Mumbai Court March 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.
The Commissioner of Income Tax-6 Vs. Essel Propack Limited (Formerly K ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-2010
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in relation to assessment year 19992000 raises the following questions of law:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the Ld CIT (A) in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the technical know how fees amounting to Rs. 6,82,00,029/ as revenue expenditure Under Section 37 of the I.T. Act without appreciating the fact that the same was in the nature of capital expenditure being incurred on the acquisition of intangible asset of enduring nature?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the agreement between the assessee company and KMK Lizence Limited was operational in financial year 19971998, even before obtaining the required approval of Government of India on 561998?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tri...
Rallies India Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2010
Per: Mr P.G. Chacko 1. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that the short question arising for consideration in this case is whether the appellant is liable to pay 8% of the sale price (excluding tax) of the two exempted products, namely Phosphoryl A and B manufactured and cleared during the period of dispute (September 1996 to December 2003), under the erstwhile Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 6 (b) (ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. According to the Revenue, they are liable to pay the above amount inasmuch as they were manufacturing the aforesaid exempted goods as well as the dutiable product, namely gelatin and were availing MODVAT/CENVAT Credit on the common input used in both the streams of final products without maintaining any separate account or inventory in respect of such inputs. On the other hand, the assessee argued that they were not liable to pay any amount under the aforesaid rules inasmuch as the mother liquor which was g...
Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. Amitabh Mundhra B. Vs. Commissioner of Ce ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2010
Per: Mr P.G. Chacko 1. These appeals have arisen before us consequent upon a remand ordered by the Hon ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 10.4.2008 in Civil Appeal Nos 5994-5995 of 2007 (Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur vs Simplex Infrastructures Ltd and Another). 2. One of the appellants is M/s Simplex Infrastructures Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the assessee). A Director of the company is the other appellant. The appeals are directed against the Commissioner’s order wherein demand of Central Excise duty of over Rs 1.40 crores was confirmed against the assessee for the period from March 1997 to March 1998 in respect of Ready Mix Concrete (RMC for short) classified under SH 3824.20 and equal amount of penalty was imposed on them under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act besides a penalty of Rs 50 lakhs imposed on the Director of the company under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order, the learned Counsel...
M/S.Mahavir Plastics and Others Vs. the Commissioner of Central Excise ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko 1. M/s.Mahavir Plastics, a partnership firm, is the main appellant, who is aggrieved by demand of duty, penalty, etc. Shri.Upendra Shantilal Kapadia, a partner of the said firm, is aggrieved by the penalty imposed on him. M/s.Shrinath Enterprises is his proprietorship, which is also challenging the penalty imposed on it. In a show-cause notice dated 20/07/2000, the department asked M/s.Mahavir Plastics to show-cause to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise, as to why :- a) Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.17,13,341/- on the cloth clips of plastics manufactured and removed clandestinely by M/s.Mahavir Plastics, Vasai (East) should not be demanded and recovered from them under proviso to sub section (1) of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 (as detailed in annexure B to show cause notice); b) Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.2,29,293/- on Tablet box and lids (Plastic containers with lids) falling under CSH No.3923.90 of CETA, 1985 manufactured and ...
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-v Vs. Savill Pharma Labs Pv ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-2010
Per: Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) 1. All the appeals were filed by the Revenue, aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise dropping the proceedings initiated against the respondents by the department. In the relevant show-cause notice, which was issued on 17/06/94, the department alleged (a) that M/s.Gentech Laboratories Ltd., in whose name the goods in question were cleared by M/s. Savill Pharma Labs Ltd., during the period of dispute (October 91 to March 94), were only a dummy unit for M/s.Lyka Labs Ltd., who actually marketed the said goods (b) that in the assessable value of the goods, the marketing charges and other administration costs were not included and consequently M/s.Savill Pharma Labs Ltd., short-paid duty on the goods. (c) that M/s.Gentech Laboratories Ltd., were introduced in the transactions as a veil to hide the actual identity of the manufacturer for the purpose of gaining undue advantage in valuation of the goods and, once this veil was l...
Dy. Chief Manager (Printing and Stationery) Central Railway Vs. Commis ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko: This appeal is by the Central Railway, represented by its Dy. Chief Manager (Printing and Stationery). They have not produced the requisite clearance from the Committee on Disputes (COD) despite several opportunities having been given. Today also, the permission is not forthcoming, nor is there any proper representation. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed for want of clearance from the COD, however, with liberty to the appellant to move the Bench for restoration of the appeal after obtaining the COD's clearance....
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise a ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko: This appeal is filed by M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, but without the requisite clearance from the Committee on Disputes (COD). The appellant was given several opportunities to produce such clearance. Today also, the clearance is not forthcoming, nor is there any representation despite notice. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed for want of clearance from the COD, however, with liberty to the appellant to move the Bench for restoration of the appeal after obtaining the COD's clearance....
Neeta Prakash Modi Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal Neeta Prakash Modi - the appellant has filed this appeal against the order confirming absolute confiscation of diamonds weighing 154.04 carets under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant s deceased husband Shri Prakash J. Modi was engaged in the business of the purchase and sale of cut and polished diamonds in the name and style of M/s. Koshin Gems as a sole proprietor. The said proprietary firm was registered with the Sales Tax department. It was also allotted RBI code and Import Export code. The appellant submits that the firm did not deal in rough diamonds. The firm was maintaining their books of accounts and having supporting bills / vouchers and documents with regard to their activities. The case of the department against Shri Prakash J Modi is that he had smuggled diamonds into India and it is these smuggled diamonds that were seized from him on 18.01.1991 in the office premises of M/s. Yogey Diamonds. Show-cause notice was issued and the seize...
Lg Electronics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune.iii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2010
Per : P.Karthikeyan The appellants M/s. L.G.Electronics Pvt.Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of colour television sets (CTVs). They import various electronic components for the purpose. On import of these inputs, the appellants pay duties of Customs including CVD and SAD leviable under Sec.3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. These inputs are removed to job workers/ ancillary units by reversing CVD and SAD paid at the time of import and availed by the assessee in their CENVAT account. During the period March 2006 to September, 2006, the appellants short reversed SAD of Rs. 2,12,40,288/- on clearances of the imported inputs to ancillary units for manufacture of PCBs. The authorities had tentatively concluded that the assessee had knowingly short paid such SAD on components. After due process of law, the Commissioner demanded an amount of Rs. 2,12,40,288/- alongwith applicable interest invoking provisions of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) read with Section 11A(1) of the ...
Thaparsons K.V. Clearing Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal This appeal filed by the CHA is against the revocation of CHA licence by the Commissioner. The facts of the case are that the appellant was granted License No. PMT/CHA/3/99/NGP dated 26.03.1999 under Rule 10(1) of the CHALR, 1984. The validity of the said license was five years i.e. upto 25.03.2004. The appellant applied for renewal of his license on 31.12.2003 but the same was revoked holding that the appellant has failed to fulfill the conditions laid down under Regulation 11(2)(a) of the CHALR 2004. Aggrieved by the same the appellant is before us. The appellant has filed a written submission in support of his appeal and the same has been taken on record. 2. Heard learned SDR. The learned SDR reiterate the impugned order. 3. We have gone through the provisions of CHALR 2004 and find that as per the clarifications issued by the Board in Circular No. 42/2004-Cus. dated 10.06.2004, the license issued under Regulation 10(1) of CHALR 1984 would be deemed to be license...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »