Mumbai Court January 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rush International Vs. the Commissioner of Customs(imports) Nhava Shev ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2010
Per : B.S.V.Murthy The appellant in the Misc.application has stated the applicant is now not interested in pursuing the matter any further and therefore, the aforesaid appeal may please be treated as withdrawn. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. Both the Misc.application and the appeal get disposed of....
M/S. Midas Care Pharmaceuticals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Au ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal The short issue involved in this appeal is that whether the activity of job work of manufacturing alcohol based perfumes for various input-suppliers amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or is covered under the purview of Business Auxiliary Service. 2. Shri V. Sridharan, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the issue has been decided by this Tribunal in the case of Rubicon Formulations Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE and Cus, Aurangabad as reported in 2009-TIOL-1990-CESTAT-MUM wherein this Tribunal has held that the activity taken over by the appellant amounts to manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and same cannot be termed as Business Auxiliary Service. He further submitted that the said legal position squarely covers by the Board’s Circular F.N. 249/1/2006-CX-4 dated 27.10.08. 3. The learned SDR also confirm the same. 4. In view of the above submissio...
M/S Chemcrown Export Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2010
Per: Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellants filed these appeals against confirmation of Central Excise duty of Rs.43,63,410.90 and a penalty of Rs.49,43,717/- and penalties of Rs.5 lakhs on Shri T.S. Ramakrishnan, Vice-President of the first appellant company and Rs.2 lakhs on Shri Sanjay V. Kharkhanis, Executive Branch Manager of the first appellant company. Demand of interest was also confirmed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant firm M/s Chemcrown Export Ltd. were engaged in labeling/re-labeling of chemicals. During the course of search, it was observed that the appellant firm was receiving, inter alia, different chemicals from various parties at their premises. After receipt of each consignment of chemicals from different manufacturers in carboys/drums, and before dispatching the same to different customers, the appellant firm removed the labels of the original manufacturer on the carboys/drums containing the chemicals, and affixed their labels on t...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs. M/S Surya Engineers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2010
Per: Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Revenue filed this appeal against the waiver of penalty under Section 11AC on the respondents. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Pipes and are availing CENVAT credit of duty paid on capital goods and inputs. The respondents undertook the job work of M/s Shohan Enginee5ring Works (SEW) on labour charges basis for manufacture of excisable goods from the raw materials supplied by SEW. It was found that the respondents cleared M.S. Pipes at Nil rate of duty under exemption Notification No. 6/2002 dated 1.3.2002 as amended by Notification No. 42/2002 dated 6.9.2002 on the basis of certificate given by the District Collector and had reversed the amount @ 8% of the value of the exempted products under Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. It was noticed that while calculating the value of the raw material, the freight charges and excise duty element were not included in the Landed Cost of th...
Susan Abraham Vs. State of Maharahtra Through the Secretary, Home Mini ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2010
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. The petition is filed for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the transfer of the accused persons from judicial custody in a case of one police station to police custody of another police station by exercising the powers to issue production warrant under Section 267 Cr.P.C. has been challenged.2. To state in brief, the petitioner's husband Vernon Stanislaus Gonsalves and his friend Shridhar Krishnan Shrinivasan, both residents of Mumbai, were arrested on 19.8.2007 by respondent No. 3 - Anti-Terrorism Squad, Kalachowki, Mumbai in Crime No. 10/2007 under Section 120-B, and 121A of the Indian Penal Code and the provisions of the Arms Act, Explosive Substances Act, Indian Explosives Act and Unlawful Activities Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2004. On 20.8.2007, they were produced before the Holiday Magistrate and were remanded to police custody till 22.8.2007. On 22.8.2007, the 2nd Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon, Mumbai, extended ...
Devidas Ramchandra Tuljapurkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2010
A.V. Potdar, J.1. By the present application Under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant, who is original accused No. 1 in RCC No. 134/1995, prays to quash and set aside the order dated 03.08.2002 passed in criminal revision application No. 79/2001 thereby rejecting the revision & confirming the order dated 04.05.2001 passed below Exhibit66 in RCC No. 134/1995, filed by the applicant No. 1 along with respondents No. 2 & 3, seeking discharge.2. It appears that the present application came to be admitted on 06.06.2003.3. Such of the facts as are necessary for the just decision of the present application can be summarized thusa) One poem, composed by present respondent No. 2, titled as 'GANDHI MALA BHETALA' was published in the month of July August 1994 in an issue of bimonthly magazine cum bulletin published by present applicant and printed by present respondent No. 3. This bulletin is meant for circulation amongst members of All India Bank Association for private cir...
Gondia District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Cent ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2010
1. The appellant-bank works under the control of the Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the apex bank). According to a circular issued by the apex bank on 23.10.2004, the subordinate banks including the appellant were liable to pay service tax in respect of the amounts collected in any calendar month from their clients for banking services, on or before the 25th day of the next month. A copy of the circular in Marathi is available on record and the same has been translated to English by the counsel for the appellant. In terms of the above circular, the appellant was paying service tax for the period September 2004 to March 2007. It appears, the appellant failed to take note of the amendment to Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, which came into force on 1.4.2005. The following sub-rule was substituted for sub rule (1) of Rule 6: “(1) The service tax shall be paid to the credit of the Central Government by the 5th of the month immediately follow...
The Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai Vs. M.D. Ruparel and Son ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2010
Per: B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical) 1. The department is in appeal against the impugned order whereby the Commissioner held that forfeiture of their deposit of Rs.5,000/- made by the CHA firm and the period for extension are sufficient as punishment for irregularity committed by them for not obtaining the authorisation from the exporter in respect of consignment. 2. The department is in appeal on the ground that the CHA had dealt with an unknown client and they had taken the remuneration in cash and in the shipping bill also CHA has signed the documents instead of obtaining the signature of the exporter. 3. In view of the fact that narcotic drug was seized from a package, which had similar marking as the one which was handled by the CHA, it is the contention of the department that licence of the CHA should have been cancelled and, therefore, this appeal has been filed. 4. We have considered the matter and heard both sides. 5. Ld. Advocate for the respondent submitted a copy of the ...
The Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai Vs. Ramesh K. Nebhnani
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2010
Per: B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical) 1. M/s.Sarup Corporation had imported insole sheets and lining material for shoes. The department’s contention was that the goods were under valued and for this purpose the department had relied upon a fax, which was recovered from the premises of the present appellant. Even though the name of the importer was M/s. Sarup Corporation, the department’s case is that the present appellant is the person, who had actually dealt with the import and was the real person behind it. The Commissioner in the impugned order has dropped proceedings on two grounds viz., the fax was of domestic origin and therefore should have been planted and the appellant had retracted in his statement. Last time when the matter came up for hearing, the Tribunal in the order dated 05/11/2007 had observed that the department had filed appeals against the order of the Commissioner whereby he dropped the proceedings against the respondent viz., M/s. Sarup Corporation a...
Ram Remedies Pvt Ltd., and Others Vs. the Commissioner of Central Exci ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2010
Per: B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical) 1. The issue involved in the present case is classification of the various goods, viz., RRS-I N, RRS-II N, etc., which were classified by the appellants under CETH 2710.90 as others. The impugned order has been passed classifying the product under CETH 2710.11 and 2710.13 on the ground that the products manufactured by the appellants fulfilled the requirement of the boiling point range prescribed for these headings in the tariff and the products either by themselves or in admixture with any other substance are suitable for use as fuel in spark ignition engine. The period of duty demand is from 26/02/97 to February 2000 and show cause notice had been issued on 28/02/2002. Thus, the demand of duty of Rs.4,31,66,014/- has been confirmed invoking the extended period under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 with interest as applicable and penalty has also been imposed under Section 11AC on the appellant company equal to the duty amount. Further, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »