herein who are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts falling under Chapter Heading 87.08 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985, manufactured motor vehicle parts on job work basis out of raw material supplied by M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra and retained scrap generated during the course of manufacture, and sold the scrap. The cost of scrap (scrap credit) was reduced from the assessable value of motor vehicle parts supplied to Mahindra & Mahindra. The price of the parts was worked out as raw material cost + conversion charges + packing + tools amortisation cost less value of scrap generated. The department was of the view that scrap credit value was includible in the assessable value of such motor vehicle parts and that the assessees had undervalued the parts to the extent of scrap credit value. On this basis, show cause notice dated 3.3.2000 was issued inter alia proposing recovery of central excise duty of Rs. 1,90,70,826/- and Rs. 21,304/- on rust prevent...

Hajiani Firoz B. Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: I(2008)BC83

1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 25th October, 2004 passed by the Residing Officer, D.R.T.-II, Mumbai allowing Original Application of the respondent Bank to hold the appellant/ defendant No. 4 liable jointly and severally with defendant Nos. 1 to 3 for the debts of the borrower company. The appeal arises in the following circumstances.2. The respondent Bank had filed the Original Application against four defendants. Defendant No. 1 was borrower company and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 were directors and guarantors. A loan was sanctioned to the defendant No. 1 company by the respondent Bank.3. After considering the evidence, the Presiding Officer in para No. 4 of the judgment dated 4th February, 2003 has observed that the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 had executed guarantees in 1996 onwards. In para 11 of the judgment it is also observed that the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 admitted to have signed the guarantee agreement However, in the operative portion of the order only defendant No...

Energy Equipment Distributors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)9STJ121CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides, duly represented by Shri Prakash Shah, learned advocate and Shri Katiyar, learned SDR, we find that the appellants have been charged to service tax as clearing and forwarding agent.2. Perusal of the agreement entered into by the appellant with the manufacturer M/s. Emco Ltd. reveals that the appellants have been appointed as sole selling agents by them for the purpose of canvassing of business and booking of orders. The various clauses of the said agreement shows that the appellants are in no way concerned with the movement of the goods and after procuring the orders from the customers the same are passed on to the principal manufacturer, who execute the same by supplying the required products directly to the purchasers. The appellants' contention before the authorities below was that such activities would not get covered by the expression "clearing and forwarding services" However, their plea was not accepted by the authorities below by relying upon the T...

Joint Cit, Special Range-45 Vs. Hari K. Taneja and Rohan P. Shah

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This is a revenue's appeal directed against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai, dated 23-10-1998 for assessment year 1995-96.2. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal are regarding a single issue, i.e., regarding indexed cost of acquisition which was determined by theassessing officer at Rs. 37,26,013 instead of the claim of the assessee at Rs. 47,82,765 and thereby making an addition of Rs. 10,56,752 but the same has been deleted by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The learned DR of the revenue supported the assessment order and reliance was placed by him on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex court rendered in the case of Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. v. OT ' and on the judgment of Hon'ble Bom bay High Court rendered in the case of Seth Rasesh Family Trust No. 1 v. OT (1995) 215 ITR 5302.4. As against this, it is submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that the principle of averaging applicable for ascertaining the cost of bonus shares is relevant only when shares are so...

Dy. Cit Vs. Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The appeal filed by the department is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai. The appeal relates to assessment year 2000-01. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,42,65,747 made by the assessing officer rejecting the claim of the assessee that the amount, being the differential amount against additional quota, as capital receipt.3. The short issue is whether the sum of Rs. 4,42,65,747 representing the difference between free sale price of additional quota of sugar allotted as incentive and levy price of sugar is capital receipt or revenue receipt. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of sugar. In para 3 of his Order, the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) has referred to several orders of this Tribunal in which identical issue has been considered in the case of the assessee itself by the Tribunal and decided in favour of the assessee. Follo...

M.M. Silk Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(117)ECC251

2. This is an appeal against the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Surat I filed by the assessee. The appellants herein viz. M/s. M.M. Silk Mills, Surat is engaged in the manufacture of man made fabrics (processed) falling under Chapter heading No. 54.06 to the schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant was availing the benefit of fortnightly payment as introduced in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2001 issued under Notification No. 30/2001-CE(NT) dated 21.06.2001. The Department alleged that the appellant had violated the provisions of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2001 and defaulted the payment in due time on fortnightly basis. However, later on the payment was made alongwith interest. The department had issued a show cause notice dtd. 03.05.2002 proposing to forfeit the fortnightly payment and to pay the Central Excise duty from PLA account on each consignment basis for the period of two months in terms...

Cce Vs. Godvari Drugs Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(117)ECC272

2. Proceedings were initiated in respect of semi-finished processed inputs sent out for job work but not received back nor used in the manufacture of final excisable goods. Amount demanded was Rs. 84,552/- which was already paid vide RG-23A (II) vide entry No. 165/13 dated 23.6.2001. Duty amounting to Rs. 30,350/- was demanded on account of clearance of coal ash and Rs. 4,24,415/- was demanded on account of reprocessing of rejected goods/modvat inputs received under Rule 173H and subsequently without payment of duty since the process under taken is amounting to manufacture in view of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with chapter note 11 of chapter 29. Penalty was proposed under Rules 75-I, 173Q and Section 11AC. The learned Commissioner(Appeals) did not uphold the demand of Rs. 84,552/- as he found that the credit raised by the appellants on such inputs had been reversed much before the visit of the officers and the appellants were made to debit the same amount again ...