Mumbai Court May 2007 Judgments

Now Courier and Cargo Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)7STR693

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Revision No. 130/NSK/06 dt.20.10.2006.2. Brief facts of the case are appellants failed to pay the service tax for the period April 2002 to March 2003. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant asking them to show cause as to why Service Tax be not demanded from them and why penalty should not be imposed on them for the contravention of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and appropriated amount of Service tax paid by the appellant along with the interest and imposed penalty of Rs. 300/- under Section 76 and Rs. 300/- under Section 77.The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nashik, issued show cause notice to the appellant directing to show cause as to why said penalty should not be enhanced as per the provisions of Section 76, the appellant resisted show cause notice. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nashik, did not agree with the contentions of the appellant...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. A.B. International

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)8STR81

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original dt. 4.5.2006 which upheld the order-in-original confirming the amount of Service Tax but set aside the amount of penalties imposed on the respondent.2. None appeared for the respondents despite notice. Since the issue in this case is in a narrow compass, the appeal is taken in the absence of the respondents.3. Heard the Ld. JDR and perused the records. It is seen from the records that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalties, by coming to the following finding in paragraphs 7 & 8: I have carefully gone through the records of the case and the submissions, both written and oral, made by both sides. My observations are as under: (1) There was some delay in paying the service tax, which was paid before the issue of the SCN. Penalty has been imposed under Section 76 and Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. (2) The appellant says that there was delay in receipt of the amount from the client. In some of the cases they...

Hotel Leela Venture Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Gen.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(119)ECC222

1. The brief facts of the case that the appellants M/s Hotel Leela Venture filed a bill of entry for 168 units declared as Daikin Air Heat Pumps for space heating and space cooling application and claimed assessment under Chapter Heading 841868 of the Customs Tariff read with Notification 30/88 dated 01.03.1988 as amended. They also produced three additional licenses for clearances of the goods. The goods were examined on percentage basis and appeared to be air-conditioning machines and not heat pumps and on importer's request a 100% examination was carried out and as per the re-examination report the units imported by them were held to be air-conditioning machines classifiable under Chapter Heading 8415 without benefit of Notification 30/88. For the purpose of countervailing duty also they appear to be classifiable under Chapter Heading 8415 of the Central Excise Tariff.2. In view of this a show cause notice was issued seeking to classify goods under Chapter Heading 8415 denying exem...

Dy. Cit, Range-3(3) Vs. Stnita Conductors Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The appeal filed by the department is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal relates to assessment year 2000-01. (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the disallowance of interest claim, amounting to Rs. 36,03,466, shown to be payable to M/s. Euro Alloys Ltd. (b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that during the relevant period the assessee was in dispute regarding the liability of the interest and no provision had been made for it in the books of account.3. We have heard the parties. At the time of hearing, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee invited our attention to the order dated 19-12-2006 passed by this Tribunal in the department's appeal in the assessee's case for assessment year 1998-99 in which identical issue has been decided against the department with the ...

Encube Ethicals (P.) Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on various grounds which are as under: Confirming the determination of the income of Rs. 4,38,762 being 30 per cent of book profit of Rs. 14,62,541 under Section 115JA 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming income under Section 115JA of Els. 4,38,762 being 30 per cent of book profit of Rs. 14,62,541 and thereby the tax liability is worked out to Rs. 2,13,875. 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the fact that the appellant company is in the business of manufacturing of pharmaceutical productsand has set up an industrial unit in Backward Industrial Zone atPonda, Goa and commenced production on 17-3-1998 andthattheundertaking is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that: (i) As per the provisions of Section 115JA the appellants Book Profit is worked out at Nil; (ii) For determining the Book...

Clancey Precision Components Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(119)ECC158

1. All these four appeals are directed against Order-in-original dt.28.2.2006 which confirm the demand of the duty and also imposed penalties on the appellants. Since the issue involved in this case is arising out of the same order-in-originals they are being disposed off by a common order.2. The relevant facts of the case are the appellant company is a 100% EOU and procure inputs duty free either indigenously or by way of import, for use in relation to the manufacture of camshafts. One of the input procured by the appellant is Resin Coated Sand (RCS). This RCS is used to make moulds/patterns and cores, which are in turn utilized for the manufacture of camshafts. After the completion of the relevant processes, the resin coated sand after use yields burnt sand as remnant. This burnt sand is non-excisable goods and is disposed off by the appellant company. It is the contention of the Revenue that the appellant company having availed benefit of Notification No. 1/95-CE dt. 4.1.1995 &...

Tata Technologies Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)10STT25

1. This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Original No.05/ST/2006 dated 5.7.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I.2. The appellants are provider of services like online data processing, Cad Cam designing, annual maintenance of SAP, etc. to their clients.They are project executors for SAP software provided by M/s. SAP AG and are license holders for SAP application and maintenance in India. The Revenue issued show cause notice to the appellants alleging that the services provided by the appellants in respect of ERP software system was chargeable to service tax for the period from time to time 1.3.2000 to 9.9.2004. By way of Notification No. 16/2004-ST dated 10.9.2004 taxable services provided to a client in respect of ERP software system by a management consultant was exempted from the whole of service tax leviable thereon. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,77,45,021/- from the appellants. The interest under Section 75 ...

General Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(119)ECC210

1. The issue involved in this case is regarding the eligibility of SSI exemption to appellant in respect of the products which are affixed by the trade name.2. This matter was once decided by the Tribunal against the appellants and appellants preferred an appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has remitted the matter for limited purpose by observing as under: The determination of this question is crucial for deciding the eligibility of the assessee-company to get the benefit of the notification in question for the aforesaid three unregistered trade marks. In the absence of such decision on the point agitated by the assessee-company, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and remit the case back to the Tribunal in so far as the unregistered products, namely, Amigen, Sorgen and Sigum are concerned, for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Order accordingly. All contentions are left open in respect of the aforesaid three unr...

Essar Investments Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal filed by the assessee arises out of the order under Section 263 dated 19-3-1999 of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-II, Chennai for the assessment year 1994-95.2. The facts governing the appeal before us are that the assessee has sold 4 crores warrants of Essar Snipping Ltd. to its wholly owned subsidiary, Shubhangi Investments Trading Ltd. at Rs. 60 per warrant and realised Rs. 240 crores. The assessee claimed that the gain arising out of this transaction was not liable to tax as it is a transfer covered by provisions of Section 47(iv) of the Act and as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty the cost of acquisition of the warrants is 'Nil' and therefore there will be no capital gains computable on the warrants sold. The assessing officer accepted the contention of the assessee and completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, exercising his powers conferred on him under Section 263 of the Act, the ...

R.K. Patel and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(119)ECC311

2. This appeal is filed against the Order dated 21.10.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The appellant is an assessee under Central Excise Act engaged in the manufacture of branded chewing tobacco. On 29.11.94 the officers of Central Excise (PI) Nasik conducted a search in the premises of the factory and residence of partner of the appellant firm. They found some Octroi receipts.However, no related invoice or bill was available in respect of the goods establishing that the Central Excise duty was paid. An explanation was given that the Octroi receipts were given by the buyers for reimbursement in respect of goods cleared in past to them and further sold by the buyers. The officers however took a view that the goods, on which the Octroi has been paid, were cleared clandestinely, but no Central Excise duty was paid by the appellants. An amount of Rs. 76,570/- as duty was got debited vide PLA Entry No. 261 and 263 both dated 30.11.94. The appellants gave a lette...