Mumbai Court April 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.
Philips Electronics India Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko 1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of consumer electronic products like Radio-sets. They claimed the benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification 57/93-CE dated 28.2.1993 in their classification list effective from 1.3.1993 and accordingly started clearance of their products on payment of duty at the concessional rate of duty, @10% ad valorem. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner denied the benefit of the Notification to the appellants and directed them to pay duty @20% ad valorem. Accordingly, the appellants deposited a sum of Rs 1,25,95,393/- being the differential duty for the period from 1.3.1993 to 12.5.1993 and started paying duty on subsequent clearances @ 20% ad valorem under protest. They also challenged the Assistant Commissioner’s order before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) but unsuccessfully. Ultimately, they succeeded before this Tribunal in their appeal filed against the order of the Commissioner (Ap...
Commissioner of Customs(import), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Jaisu Shipping Co. Lt ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-2010
Per : P.G.Chacko After hearing both sides, we find that this is a case fit for summary disposal. Accordingly, after allowing the stay application filed by the department, we proceed to dispose of the appeal. 2. The respondent had filed a refund application which was sanctioned by the original authority but the amount was ordered to be credited to Consumer Welfare Fund. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner(Appeals) and the latter remanded the case to the lower authority for examining the issue relating to unjust enrichment. The present appeal of the department is directed against the appellate Commissioner’s order. The appellant has raised 2 contentions. Firstly, the original authority had, in fact, examined the issue of unjust enrichment. Secondly, the ld.Commissioner(Appeals) had no power of remand when the impugned order was passed. 3. The ld.JDR has laid emphasis on the second ground and has relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgmen...
Vikram Sponge Iron Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-2010
Per : P.G.Chacko After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we take up the appeal. 2. In adjudication of 3 show-cause notices, the original authority had, by an Order dated 21.9.99, disallowed certain credits taken by the assessee. Pursuant to that order, the assessee reversed total credit of Rs. 10,25,750/- in 2 installments, first in Feb.-99 and second in December, 99. Subsequently, however, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner(Appeals), who upheld the Order-in-Original. Aggrieved, the assessee approached this Tribunal which remanded the case to the original authority. Subsequently, the original authority, by Order dated 31.1.07, allowed credit of Rs. 10,09,364/- to the appellant. The assessee subsequently took suo motu credit of this amount. The above Order-in-Original dated 31.1.07 became final for want of appeal by th...
Commissioner of Customs (import),, Mumbai Vs. M/S. Hindustan Petroleum ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal Revenue has filed this appeal against M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The learned DR submitted that the department is not pursuing the matter with the Committee of Dispute as the amount involved in this matter is very small and prayed that he may be allowed to withdraw the appeal. 2. As the Revenue is not pursuing for clearance from the Committee of Dispute to contest the appeal, I accept the request made by the learned DR. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn....
Jawahar Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellant has filed this appeal along with application for stay of demand of Rs.41,846/- along with interest and penalty. 2. Today the matter was listed for disposal of stay application but none appeared on behalf of the appellant and filed written submissions. 3. In written submission, the appellant submits that on the identical issue, this Tribunal has remanded the matter vide its Final Order No. A-112-114/10/SMB-IV dated 5.4.2010 and prayed that this matter may also be remanded. 4. The learned DR also admitted the same. Hence after going to the facts of the case after going I grant waiver of pre-deposit of the duty demand, penalty and take up the matter for final disposal. 5. The dispute in this case is waiver of service tax on GTA Service availed by the appellants in respect of the levy sugar transport from the factory to the railway station, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim of the appellant as the appellants have failed to p...
M/S. Shri Ram Wire Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Exci ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) These appeals are filed by the appellants against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting their appeals for non-compliance of the stay order. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants were granted the stay with the direction to make pre-deposit of 100% Cenvat credit availed along with interest and report compliance. However, the appellant had deposited the amount pre-deposit of the 100% of the Cenvat credit and did not make the pre-deposit of amount of interest and the appeal were dismissed for non-compliance. 3. The learned Consultant for the appellant submitted that although the appellants have taken the Cenvat credit in their account but same was lying with them unutilized. As per the order of the original adjudicating authority, they have paid the same and they have also move an application for modification of the stay order before the Commissioner (Appeals) to modified the order of stay to the extent of waiver of interest but ...
Pratima Clearing Agency Vs. the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-2010
Per: Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) 1. This appeal was filed by a Customs House Agent, whose licence was suspended by the Commissioner on 08/12/2008. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the inquiry proceedings against the CHA have since been initiated and are in progress. It is submitted that the proceedings before the inquiry officer are presently at cross-examination stage. The ld. Counsel prays for expediting those proceedings. 2. We have also heard the ld. SDR. After considering the submissions, we note that the chief grounds raised in this appeal are no longer valid now as the proceedings, which were contemplated at the time of suspension of licence, are in progress. As the suspension order was issued without hearing the party, it is incumbent on the Commissioner to ensure that the ongoing proceedings are completed without unreasonable delay. The Commissioner is therefore requested to direct the inquiry officer to expedite the inquiry. We are of the view that the p...
Mkp Distributors Pvt Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs, Airport, Mu ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko 1. This appeal was filed by the assessee against classification of the goods imported by them under CTH 9616.10 as also against the loading of value thereof under Rule 8 (1) of the Customs Valuation (determination of price of imported goods) Rules 1988. There is no representation for the appellant despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. 2. The assessee (appellant) imported perfumes in spray-packs of volumes ranging from 40 ML to 100 ML. In the relevant bill of entry, which was filed on 24/04/2001, they described these goods as EDT SPRAY.-.ML- MRP per piece as declared in the bill of entry was in the range of Rs.1,600/- to Rs.2,700/-. All the goods were classified in the bill of entry under SH 3303.00. It appears from the records that, after collecting the necessary information from the importer, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs assessed the goods to duty by classifying them under CTH 9616.10 and loading their value under Rule 8 (1) of the Customs V...
Hero Cycle Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import), Nhava Sheva
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellant filed this appeal against the rejection of their refund claim. 2. The facts of that appellant filed 5 bills of entry wherein by mistake they failed to mention the exemption notification available to them and they paid the duty and the adjudicating authority also did not give the benefit of the exemption notification. On reliance that the appellants are entitled for the exemption under the said notification, they filed refund claim and same was rejected by the Dy Commissioner of Customs. Following the case of Priya Blue holding that the assessment order of the Bill of Entry have not been challenged, refund cannot be sanctioned, same was confirmed by the lower appellant authority. Aggrieved from the same the appellant is before me. 3. Shri J.H. Motwani learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the appellant has challenged the order of the assessment of bills of entry in question before the Honble High Court...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Iii Vs. M/S. Spentex Industries L ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal This appeal is filed by the Revenue. 2. The issue involved in this case relates to refund claim filed under provisions of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of Service Tax paid on the input services purported to be used in manufacture of final products exported without payment of duty. 3. The contention of the learned DR is that the respondent is not entitled to CENVAT credit on the inputs / input services in the case where the final product is exempted from duty and so the respondent is not entitled for refund claim. 4. On the other hand the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that in an identical issue in the case of Punjab Stainless Steel Industries vs. CCE, Delhi - 2008 (226) ELT 587 (Tri-Del), the Tribunal held that the manufacturer is entitled to credit used in the export goods whether dutiable or exempted. 5. Heard both sides. 6. In this case the issue is that whether Cenvat credit available in respect of inputs / input service...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »