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.
Ladam Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko, M(J) The appeal was filed by M/s. Ramkishan Metal Works (P) Ltd. whose name has since been changed as M/s. Ladam Steels Ltd. It is directed against demand of duty amounts totaling to over Rs.29.75 lakhs covered by five show-cause notices and also against a penalty of Rs.20 lakhs. After hearing both sides, we note that this case has a chequered history. The following five show cause notices were issued to the appellant, covering the total period from August 1984 to November 1985 for recovery of duty of over Rs.29 lakhs in respect of MS rounds. 1. SCR/SCN/RKM/84/22 dated 8.1.1985 Rs. 32,296.10 2. SCR/SCN/RKM/85/466 dated 25.5.1985 Rs. 19,355.16 3. SCR/SCN/RKM/85/535 dated 28.6.1985 Rs.28,36,740.00 4. SCR/SCN/RKM/85/803 dated 23.8.1985 Rs. 21,772.80 5. SCR/RKM/86/189 dated 14.2.1986 Rs. 4,967.55 The appellant had cleared the goods without payment of duty claiming exemption under Notification No.209/83-CE dated 1.8.1983. The adjudication of the show-cause notices, which h...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-v Vs. Shakti Insulated Wires Lt ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko, M(J) This appeal is by the Revenue, aggrieved by an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the benefit of Notification No.214/86-CE dated 25.3.1986 to the respondent. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that the respondent was engaged in the job work of manufacturing paper-covered copper strips for principal manufacturers like M/s. BHEL during the period of dispute. The principal manufacturers supplied copper bars/rods/strips to the respondent and the latter manufactured paper-covered copper strips out of such raw materials and paper procured by themselves. The paper was imported on payment of duties of customs including CVD and, at the time of using it in job work, reversed MODVAT credit of CVD. The job-worked goods were supplied without payment of duty, to the principal manufacturers, who, after further processes on such goods, cleared the product on payment of duty. In this scheme, the respondent was availing the benefit of Notificatio...
Jasmine Art Printers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bel ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko, M(J) This appeal filed by the assessee is against a remand order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant does not want to be personally heard. They have filed written submissions, wherein the main grounds of the appeal are seen reiterated. We have considered these submissions and heard learned SDR, after examining the records. 2. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of paper products and products of printing industry during the material period (1999-2000). During the said period, they cleared their products without payment of duty claiming SSI benefit under Notification No.8/99-CE dated 28.2.1999. The department found that, during the said period, they had suppressed the aggregate value of clearances so as to show that it did not exceed the maximum limit of Rs.50 lakhs prescribed under the notification. If the aggregate value of clearances exceeded the said limit, the SSI unit would have been liable to pay duty at appropriate rate on the excess cle...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-iii Vs. Mafatlal Dyes and Chemi ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J) This is an appeal filed by the Revenue, represented today by the learned JDR. There is no representation for the respondent (assessee) despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. 2. The issue arising for consideration pertains to classification of three products, namely Emdilith, Mahacol and Emditex. The lower appellate authority has classified all these products, for the periods covered by the relevant classification declarations (Nos. 5/2000-01 dated 13.10.2000, 6/2000-01 dated 16.11.2000, 7/2000-01 dated 27.11.2000, 8/2000-01 dated 23.1.2001 and 9/2000-01 dated 19.3.2001) under SH 3905.10 of the CETA Schedule as claimed by the assessee. According to the Revenue, the first two products are classifiable under SH 3506.00 as decided by the original authority. Hence the present appeal. 3. Learned JDR has given us the necessary account of the history of this case, which, we find, is relevant to the aforesaid issue. Way back in 1990, the assessee...
M/S. Interscape Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2010
Per : P.G. Chacko After examining the records and hearing both sides, we find that the appeal itself is fit for remand. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we take up the appeal. 2. The appeal was disposed of by this Tribunal as per Order dated 13.09.2005, whereby the case was remanded to the lower authority for fresh consideration. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application for ‘Rectification of Mistake’ and the same was disposed of by this Tribunal as per Order No. M/254/09/EB/C-II dated 20.02.2009, wherein it was clarified that the lower authority was required to quantify the demand of duty as also to deal afresh with issues relating to time-bar and penalty. We are told that a certified copy of the said order was produced by the appellant before the Commissioner on 23.03.2009 but, by that time, the learned Commissioner had already passed fresh order pursuant to our earlier remand order dated 13.09.2005. The present appeal is against the CommissionerR...
M/S. Asiatic Gases Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Iii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2010
Per : P.G. Chacko After examining the records and hearing both sides, we find that the appeal itself requires to be summarily disposed of. Accordingly, after allowing the present application (for out of turn disposal of the appeal), we proceed to deal with the appeal. 2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which was passed in an appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee was aggrieved by the order-in-original dated 29.01.2008 passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai III Division and accordingly preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), but it so happened that they produced another order-in-original dated 14.07.2006 of the Asst. Commissioner along with the appeal before the appellate authority. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) inadvertently proceeded to sit in judgment over the said order-in-original dated 14.07.2006, apparently oblivious of the fact that what was impugned in the appeal was another order dated 29.01.2008 of the Asst...
M/S Shristi Impex P. Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2010
Per: Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical) Vide stay order on 14.11.2008, subject to deposit of Rs.15 crores by M/s Shristi Impex P. Ltd.(SIPL), pre-deposit of balance duty and penalty imposed on six appellants other than SIPL was waived and recovery was stayed. Subsequently, a modification application was filed by the appellants which was rejected vide order dated 6.8.2009. All the appellants filed a writ petition no. 2217/09 before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and the Hon'ble High Court vide orders dated 15.2.2010 dismissed a writ petition in limini. 2. The ld. advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that no compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit of Rs.15 crores has been made by the appellants. In view of the non-compliance with the stay order dated 14.11.2008 and 6.8.2009, the appeals are dismissed....
Commissioner of Cen.Excise, Mumbai.iii and Another Vs. M/S. Ceat Ltd. ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2010
Per : P.Karthikeyan Appeal No.E/849/07 is filed by the Revenue.Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner dropped proposals to disallow credit of Additional Excise Duty under Goods of Special Importance Act, 1957 [AED (GSI) for short] taken by the respondent CEAT Ltd (CEAT), on payment of equal amount of BED on tyres in PLA which had been initially discharged using accumulated Cenvat/Modvat credit of AED(GSI). M/s Balakrishna Industries Ltd seeks relief by way of appropriate orders of this Tribunal against the impugned order which demanded such AED earned prior to 1.4.2000 and utilized for payment of BED in terms of rule 3(6)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules,2002 (CCR) as amended vide Notification No.13/03NT dated 1.3.03. This appeal No. E/92/05 assails the order of the Comissioner confirming demand of duty paid on tyres using credit under AED (GSI) . After filing the appeal, M/s Balakrishna Industries Ltd paid the duty along with interest as per the order impugned. Revenue seeks to deny the c...
Commissioner of Central Excise Pune-ii Vs. M/S. Fie Spherotech
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Revenue has filed this appeal against the impugned order wherein the penalty against the respondent has been reduced to only unpaid amount of Rs.22,371/- as against demand of Rs.2,71,894/-. 2. The learned SDR submitted that in the impugned order that the Commissioner has held that unavailable Cenvat Credit is not available to the materials like Channels H.R. Coils etc. which were used in the construction of their factory building and same was admitted by the respondent. 3. Shri Mahadev Bhupal Mane on behalf of the respondent admitted that by treating them as input availed cenvat credit the Respondent has not argued the matter on merit and not contested the penalty and interest. The lower Appellate Authority passed the order following the decision of Machino Montell (I) Ltd. wherein it was held that penalty and interest should not be imposed on the appellants in case the duty has been paid before the issue of the show cause notice. The respondents h...
Shri Purshottam H. Mirgh and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) These appeals are filed by the appellants against the confirmation of penalties under Rule 209A of the Cenvat Credit Rules. 2. The learned advocate submits that the main applicant company has availed the benefit of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme 1998, which was related to the tax pay arrears and under that scheme a party can file a declaration so long as proceedings are pending. Thus even though the show cause notice may have been adjudicated upon and an appeal is pending a party could still take the benefit of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme and filed a declaration. The object of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme is to give benefit of settlement by the main party and to all other co-noticees. He submitted that the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs. Onkar S. Kanwar reported in 2002 (145) E.L.T. 266 (S.C.) has held that benefit of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme is available even though show cause notice may have been adjudicated upon but appeal is pending. H...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »