Mumbai Court January 2007 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Sunder Castings Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)(223)ELT59Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), revenue has filed the present appeal.2. After hearing both sides, I find that the short issue involved is as to whether the respondents are entitled to avail the benefit of Modvat credit on the basis of endorsed Bill of Entry or not. While allowing the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed as under: I have carefully gone through the case records as well as submissions made by the appellants. As regards modvat credit of Rs. 2,65,272/-, it is seen that same has been taken on a bill of entry which has been endorsed to the appellants for partial quantity of 663.180 mts. In this regard, I find that the relevant bill of entry No. 19 dated 5-7-89 is endorsed for a partial quantity of 663.180 mts. In favour of the appellants. The appellants have produced a copy of the certificate dated 23-9-94 issued by Supdt. Central Excise, A.R. Limbdi certifying that a quantity of 663.180 mts. of shredded scrap received under...

Dy. Cit Vs. Jetu J.T. Lalwani

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This is a set of cross appeals and assessee's cross objection is directed against learned Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dated 17th August, 2000 in the matter of assessment under Section 113(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") for the assessment year 1997-98. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,90,670 made by the assessing officer ignoring the fact that the transaction was finance transaction, C since the assets claimed to have been leased were non-existent. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the method of accounting followed by the assessee was correct, thereby rejecting the method of diminishing balance applied by the assessing officer. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) ignored the fact that in finance transaction the rate of return remains constant throughout the transaction period and gives a fixed...

Bakliwal Corporate Services P. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)113ITD14(Mum.)

1. These two appeals have been filed by two different assessees, namely, Bakliwal Corporate Services P. Ltd. (ITA No. 7804/M/2003) and Bakliwal Share & Stock P. Ltd. (ITA No. 7805/M/2003). Both the appeals relate to AY 2001-02 and involve common issues. We therefore find it convenient to dispose off both of them by a consolidated order. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer that the depreciation was not allowable on stock exchange card. The error in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer occurred on account of the following reasons:Vinay Bubna v. Stock Exchange, Mumbai 97, Comp. Cases 874 : 21, SCL, 216 and in Stock Exchange Ahmedabad v. ACIT 248 ITR 209 : 115 Taxman 471 have been rendered in a totally different context. b) The ld. CYT(A) has erred in confirming the view of the Assessing Officer that Section 47(xi) of the Income-tax Act is irrelevant. c) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the membership Card is in the natur...

Amardeo Plastics Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides at length. These two appeals are against two orders passed by the same adjudicating Commissioner respectively on 17-12-2004 and 28-4-2005. In the case of M/s. Amardeo Plastics Industries, the duty demand is for Rs. 84,23,94,428/- for the impugned period January 1995 to April 1998. In addition, there is a penalty of Rs. 57,86,94, 085/-. The order relates to 9 Show Cause Notices.2. In the case of M/s. May & Win Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., the duty demand is for Rs. 2,29,73,905/- for the period June 1998 to April 2000 and there is also a penalty of an equal amount. The order covers 6 Show Cause Notices.3. In both the cases, the dispute relates to classification and dutiability of Parachute Coconut Oil. The oil in question is obtained from M/s. May & Win Enterprises Ltd. and packed in plastic HDPE containers of 100ml and 200 ml by M/s. Amardeo Plastics Industries and in additional packings of 1 Ltr., 500 ml and pouches of 6 ml by May & Win Enterprises Ltd. It is...

Manikgarh Cement Vs. Ccex

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), Nagpur, who has held that the appellants herein are not eligible to capital goods credit on welding electrodes used for repair and maintenance in their factory.2. I find that earlier credit was being held to be admissible to welding electrodes but subsequent to the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Jaypee Rewa Cement v. CCE, Raipur , it has been held that the credit is not admissible at these items.Although, the learned Counsel draws attention of the Bench to the fact that in there own case, the Tribunal had extended the benefit of credit, it is also true that after the Larger Bench's decision (cited supra), benefit has not been extended to the assessee as seen from the Tribunal's order in the appellant's own case . Although, the learned Counsel cites the Apex Court's decision in the case of CCE, Navi Mumbai v. Amar Bitumen & Allied Products Pvt. Ltd. 2006 (202) EL...

Fontasey Engineering Exports Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to personal penalty of Rs. 2,018/- imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the appellants, who is 100% EOU on the ground that they had cleared capital goods without specific permission by the Development Commissioner, SEEPZ or by the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner Central Excise. It is not disputed by both sides that due intimation was given by the appellants and permission of the appropriate authorities was sought following numerous reminders. The appellant's contention is that in spite of the their approaching the authorities, neither the permission was granted nor denied. In these circumstances, I agree with the appellant's representative that imposition of penalty upon them is neither justified nor warranted, the same is accordingly set aside....

Boc India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (i)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. BOC India Limited against the Order-in-Original dated 17-11-06 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Import) Nhava Sheva, Raigad Dist. The brief facts of the case are as follows.2. The appellants herein had filed three bills of entry viz. (1) No.889275 dt. 5-9-2006, (2) No. 918091 dt. 3-10-2006 & (3) No. 938246 dt.19-10-2006 for import of 1660 Nos. of second hand cylinders having water capacity of 46.6 Ltrs and 9.4 Ltrs and sought clearance of the same upon payment of duty. The appellants also enclosed two certificates dated 20-10-2006 & 12-4-2006 issued by the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (formerly - Department of Explosives), Nagpur. On enquiry, the authorities found that the importation of the cylinders was in violation of the Gas Cylinder Rules 2004 and held that the cylinders were liable for confiscation. They have also found that cylinders imported cannot be treated as capital goods and hence they are restricted for imports...

Malti Arts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(213)ELT573Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this case, vide order dated 2-8-1999 reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 139, the Tribunal remanded the proceedings to the Commissioner for calculating the value of products held to be classifiable under Chapter 49 and deduct the same from the computation made to determine eligible values of clearance of the respective units for availment of the SSI Notification 175/86. The Tribunal directed that if the Commissioner found that on doing so, these units were within the value limit, he was to state so in his order and if the value limit was exceeded, he was to allow the assessees to state their case and make a speaking order thereupon. Vide order dated 18-4-2000, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, came to a finding that the total value of clearances of the two units, viz. M/s. Malti Arts Pvt. Ltd. (the applicants herein) and M/s. Monap Enterprises, were within the exemption limit for the respective financial years and consequently, show cause notice issued was not sustainable. H...

Philips Electronics India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(117)ECC147

1. The above appeal arises out of the Order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (A) who has upheld the order of the Asstt. Commissioner by which refund claim amounting to Rs. 18,42,29,613/- was sanctioned and directed to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund established under Section 12C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the ground that the assessees failed to show that they had not passed on the duty burden of their product to their buyers.2. The brief facts are that the appellants herein are engaged interalia in the manufacture of Consumer Electronic Products like Radio sets and also purchase similar goods from other manufacturers viz. A.S.Electronics (ASE) and Poonitronics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (PIPL). They claimed the benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of Sr.No.10(a) of Notification 57/93-CE dated 28.2.93 with effect from 1.3.93 far products falling under Heading 85.27;- the benefit was rejected by the Asstt.Commissioner of C.E (A) vide orders dated 30.4.93, 20.8.93 a...

Santosh Textile and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(117)ECC350

2. All the appeals are disposed off by a common order as they involve the same questions of law.3. In so far as Shri B.P. Kotak and Shri Sunil Hemani are concerned the ld. Counsel has submitted that there is no specific directions from the Member, CBEC for filing an appeal against them. The question which has been framed for determination by this Tribunal refers to exporters, their directors and others. Quite evidently, the appeal against Respondents 2 and 3 have been filed by the Commissioner by treating them as one of the "others". This, in the submission of the respondents, is clearly impermissible as it was necessary for the Member, CBEC to have specifically indicated the names of the persons against whom an appeal was directed to be filed. The Commissioner (Adjudication) could not be vested with a discretion to decide who the "others" should include. It was therefore submitted that the appeals filed by the department against Respondents 2 and 3 were without jurisdiction and hence...