Mumbai Court February 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.
Anand Silk Mills Vs. Commissioner of Customs (imports), Nhava Sheva
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-2010
Per: Mr P.G. Chacko 1. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that the short question involved in this case is whether the refund claim filed by the appellant is barred by unjust enrichment. By virtue of the Tribunal’s Order No. A/289/06 dated 2.2.06, which was passed in appeal No. C/34/00 filed by the appellant, they became entitled to claim refund of the amounts of fine and penalty earlier deposited by them with the Customs authorities. However, though the refund claim filed by them was sanctioned by the original authority, the amounts were ordered to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The Order-in-Original was sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the result, the refund claim stands rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. 2. In the present appeal, it is submitted that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable to a claim for refund of fine and penalty. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel has relied on the Hon’...
S.V. Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko: The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant seeks to withdraw the appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed along with pending applications as withdrawn....
National Plastic Enterprises and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Ex ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-2010
Per : P.G.Chacko After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeals have got to be summarily disposed of. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we take up the appeals. 2. This is the second round of litigation. In the earlier round, this Tribunal had remanded the case to the lower authority for verification of certain records vide final order No.A/507-512/C.I/WZB/2007 dated 3.8.2007 in Appeal Nos. E/943 to 948/98-Bom . Such remand was warranted by the fact that M/s. National Plastic Enterprises (assessee), who had challenged the demand of duty raised by the Commissioner in the earlier round, took the stand that, on the same goods for the same period, M/s. Classic Plastics had paid duty while clearing the goods to them and, by the further fact that the show-cause notice had also indicated this fact, albeit, not conclusively. In our remand order, we took the view that any duty already paid on the goods by M/s. Classic Plastics should be all...
Balkrishna Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Auranga ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal The appellants have filed this appeal against the order of denial of Cenvat credit on the input services viz. Insurance on company vehicles, tours and travels, factory garden maintenance and plant housekeeping services. 2. Facts of the case are that the lower authority had denied Cenvat credit to the appellants on factory garden maintenance and plant housekeeping services observing that they are not related to in or in relation to the manufacture of final product and not falling under the definition of Input services and with regard to the insurance service and tours and travels they found that the appellant has failed to provide any records in respect of these service. Accordingly, credit was denied. Aggrieved by the same the appellant is before me. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Shri. J.H. Motwani, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that with regard to plant housekeeping service and garden maintenance service, their case is squarely covered by the de...
People Interactive (i)private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mu ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-2010
Per : P.G.Chacko This application filed by the applicant seeks out-of-turn disposal of their appeal. Moving this application, the ld.Consultant for the applicant submits that the lower authorities have rejected their refund claim on the ground that the supporting documents were not filed by the claimant. It is submitted that, as a matter of fact, the documents were submitted. In support of this submission, the ld.consultant referred to certain documents available on record. One of these documents is a letter submitted to the Commissioner(Appeals) in the month of January, 2009, wherein, it was stated, inter-alia, that all the requisite documents had already been produced. This letter carries a dated seal of the Commissioner(Appeals) stamped thereon. Another document referred to by the ld.consultant is a letter submitted to the original authority in the month of March, 2008. In this letter, the appellant had undertaken to furnish print- outs of all invoices, with a Compact disk. This let...
Mss India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Nasik
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant has challenged the order-in-appeal on merits. Operative part of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) reads as under:- “In the result, the OIO No. 30/2007 dt. 28.1.2008 passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik II Dn. is set aside and the SCN No. DGCEI/MZU/IandIS-C-/ 12(4)19/ 2007/4058 dated 04.05.07 is made open for fresh adjudication keeping in view the above observations.” 2. From the above I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication. Provisions of law clearly disclose that pursuant to the amendment brought out in the year 2001, the power of remand which was earlier available to the Commissioner (Appeals) has been deleted from the statute book. Following the ratio of the Judgement of the Apex Court in the case of MIL India Ltd. vs. CCE, Noida - 2007 (210) ELT. 188 (S.C.) wherein it was observed that the power of remand by Commissioner (Appeals) h...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-ii Vs. Victor Cnc Engineering and ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Revenue has filed these appeals against the respondents for dropping the penalties under Section 11AC of the Act. 2. The learned DR submitted that in the impugned order the respondents are also directed to pay interest. Moreover, following the decision, in the case of Dharmendra Textile and Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills wherein the Apex Court has held that when the duty demand is confirmed equivalent amount of penalty is mandatory under Section 11AC of the Act. Hence the respondents are liable for penal action and impugned order in this regard to be set aside. 3. Heard. 4. After going through the records of the case both the lower authorities has dropped the penalty against the respondents holding that in the present case the assessee has failed to include amortized cost of capital goods received free of cost and transportation of handling charges of raw material while arriving at assessable value. In that case the department has failed to p...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-ii Vs. M/S. thermal Instruments I ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The Revenue has filed this appeal against the dropping of demand and penalty against the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent had taken credit of Rs.45,000/- in their PLA Account mentioning credit taken in view of the Order-in-Appeal No. P-II/BKS/250/06 dated 12.9.2006. The contention of the department is that the said Order-in-Appeal is not authorizing the appellant to take suo moto credit in account current since as per para 3 of Part V of Chapter 3 of CBEC Manual of Supplementary Instructions, 2005, the assessee may take credit in account current by making cash payment in Form TR6/GAR7 under the current head of account into the Treasury or authorized bank account. It is alleged that the respondent had not deposited any amount into the Treasury and it was further alleged that the respondents subsequently utilized the said credit. Accordingly, the Revenue contended that the respondent can take the credit of the same by fi...
M/S Gimatex Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, N ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2010
Per: Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) This appeal is filed by the appellant against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), wherein he rejected the refund claim holding that the refund claim contrary to assessment order is not maintainable without the order of assessment having been modified in appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that while making payment of monthly duty for the month of July, 2006, the appellant calculated the total duty liability, which included the duty debited against the clearance for home consumption as well as duty already debited on the above mentioned clearance for export. The duty calculated on the clearances for home consumption actually worked out to BED Rs.27,64,781/- and Ed. Cess Rs.55,301/-, whereas the appellant erroneously debited the duty for the month of July, 2006 on 31.7.2006, amounting to Rs.31,95,113/- BED + Rs.38,311/- Ed. Cess through Cenvat Credit Account and Rs.20,000/- +Rs.5597/- through PLA, which also included the duty amountin...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Vs. Shri Jagdish Jakhotia and A ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2010
Per: Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Appeal No. E/1189/09 is against Shri Jagdish Jakhotia and Appeal No. E/1190/08 is against M/s Shree Durga Iron and Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. and it’s Director Shri Pawan Kumar Agawarl filed by the Revenue, wherein penalties against the respondents were dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The facts of the case are that on the basis of specific intelligence that M/s Viprus Castings Ltd. (VCL) have availed irregular and fraudulent CENVAT credit on the invoices issued by certain registered Central Excise dealers/manufacturers, without receiving the material covered in their factory premises. During investigation, it was revealed that M/s Ispat Industries Ltd. had sold the scrap to M/s Shree Durga Iron and Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. (M/s Durga) and cleared the same on payment of duty. M/s Durga has sold the said scrap to M/s Shivang Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (M/s Shivang), a second stage dealer and thereafter the goods were diverted to Virangam, Amreli etc. a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »