Mumbai Court May 2007 Judgments

Milton Plastics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (imp)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(216)ELT210Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Original No. 126/2001 CAC/CC/MCH dated 27.03.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai.2. Revenue proceeded against the appellant by way of issue of show cause notice dated 10.02.2000 on the ground that the appellant was not untitled for confessional rate of duty under exemption Notification No.72/91-Cus. Adjudicating authority in the impugned order demanded differential duty amounting to Rs. 1,05,12,925/-. Further he ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. He imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 50 Lakhs under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 Lakhs on the appellant under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants urged highly aggrieved over the impugned order, hence they have come before this Tribunal for relief.3. Shri V. Sridharan, learned advocate appeared for the appellant and Shri Ajay Saxena, learned S.D.R. for the Revenue. ...

Premsudha Exports (P) Ltd. and Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110ITD158(Mum.)

1. These appeals are preferred by the assessees against the order of the CIT(A) on various grounds, but, all grounds relate to a common issue in these appeals as to what would be the annual letting value of a property when remained vacant for the whole year. Since common issue is involved in these appeals, we heard these appeals simultaneously and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the reference, we take up the facts of the case in the case of Premsudha Exports (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 6277/Mum/2006.2. The brief facts available on record are that the assessee company engaged in the business of export of diamonds and filed its return of income for asst. yr. 2003-04 on 14th Oct., 2003 declaring total loss at Rs. 9,024. The assessee had purchased the property i.e., flat from Vissanji Estate (P) Ltd., Nariman Point, Mumbai and during the year relevant to the assessment year, this flat remained vacant. Therefore, the AO chose to assess the income from house property by invoki...

Shri Rajesh Parekh and Parekh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(119)ECC136

1. These two appeals are directed against order-in-original dated 25.04.2005 vide which duty was confirmed and penalties imposed on the appellants. Since these two appeals arise out of the same order-in-original, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. The issue involved in this case is regarding the duty liability of the following intermediate products.3. The Revenue is seeking to charge excise duty on the above products on the ground that the above said products are intermediate products consumed in the manufacture of exempted product by the appellant in the factory. The appellant company resisted the excitability of the product on the ground that they are not marketable. The learned adjudicating authority while arriving to conclusion that the intermediate products are excisable held as under: The products involved in the present case are Gold Chloride, Silver Chloride, Yellow Salt of Platinum, Yellow Salt of Palladium, Red Salt of Platinum and Ruthenium Oxide. The assessee ...

B. Arunkumar and Co. Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-16(3)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110ITD131(Mum.)

1. Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order passed by the CIT(A) on 20.01.2004 for assessment years 1995-96 and 2000-01. Issues raised in both the appeals are identical.We therefore find it convenient to dispose of both the appeals by a common order.2. Ground No. 1 in both the appeals is identically worded except for the difference in figures. It relates to the claim of the assessee for deduction Under Section 80HHC. Ground No. 1 in both the appeals is in two parts. We shall first take up first part. In the first part, namely, Ground No. 1(a), the assessee has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in treating export of rough diamonds as minerals and thereby refusing to grant deduction Under Section 80HHC of the I-T Act. Ground No. 1(a) reads as under: 1(a) The ld. Assessing Officer had excluded the export of Rough Diamonds aggregating to Rs. 24,55,216/- from the export turnover of the firm on the ground that the "Rough Diamonds" as exported by the firm...

B.N. Khandelwal Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is filed by the legal heir of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XIV, Mumbai, dated 10-11-2003 for assessment year 1999-2000. 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of Bad Debts of Rs. 34,10,000. 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) further erred in holding that in respect of Bad Debts of K.M. Nemani of Rs. 29,10,000, the debt cannot be said to have become bad in view of the pendency of the recovery proceedings. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) further erred in holding that the appellant has not carriedout any business activity and income earned out of interest is assessableunder the head Income from other sources' and, therefore bad dept inrespect of K.M. Nemani is not allowable under Section 36(1)(vii).4. The facts in brief, are that the assessee was a member of the BombayStock Exchange and sold its membership card (sic) on the assessment year 1995-96 for a consideration of Rs. 1.5 crores. The said amount uti...

Aastha Broadcasting Network Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)7STR404

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 1,15,94,714/- (out of which an amount of Rs. 43,69,620/- already stands deposited) and penalty of Rs. 1,02,65,966/-under the provisions of Section 76 and Rs. 2,00,00,000/- under the provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, we found that it was possible to dispose of the appeal itself at this stage and hence proceed to do so, after granting the prayer for stay.3. Service tax has been levied on taxable service rendered by the appellants herein who are engaged in broadcasting social, spiritual and religious programmes through Aastha channel under the category of "broadcasting" for the period from 16.7.2001 to 31.8.2004. The appellants, do not dispute the liability to service tax under the above heading; however, they contend that service tax can be charged only with respect to broadcasting charges and not with respect to reimbursable expenses, as per Trade Notice No. 7/9...

Sanjivani Business Consultants Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)14STT33

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-appeal No.V2(a)427.M-II/2006/5265 dated 17.11.2006.2. Considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records.3. The issue involved in this case is regarding refund of the amount of service tax paid in excess by the appellant. I find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellants on the following findings: I find that, the appellants could not prove with evidence that they had not recovered the amount, claimed as refund from M/s Avani Enterprises. The appellants relied upon only on a letter dated 21.06.2006 issued by M/s Avani Enterprises. However, in absence of any other corroborative evidence, the said letter by itself cannot be relied upon the conclude that the amount was not recovered from the client. The lower authority has rightly relied upon the Tribunal's judgment in the cases of Memirex & Co. 2004 (174) ELT 216 (Trb.); JCT 2004 (163) ELT 467 (Trb.) wherein Tribunal held that, ...

Taj Lands End Ltd. (Formerly Known Vs. Acit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-IX, Mumbai dated 31 -12-2003 pertaining to assessment year 2000-01 2. The sole issue in this appeal is whether depreciation not claimed can be (sic) on the assessee in computing the total income. The Revenue authorities have held that the assessee has to be allowed depreciation despite the fact that it has chosen not to claim the same. The learned Counsel for She assessee appearing on behalf of the assessee contended that the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by order of the Tribunal. The learned Counsel submitted that depreciation cannot be thrust upon the assessee when the assessee has chosen not to claim prior to the assessment year 2002-03. He placed reliance on the decisions in the case of The Supreme Vinyl Films Ltd v. DCIT (ITA No 1563/Mum/2005 dated 13th March, 2007). Parksons Press Ltd v. ITO (2007) 12 SOT 128 (ITAI. Mum) and GP Electronics Ltd v. DCIT (ITA No 301/Mum/1994 dated 25th Novem...

Kumar Deshpande and Associates Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This stay application is directed against the enhancement of penalty by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Nashik, vide Revisionary Order dt. 20.10.2006. Since the issue involved in this case is in a narrow compass the application for waiver of pre-deposit is allowed and the appeal itself is taken up for disposal.2. The appellants in this case are engaged in providing Architect Services and were registered with the authorities. The appellants failed to discharge service tax for the period October 1998 to September 2002 and hence show cause notice was issued directing them to show cause notice as to why service tax be not demanded and why penalty should not be imposed. The appellant discharged the entire amount of service tax liability the interest thereof in November 2004. The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 500/-(Rupees five hundred only) under Section 76 and Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissio...

Arc. Dinesh Burad Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)12STT47

1. This appeal is listed for admission as the amount involved in this case is less than Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). It is very clear from the provisions of Service Tax that the threshold of limit of Rs. 50 000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) does not apply any matter of Service Tax, hence show cause notice is discharged and stay application is taken up for disposal. I find that in this case the appellants is challenging only imposition of the penalty, which has been enhanced by the Commissioner in his capacity as a Revisionary authority and since the issue involved is in a narrow compass, the application for waiver of pre-deposit amount of penalty is allowed the appeal itself is taken up for disposal.2. Considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. The appellant in this case is a Architect is registered with the authorities as a service provider. The appellant failed to pay the Service Tax for the period October 2001 to March 2003 withi...