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.
Matoshri Cashew Nuts Represented by Its Proprietor, Shri Dilip U. Gawd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2010
U.D. Salvi, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the acquittal of the respondent / accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 in OA case No. 625/2007/F by order passed by J.M.F.C. Mapusa, at Mapusa, Goa on 29.01.2009.2. Dishonour of the cheque bearing No. 648356 dated 10.10.2007 drawn on South Indian Bank Ltd. Margao Branch for a sum of Rs. 41,000/- by the respondent / accused in favour of the appellant/ complainant M/s. Matoshri Cashew nuts on account of insufficiency of the funds, and subsequent failure of the respondent/ accused to make good the payment of the cheque amount within stipulated period of time in response to the notice of demand dated 22.10.2007 addressed on behalf of the appellant/ complainant resulted in lodging of the complaint - aforesaid case under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 in the Court of J.M.F.C., Mapusa. The complaint indicated that the said cheque was issued towards the part payment of the pric...
British Scaffolding International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Exc ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2010
The appellant had filed a refund claim in respect of service tax paid during the quarter April to June 2008. The claim was filed on 11.9.2008, under Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007. As per this notification, a refund claim had to be filed within 60 days from the date of expiry of the quarter for which the tax was paid. The lower authorities found that the refund claim was filed beyond this period. According to them, it should have been filed within 60 days from 30.6.2008. It was actually filed on 11.9.2008 only. The claim was, therefore, rejected as time-barred. Hence the present appeal. 2. The authorised representative of the company submits that the refund claim was filed within the time prescribed under circular No. 112/06/2009-ST dated 12.3.2009. With reference to the relevant provision of Notification 41/2007-ST ibid, the circular clarified that, consequent upon revision of limitation period, any refund claim filed within such revised limitation period would be admissib...
Spa Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Se ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal This appeal is filed by the appellant against the order of confirmation of Service Tax demand under Sec.73 of the Finance Act, 1994 alongwith various penalties and interest. 2. The appellant had undertaken the job work of manufacturing alcohol-based perfumes and pharmaceutical products for various input’suppliers. According to the appellant, this activity stood excluded from the purview of business auxiliary service in as much as it amounts to manufacture under Sec.2(f) of the Central Excise Act. The ld.Counsel for the appellant submits that this legal position is squarely covered by the Board’s Circular dated 27.10.2008 issued from F.No.249/1/2006-CX.4. He further submits that this issue has been decided by this Tribunal in the case of Rubicon Formulations Pvt.Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad, vide Order No.A/281/09 CSTB/C.II dated 19.11.2009 holding that the appellants are not liable for service tax on the impugned activity undertaken...
Commissioner of Customs(import), Nhavasheva Vs. M/S. Greatech Telecom ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal The Revenue has filed these appeals. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed Bills of Entry for imports of cable (Electric conductors with operating voltage range from 21V- 56V) meant for Telecommunication application. The respondents herein contended that these goods are used as Telephone Cables and claimed classification under CTH 85444190 with benefit of Nil basic duty under Notification No. 25/05-Cus dated 1.3.05 applicable for Electrical Conductors for a voltage not exceeding 80V, of a kind used for telecommunication. On the other hand, the lower adjudicating authority did not accept the claim of the respondents and classified the goods under CTH 85442010 and assessed the goods without the benefit of the Notification above mentioned. On the basis of that the dispute arose. In appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals of the respondents holding that the impugned goods are correctly classified under CTH 85444190 and the benefit of ...
Akash Stone Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (i), Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2010
After hearing both sides, I note that the short question arising in this case is already covered by a decision of the Hon'ble High Court vide United Spirits Ltd. vs. CC(I), Mumbai 2009 (240) ELT 513 (Bom.). The question is whether the appellant is entitled to refund of the redemption fine and penalty paid by them in connection with import of certain goods. At the end of a litigation over the said import of goods, they had obtained a favourable order from the Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly only lesser amounts of fine and penalty were payable by them vis-`-vis the higher amounts already paid by them. In this scenario, refund claims were filed in respect of the differential amounts of fine and penalty paid in excess. These refund claims were rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. The decision of the original authority was sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal of the party, wherein the main contention raised by the appellant is that the doctrine of...
Automobile Corporation of Goa Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2010
After examining the records and hearing both sides, I note that the short question arising for consideration in this case is whether the benefit of CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on GTA service availed by the appellant for outward transportation of their final products from the factory to the buyer's premises is admissible to them. In circular No. 97/8/2007-ST dated 23.8.2007, the CBEC laid down three conditions for availment of such benefits by a manufacturer of excisable goods. These conditions were examined by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Ambuja Cements Ltd. vs. UOI 2009 (14) STR 3 (PandH) and it was held that the manufacturer could claim the benefit of CENVAT credit on GTA service only upon fulfilment of these conditions. The first condition is that the ownership of the goods and the property therein has to remain with the seller of the goods till the delivery of the goods in acceptable condition to the purchaser at his doorstep. The Hon'ble High Court further held ...
Ksh International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapu ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2010
This appeal filed by the assessee is against rejection of certain claims for rebate of service tax which was paid by the appellant as commission agent. The appellant had procured purchase orders in India for suppliers of goods located abroad and transmitted the same by courier or electronic means to the said suppliers. Acting upon those purchase orders, the suppliers exported the goods to the buyers in India and directly collected payments from them. Upon receipt of price of the goods, the suppliers paid commission to the appellant in convertible foreign exchange. Service tax was paid on these payments under Section 65(105)(zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994. Subsequently, the appellant claimed rebate of the service tax under Rule 5 of the Export of Services Rules, 2005. Rule 5 ibid allowed rebate of service tax paid on a taxable service which was exported subject to such conditions/limitations and to fulfilment of such procedure as may be specified in the notification. The relevant notific...
M/S Interport Logistics Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs(Ge ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2010
Per : B.S.V.Murthy In this case, the CHA licence was suspended by the Commissioner and on an appeal filed by the appellant, this Tribunal set aside the impugned order suspending the licence and made it clear that the Commissioner is at liberty to proceed against the appellant as per law. Thereafter, the Revenue filed an appeal against this decision before the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court and the Hon’ble High Court vide Order in Custom’s appeal No. 73 of 2008 dated 21/1/2009 set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded the matter with a direction to hear and decide the matter afresh after hearing both the sides. This order was passed in view of the agreement by both the sides before the Hon’ble High Court that in the show-cause notice issued to the exporter and others on 30.1.2008, the CHA also had been a party, since, the Tribunal in the order had noted that the show-cause notice had not been issued to the CHA, the High Court remanded the matter in the above di...
M/S. Arfees Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs(import), Mumba ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2010
Per : B.S.V.Murthy The appellants imported a second hand POY Plant under six different consignments covered under six Bills of Entry during the period from 7.7.03 to 9.12.03. The Bills of Entry were assessed provisionally, under the condition, that after completion of imports, the importer shall submit a certificate from Central Excise Authority that all the machineries imported have been installed in the factory. This condition was imposed and provisional assessment was resorted to, in view of the fact that the appellants had claimed the benefit of sr.no. 425 in Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002 and the department had extended the benefit of sr. no.425(1) of the Notification. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellants installed the machineries imported in their factory and submitted the installation certificates. Based on these certificates and other documents, assessment was finalized. However, the finalization order was reviewed by the Commissioner on the groun...
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (a Government of India Enterpr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-2010
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, rule is made returnable. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents waives service. With the consent of the learned Counsel, taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The petitioner is in appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, aggrieved by an order of adjudication passed by the Commissioner on 6th February 2008 confirming a demand of duty of Rs. 3.85 crores. An application for waiver of predeposit was filed before the Tribunal. By its order dated 11th September 2009, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 1 crore within a period of four weeks and to report compliance.3. The issue which arises before the Tribunal in the appeal pertains to an Exemption Notification (No. 64/95CE) dated 16th March 1995. Under Serial No. 3 of the Notification, an exemption is provided in respect of all goods other than cigarett...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »