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.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai.V Vs. M/S. Eu-medicaments
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-2010
Per : P.G.Chacko This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. There is no representation for the respondent despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. After examining the records and hearing the ld.D.R. for the appellant, we note that the lower appellate authority granted partial relief to the respondent by ordering re-determination of duty liability for the normal period of limitation, which he took as six months under Sec.11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. In adjudication of a show-cause notice which was issued on 8.5.2001 for recovery of differential duty of Rs. 1,62,241/- from the respondent for the period 12.5.2000 to 31.3. 2001, the original authority had confirmed the entire demand of duty against the party and imposed on them a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. In an appeal filed by the assessee, the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessee had not suppressed or mistated any fact and therefore, the extended period of limitation was not invokable against them. The period...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-ii Vs. M/S.Drk Panchaganga Ssk Lt ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The revenue has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the Commissioner (Appeal) dropped the demand against the respondent holding that inputs going into production of intermediate product which is lost due to leakage in storage tank. Modvat credit not to be denied on inputs lost during process of manufacture. The issue in this appeal before me is that whether Cenvat credit availed on Molasses contain in the quantity of rectified spirit which is lost during the manufacture of denatured spirit is admissible or not. 2. The learned DR relied on two decisions namely Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise., Allabahad reported in 2008 (225) E.L.T 310 (Tri.-Del.) wherein this Tribunal has held that the appellants are not entitled to take credit on inputs used in the manufacture of the exempted goods and therefore, they are liable to reverse the credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of th...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-ii Vs. M/S Walchandnagar Inds. Lt ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-2010
Per: Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Revenue has filed this appeal against the waiver of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents manufactured excisable goods and supplied to M/s Nuclear Power Corporation India Ltd. (NPCIL) on job work basis by using own material and the material supplied by M/s NPCIL free of cost. The respondents undervalued the goods and short paid the duty to the tune of Rs.4,90,103/- by not adding the actual value of free of cost material received from M/s NPCIL. On pointing out this under valuation by the department, the respondents have paid the differential duty through PLA. The respondents were issued a show-cause notice for confirming the duty and imposing the penalty. The duty demand was confirmed and equal amount of penalty was imposed by the adjudicating authority. The respondents preferred an appeal against the imposition of penalty and interest b...
Commissioner of Central Excise Pune-ii Vs. M/S. I.J. Mathu Foods Pvt. ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The Revenue has filed these appeals against the impugned order set aside the order-in-original. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondents are engaged in production of ready-to eat-meals and clearing the same export under bond. The respondents were registered as deemed service provider under Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 under the category of Business Auxiliary Service. A show cause was issued demanding service tax interest and penalty on the ground that the respondents has incurred Rs.40,66,127/- in foreign exchange towards advertising, publicity and promotion expenses for evaluation of prospective customers situated outside India to M/s. Utmost Foods LCC, Dubai and M/s. LEP International Pvt. Ltd. Australia during the period 2004-05 and 2005-06. The demand was made as service receiver under Rule 2(1)(d) (iv) of Service Tax Rules, 2004 as Business Auxiliary Service provided by a non-resident person providing services to Indian Cl...
Jai Corp Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko: The appellant had imported raw materials under DEEC scheme and cleared the same duty-free under Notification No. 203/92-Cus, without fulfilling Condition No. V(a) of the notification, which required that no input stage credit should be taken under Rule 56A/57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in relation to finished goods exported in discharge of export obligation under the above scheme. The department, upon scrutiny of records, found that the appellant had availed input stage credit to the extent of Rs. 2,89,05,226/- on indigenously procured raw materials which were used in the manufacture of the finished goods exported in discharge of export obligation. However, when the Central Government, under what is called 'amnesty scheme', allowed the appellant and similarly placed importers / exporters (DEEC scheme) to avoid demands of duty of customs foregone under the above notification, by reversing the MODVAT credit and pay interest thereon @ 20% per annum on or before 3...
Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai - Ii and Another Vs. Marshall Tr ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko: One of the appeals is by the assessee and the other by the Revenue. In a show-cause notice dated 28/01/1999, the department had alleged that the assessee had evaded duty of excise to the extent of Rs. 12,52,618/- on PVC coated textile fabrics during the period from 15/11/1997 to 30/07/1998. It was also alleged that they had suppressed the above fact as well as undervaluation of the goods with intent to evade payment of duty. On this basis, the demand of duty to the aforesaid extent was raised on the assessee. The goods seized from their premises in July, 1998 were proposed to be confiscated. A penalty was also proposed on the assessee under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Interest on duty was sought to be levied under Section 11AB of the Act. The allegations and proposals in the show-cause notice were based on : (a) statements of the proprietor; (b) a statement of their Machine Operator; and (c) statements of three buyers. All the goods allegedly were manufact...
Ravi Steel Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai - Iii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko: This appeal filed by the assessee is against a demand of differential duty of Rs. 13,44,341/- in respect of processed fabrics found to have been cleared by them on payment of duty on a value below the correct value during the period of dispute (April, 1995 to April 1998). The appellant has also challenged equal amount of a penalty imposed on them under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. 2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that the appellant had been authorised by a large number of merchant-manufacturers to process grey fabrics on their behalf during the material period inasmuch as they (merchant-manufacturers) sought to be exempted from the licensing provisions of Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 under Notification No. 27/92-C.E.-NT dated 09/10/1992. After investigations, the department found that the processed fabrics manufactured and cleared by the appellant to the merchant-manufacturers were grossly undervalued vis-`-vis t...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Ii Vs. M/S. Finolex Industries Lt ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal Revenue has filed this appeal against the impugned order dropping the demand against the respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods namely Suspension Polyvinyl Chloride (S-PVC) and Emulsion Polyvinyl Chloride (E-PVC). The respondents were availing Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods. They were availing CVD portion on the goods imported by them. Two show cause notices were issued to the respondents during the period April 2005 - October 2005 proposing to disallow Cenvat credit of Rs.4,30,596/- and Education cess of Rs.8,612/- under Section 11A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the ground that the respondent has reversed less credit when they removed goods namely Ethylene Dichloride as such. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed their appeal. The Revenue is in appeal against the said order. 3. Heard. 4. The learned DR submitted ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›