Mumbai Court January 2010 Judgments

M/S. Electron Textile Export (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (imp ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Appellants filed these appeals against the confirmation of duty, imposition of redemption fine and penalties on the appellants under various provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. On information that the importer was mis-declaring the classification of goods, investigations were made and during the course of investigations, it came to light that import of Miocrospheres Polyvinyledene Chloride was being controlled by M/s. Mahesh India who were the sole agent for India for M/s. Expancel Nobel Industries Limited. Scrutiny of documents was also done and it was found that the importer had suppressed the actual description of the goods in the invoice with the intention to evade Customs duty. A fax message from the supplier recovered in this regard also confirmed that the description of the goods in the invoices was manipulated/fabricated with a view to classifying the goods under Chapter 38 instead of the correct Chapter 39. As the rate of duty under ch...

M/S. Chakan Vegoils Mills and Other Vs. Commissioner of Customs (impor ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Today the stay applications are listed before us but after hearing extensively both the parties, we find that appeals can also be disposed of Accordingly after dispensing with the requirement of the pre-deposit, we took up the appeal also for disposal. 2. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submit that in this case show cause notice was issued by the Commissioner of Customs (I) Mumbai with regard to the confiscation of goods and penalties. He further submitted that the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune had also issued a show cause notice against the same inputs to the appellant and confirmed the duty holding that the appellants have diverted the impugned imported inputs. In pursuant to that duty demand, Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai issued show cause notice to the appellant proposing confiscation of goods and penalty and the same was confirmed against the appellants. He further submitted that the order passed by the Comm...

M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Commissioner of Centr ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) This appeal is filed by M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) against demand of Service Tax of Rs.6,47,98,642/- along with applicable interest and various penalties imposed on it under Section 76,77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act). 2. The appellant has obtained clearance from Committee on Disputes. As per the clearance, the appellant is allowed to contest only the interest and penalty adjudged in the impugned order. Interest demand is on service tax found due under Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service from HPCL. 3. Miss. Padmavati Patil appeared on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the appellant had a good case on merits but COD had declined clearance to contest the Service tax demand. Hence their limited contest regarding the interest and penalty. With reference to the penalty, she submitted that the appellant had made representation to CBEC for clarification on liability to service tax on the service of transportatio...

Borasara Machines Vs. the Commissioner of Customs (i), Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per: Ashok Jindal 1. These appeals are filed by M/s.Borasara Machines, Surat, against the impugned order of rejecting their refund claim. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants filed refund claim of deposit as revenue deposit pertaining to import of goods through various bills of entry, which were assessed provisionally at the time of clearance. By an order dated 24/12/92 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (SVB), who ordered the loading of CIF value and ordered for finalisation of all provisional assessments. The order was challenged by the importer before the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed their appeal by holding that loading was not legal and proper. Subsequently, the department filed an appeal before this Tribunal and the same was rejected. In pursuant to that the importer filed a refund claim for the amounts paid as revenue deposit. The Deputy Commissioner sanctioned the refund claim but credited the same to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Against that the appe...

Ntpc Ltd., Vs. the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per: Ashok Jindal 1. The appellant namely M/s.NTPC Ltd., exported Rotor with Rotor Heat shield for repairs and re-imported after repairs. On re-import, the importer claimed full exemption under Notification No.174/66. The Notification No.174/66 was applicable to the goods not produced/manufactured in India and which were private personal property. The said re-imports were having damaged parts in it. The adjudicating authority observed that the impugned goods were neither personal nor private property and concluded that the Notification applicable was 94/96 and not 174/66 as claimed. 2. It was further observed that damaged goods were restricted for re-import as per para 2.17 of Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009. On the basis of scrap value of alloy steel the goods were revalued. Since the old and used parts were restricted as per para 2.17 of Exim policy, the adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and gave an option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs.2.50 lakhs and imposed a p...

The Commissioner of Customs (i) , Mumbai-ii Vs. Abdul Hassan Mohamed K ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per: Ashok Jindal 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue, aggrieved from the impugned order wherein the Commissioner has not ordered redemption fine since re-export was allowed. 2. In this case the intervener M/s.Lombard North Central PLC has also filed an application for issuance of direction to the Commissioner of Customs for granting clearance for re-shipment of the imported vehicle following the order dated 30/07/2008. 3. The brief facts of the case are that one Shri Abdul Hassan Mohamed Khan, filed bill of entry for clearance of a vehicle declared as Brand new Rover Sports Car RHD Model No.4.2 (V8). On enquires, it was revealed that the vehicle was a used car. It was further found that the import satisfy the condition mentioned in the import licensing note appended to Chapter 87 of the ITC (HC) classification of the items traded. The applicant/intervener submitted the documents to prove that they had filed a complaint to the UK Police and that their vehicle was stolen and expor...

Vishnupant S/O Chaburao Khaire Vs. Kailash S/O Balbhir Madan

Court: Mumbai

P.R. Borkar, J.1. Heard Shri A.S. Zarekar learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri C.R. Deshpande, learned Advocate instructed by Ms. Sabahat Kazi, learned Advocate for the Respondent.2. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith and the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.3. This writ petition is filed by original accused for quashing and setting aside the order passed on 7.8.2008 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmednagar on complaint Exhibit 1 in S.T.C. No. 1467 of 2008 filed by present Respondent, whereby process was issued against the Petitioner-accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'N.I. Act').4. The point that is raised in this petition isWhether one of the heirs of deceased payee can file complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. ?.5. It is no more disputed at this stage that on 28.8.2007, petitioner-accused had issued a cheque bearing N...

Music Choice India Private Limited Vs. Phonographic Performance Limite ...

Court: Mumbai

B.H. Maralapalle, J.1. Heard Shri. Dwarkadas, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant / Plaintiff with Mr. H.W. Kane, Mr. Rahul Kadam, Mr. Hiren Kamod and Dr. Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Amit Jamsandekar.2. Admit.3. Respondent waives service.4. By consent of the parties, paper book dispensed with and the Appeal has been heard finally.5. This Appeal arises from the common Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2009 rendered in Suit Nos. 2124 of 2007 and 2283 of 2007 wherein it is held that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and the suits were dismissed for want of Court's inherent jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs were directed to proceed before the Copyright Board with liberty to make such application as deemed fit for expedition or for grant of interim relief in their pending application. It was left to the Board to consider such an application, if made, on merits.6. The Appellant had filed suit No. 2124 of 2007. The Appellant is a private limited company incorpo...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tips Industries P. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2010]321ITR154(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. According to the Revenue, the following substantial questions of law arise out of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on January 31, 2004 in Appeal No. IT (SS) A No. 337/ Mum/2003:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3.2 lakhs and Rs. 3.12 lakhs being unaccounted expenses under Section 69C especially since the assessee was not able to explain the source of the expenditure nor corelate the said expenditure as relating to the earlier year than the assessment year 1999-2000?(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 6.45 crores in spite of the fact that the addition were made on correct application of the seized documents which were in the handwriting of the assessee and the seized material ...

M/S. Shalimar Wires Inds.Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central E ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per : B.S.V.Murthy All these applications are for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. The delay is of 418 days. The Tribunal had considered these applications earlier, and vide Order No. M/932-935/08.C.II/EB dated 9.6.2008, the applications were rejected on the ground that other bunch of appeal in Appeals No.C/253 and 254/08 on an identical set of facts was dismissed. 2. The appellants approached the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court against this order and the Hon’ble High Court has directed the Tribunal to pass a speaking order. 3. Heard both sides. The ld.advocate for the appellants submitted that during the relevant period the factory was closed and all correspondences addressed to the appellants were being received by the security guards provided by the security agency and handed over to the appellants as and when they came to the office of the security agency from time to time. He also drew our attention to the affidavit of the owner of the security agency filed alon...