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.
Raymond Ltd Raymond Uco Denim Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Exci ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2010
1. The appellant had imported a consignment of 14000 kg of Indigo Powder from China and filed a Bill of Entry dated 26.11.2001 for its clearance. The consignment was covered by Invoice No MZC-45 dated 17.10.2001. The goods were cleared on payment of appropriate duties of Customs including CVD of Rs 6,99,994.60. Later on, on 18.1.2002, officers of Central Intelligence Unit of Central Excise visited the appellant s factory and found a quantity of 9,700 kg of Indigo Powder in stock, which was detained. A panchanama was also drawn on 8.1.2002, wherein certain discrepancies were noted. One of these discrepancies was in respect of the shipping marks shown in the invoice/packing list and those shown on the HDPE bag containing the goods. Another discrepancy was that a batch number was shown on the bag, whereas there was no batch number in the invoice/packing list. The name of the manufacturer/supplier was shown on the bag but not in the invoice/packing list. The panchanama also noted that the ...
Vikram Ispat Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2010
1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of hot briquetted iron and sponge iron, for which iron ore pallets and lumps are used as their main raw material. The issue involved in this case is whether the appellant was entitled to avail CENVAT Credit of the Service Tax paid on certain services viz., repair and maintenance services, insurance services, surveys, technical inspection and certification services, and manpower recruitment agency services all relating to vessels, namely tugs and barges, owned by the appellant. The appellant’s factory is situated around the port of Revdanda. This port belongs to the appellant. The ships carrying the raw material are anchored at some distance in the sea. The tugs and barges belonging to the appellant are used for bringing ashore the raw material unloaded from the ships. Sometimes these tugs and barges are also used for carrying sponge iron (final product) from the jetty to the ships anchored in the sea. Survey was also done. It appears...
M/S Perfect Caps and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2010
Per: Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) In the earlier round of litigation, this Tribunal after setting aside the impugned order, remanded the matter back to the Commissioner to pass a fresh order on the following grounds, which are reproduced herein under: - (i) There is a self-contradiction in the Order-in-Original. On one hand, it has been held that Shri R. Laxman, Manager of M/s Perfect Caps and M/s Perfect Closures have actively connived in various contraventions of law by units, whereas on the other hand she has held that in the case of M/s Perfect Caps suppression cannot be said to have been made with intention to evade payment of duty. (ii) The demands for recovery of Modvat credit was issued under Rule 571 read with Section 11A, under which extended period of 5 years was invokable in case of willful misstatement, collusion or suppression of facts on the part of the assessee. Intention to evade payment of duty is not a requirement as is the case with Section 11A. Therefore, ...
Joy Construction Vs. the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal This appeal is filed by the appellant against the imposition of penalties under Section 76 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994. 2. The case of the Revenue is that during the verification of documents it has come to light that the appellants have provided services in respect of Erection, Commissioning and Installation viz. installation of electrical and electronic devices, including wires or fittings thereof with effect from 16.06.2005 but they have not obtained registration for the same. On verifying the payment of service tax particulars it was observed that in respect of erection, commissioning and installation services they are not paying their service tax on the correct assessable value in as much as the value on which they have paid their service tax does not tally with the figures appearing in their balance sheet. Their TDS / WCT certificates have being checked, the S.T.3 returns to arrive at the correct taxable value on which the service tax ought to have been paid b...
M/S. Depe Global Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Custo ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-2010
Per : Shri. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Vide Order No. 3318/24-11-1997 dated 27.10.2008 penalties under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 were imposed on the appellant M/s. Depe Global Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Against the above said order one M/s. Hanjin Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal with the following observations:- “3. M/s. Hanjin Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. were heard on 18.5.09. I find that the adjudicating authority imposed penalty on M/s. DEPE Global Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and not on M/s. Hanjin Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. Inasmuch as no penalty was imposed on Hanjin Shipping India Pvt. Ltd., there is no reason for Hanjin Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. to be aggrieved by the impugned order. Under Section 128 only the aggrieved person can file an appeal. There is nothing in the grounds of appeal to counter this position. 2. Against the said impugned order, the appellant viz. Depe Global Shipping Age...
M/S. Ambuja Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal M/s. Ambuja Cement Ltd. - the appellant, has filed this appeal along with a stay application. The issue in short in this appeal is that whether Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on various services such as erection and commissioning of fly ash handling plant which was erected outside the factory i.e at Chandrapur Super Thermal Power Station which is used for manufacturing of excisable goods i.e. cement, as input or not. 2. Shri Bharat Raichandani, learned Advocate for the appellant appearing before me submits that in the appellant’s own case, the earlier Commissioner has decided the issue in their favour and against that order the Revenue filed an appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal has dismissed the stay application filed by the Revenue against the said impugned order. He further submits that in the impugned order the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had directed the appellant to make 100% of the duty demand which the appellant has failed to do so and...
M/S. Mmtc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, GoA ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Appellant, namely MMTC Ltd. filed this appeal beyond the period of limitation without proper application for condonation of delay. The appellant had also not obtained clearance from Committee on Dispute before filing the appeal. The appeal was listed on 23.10.2009, at that time a request for adjournment was received by this Bench and the matter was adjourned to 21.12.2009. On 21.12.2009 despite notice, noboday appeared on behalf of the appellant. Neither the defects were removed nor proper application for condonation of delay was filed. This Bench in the interest of justice adjourned the matter for today being the last opportunity. Today, when the matter was called up, nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice dated 21.12.2009. Neither any application for condonation of delay is filed nor the clearance from Committee on Dispute was obtained. Considering the fact it was a last opportunity to the appellants and nobody has turned out o...
Kesao Son of Narayan Patil @ Babasaheb Vs. State of Maharashtra Throug ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2010
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Admit.The Respondents, in appeal who are not appearing, need not be served afresh. Contesting respondents, are appearing. The Appeals are called out by consent of Advocates for the parties who are contesting / appearing. Heard at length for final disposal.2. Status of the contesting parties in Letters Patent Appeal No. 197 of 2009 in Writ Petition No. 5993 of 2005 is as follows:[i] Present respondent Nos. 25 and 26 were the writ petitioners. They are hereinafter referred to as Writ Petitioners.[ii] Present appellant was respondent No. 7. He is hereinafter referred to as Appellant.[iii] Appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 239 of 2009 was respondent No. 24 in Writ Petition No. 5993 of 2005.3. Parties are referred to in this Judgment according to their status in the writ petition No. 5993 of 2005 for convenience.Respondent No. 2 0 in the Writ Petition, namely Vaibhav Liquors Pvt. Ltd. is a Private Limited Company, who came into the picture in the working of respondent ...
Commissioner of Customs (import) Mumbai. Vs. M/S. Turakhia Ferromet P. ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2010
Per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical) In this case both the orders of lower authorities have been passed Ex-parte. The original adjudicating authority had passed the order without hearing the party. The Revenue has a grievance that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not hear them before the appeal was decided even though the Assistant Commissioner of Customs had requested for personal hearing vide letter dt. 12.2.2009 and the order was passed on 17.2.2009. When the matter came up for hearing on 11.1.2010, we had directed the learned SDR to produce to proof to show that the letter written by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs was received by the office of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) before the date of the order. Today, it has been confirmed that the letter was received on 13.2.2009. Since, the order has been passed Ex-parte, we consider it appropriate to allow the stay petition and take up the appeal itself at this stage. We set aside the impugned order and remand the matter t...
M/S. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Exc ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2010
Per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical) The impugned order has been passed on the ground that the appeal was not filed by the appellants within the period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. 2. The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that because the concerned depot was closed, the order was sent to the other depot by the department on 26.2.2008 only and, therefore, the appeal filed by them was within time. However, the learned SDR submits that it is not coming out clearly from the records as to whether the order had already been served by following the provisions of Section 37 C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeal) has not got it verified as to whether the order has been served by registered post/by pasting on the notice board etc. as provided under Section 37C of Central Excise Act, 1944 before coming to the conclusion that appeal has been filed beyond the time limit prescribed and the delay cannot be condoned. With the consen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »