Mumbai Court January 2007 Judgments

Atul Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(117)ECC249

1. Heard both sides. This appeal relates to dispute about the benefit of Notification No. 432/86 dated 6.10.1986 which pertains to set off duty on Naphthalene used in the manufacture of dyes and dyes intermediates. In the second round of litigation, the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs(Appeals) has partly allowed the appeal by refunding the amount of Rs. 53,606.02 but rejected the claim of Rs. 5,59,906.50 due invalid documents.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order after considering the material on record has found and upheld that an amount of Rs. 53,606.02 could not be denied to the appellants on the ground that a very miniscule percentage of the goods received and this is only a procedural aspect and this amount was admissible to the appellants.However, as regards the amount of Rs. 5,59,906.50, he found that this amount was denied by the lower authorities as it pertains to 12 GP-1s not produced or the same were not proper out of 30 GP-1s involved and according...

Jayant Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Andhra Bank

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: I(2008)BC131

1. This appeal has been filed impugning order dated 12th September, 2006 passed by the Presiding Officer of D.R.T.-I, Mumbai rejecting application filed by the appellant company to lead secondary evidence on the basis of notarized copies of the original documents tendered along with appellant company's affidavit of evidence in support of its claim.2. Case of the appellant is that the documents mentioned in the application dated 24th January, 2006 which were kept in the appellant's factory were destroyed due to flood which took place in Mumbai on 26th July, 2005 because of heavy rainfall. Therefore, the appellant company was unable to produce original documents relied on by the company and so in order to prove its case it sought to file notarized copies of all the original documents relied on by the appellant company. That application was rejected by the Presiding Officer on the ground that the notary had not mentioned whether the notarized copies were attested and prepared on the basi...

Ecoboard Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(213)ELT570Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue for determination in the present appeal is whether it is open to an assessee to file cross-objections in a Revenue's appeal, before Commissioner (Appeals).2. The brief facts of the case are that vide order dated 1-10-1999, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, while sanctioning refund of a little over Rs. 52.00 lakhs to the appellants herein, adjusted an amount of Rs. 13.50 lakhs approximately towards Modvat credit utilised by the appellants on exempted final product and held that the appellants were entitled to refund of only approximately Rs. 39.49 lakhs. By another order dated 22-3-2000, the appellants' claim for refund of Rs. 40,56,766/- was rejected in toto. Against both orders, the assessees filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his order dated 31-8-2000, remanded the cases to the lower authority, holding as under: 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellants in respect of both the Appeals No. 18/2000 and 96/2000 the is...

Soldiers Industrial Security Vs. Commissiorer of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)8STR152

2. The issue for determination in this appeal is whether enhancement of penalty under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nashik is proper and legal. The Assistant Commissioner (Service Tax Cell), Central Excise & Customs, Nashik IV Division while deciding tne case vide order in original dated 13.9.04 imposed penalty of Rs. 15,000/- under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 on the assessee. The assessee failed to pay the service tax from July, 1999 to March 2004 on or before the stipulated period. Therefore, show cause notice was issued for contravention of provisions of Section 68 & 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 for imposing penalty under Section 76 & 77 ibid. On adjudication of the matter, the service tax amounting to Rs. 2,54,506/- and interest amounting to Rs. 13,328/- has been appropriated since paid and further penalty of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- was imposed. The assessee also paid penalty of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 1,0...

Jitendra Damodhar Patel Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)7STR183

2. The issue for determination in this appeal is whether enhancement of penalty under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 by the Commissioner oi Central Excise & Customs, Nashik is proper and legal. The Assistant Commissioner (Service Tax Cell), Central Excise & Customs, Nashik IV Division while deciding the case vide order in original dated 19.10.04 imposed penalty of Rs. 2,500/- under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 on the assessee. The assessee failed to pay the service tax from April, 2000 to June 2003 on or before the stipulated period. Therefore, show cause notice was issued for contravention of provisions of Section 68 & 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 for imposing penalty under Section 76 & 77 ibid. On adjudication of the matter, the service tax amounting to Rs. 23,120/- and interest amounting to Rs. 8,390/- has been appropriated since paid and further total penalty of Rs. 3,500/- was imposed. The assessee also paid penalty of Rs. 3,500/- after adjudication. This o...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Mahatma Phule M.S.S.G. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(213)ELT568Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), vide which he has set aside the personal penalty of Rs. 1,05,241/- imposed upon the respondents under Section 11 AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, revenue has preferred the present appeal.2. The dispute, as regards the duty, relates to Cenvat credit availed in respect of the capital goods, in respect of which the appellants also claimed depreciation under Section 32 of Income Tax Act, 1961. On being pointed out, the appellants accepted the above fact and reversed the Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,05,241/- and also paid the interest of Rs. 25,454/-. The original adjudicating authority, while confirming the above payments made by the assessee, imposed personal penalty of identical amount. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the same by observing that the entire duty was paid by the assessee before the issuance of the show cause notice. The said order is impugned before us.3. After hearing both sides, I find that ...

Anilkumar Jinabhai Patel and ors. Vs. Pravinchandra Jinabhai Patel and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR544; 2007(3)ARBLR91(Bom); 2007(3)BomCR664

Gavai B.R., J.1. By way of present petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 28th September 2006 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Jalgaon, thereby rejecting the application for amendment filed by the present petitioners at Exhibit 18 in Arbitration Petition No. 202/2005 filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (For short, hereinafter referred as 'the Arbitration Act')2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present petition are as under:It is the case of the petitioners, that there is a property dispute between the petitioners and the respondents and as such, on 21st May 1996, the said dispute came to be referred to the Arbitrator. It is the contention of the petitioners that on 2nd July 1996, the petitioners informed to the Arbitrator that the arbitration proceedings should not be proceeded further as the Arbitrator was acting with biassed mind. It is the contention of the petitioners, that on 7th July, 1996 and 3rd November...

Commissioner of Cen. Excise Vs. Nasa

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) holding that the respondents are entitled to deemed Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,27,807/- on inputs contained in shirts (finished goods) lying in stock as on 21.3.2003 as per Notification No. 35/03 dated 10.4.2003 as amended by Notification No. 47/2003 dated 17.5.2003.According to the Revenue, the assesses were entitled to deemed credit only to the extent of Rs. 31,501/- under the provisions of Rule 9A3(b)(ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, as the finished goods lying in stock were readymade garments falling under Chapter 62 of the Schedule to CETA, 1985, which were not specified goods under the Notification above named, and had, therefore, availed excess credit of Rs. 96,306/-. Transitional provisions for Textiles and Textile Articles -- Amount of credit for specified inputs and finished goods-- In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9A of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 the Cent...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Maharashtra Engineering

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. I have heard both sides on the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who has accepted the assesses/respondents contention that since they paid the demand and interest before issue of show cause notice, penalty under the provisions of Section 11 AC cannot be imposed, relying upon the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Machino Montell .2. Although the Larger Bench decision was taken up in appeal before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court which by its order has set aside the Larger Bench decision and remanded the case for deciding whether the facts in that case warrant imposition of penalty, the High Court having jurisdiction over the assessees viz.Bombay High Court has in the case of CCE v. Gaurav Mercantiles Ltd. dismissed the appeal of the Revenue for reference of question of law against Tribunal's order which took the view that no penalty under Section 11 AC is called for when the duty has been paid prior to the i...

Mangalore Refinery and Vs. Dy. Director of Income-tax (it)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)113ITD85(Mum.)

1. The assessee and the revenue are in cross appeals against the separate orders of even date i.e. 27/2/04 passed by ld. CIT(A) on the appeals of the assessee challenging the orders passed by the A.O under Section 201 & 201(1A) of the Act. Since common issues are involved, therefore, we heard all the appeals together and deem it fit to dispose of them by this common order.2. As far as the appeals of the revenue are concerned, the assessee being a Public Sector Undertaking, therefore, for challenging any order of ld. CIT(A) passed on the appeal of the assessee the Department is required to take permission from the Committee On Disputes as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Collection of Central Excise 1992(Suppl.11) S.C.C 432. It was pointed out that assessee has obtained such permission for prosecuting its appeal before the Tribunal, however, ld. D.R expressed his inability to inform whether such permission was granted to t...