Mumbai Court June 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.
Emco Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2010
Per : D.N.Panda ST- 59/03-Mum The ld.counsel submits that this case was heard alongwith the case of M/s. DGP Windsor India Ltd ( Appeal No.ST/37/03/Mum) on 19.7.2004. From the order passed in that case, it is clear that the present appellant’s case was also brought out in the said order, as seen from para (1) to para (3) of the same. Relying on the order No.A/593/WZB.2004 dated 19.7.2004, he submits that the present matter should not have been listed for hearing today again. 2. It is very clear from the ld.counsel’s submission that the mistake aforesaid is conceivable. But the appellant did not come out with any application for rectification of the mistake duly. We do appreciate that no litigant should suffer for the mistake of the court, but the litigant should have been equally vigilant to redress the wrong before limitation for such redressal expired. . Therefore, we dismiss this submission. 3. The ld.Counsel submits that the activity carried out by the appellant is ap...
Ellenabad Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central Exci ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko: This application seeks waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on the applicant (appellant). After hearing both sides, we find that the appeal itself is fit for summary disposal. Therefore, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we take up the appeal. 2. This appeal is against the above penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 "for the offence committed by them" as specified in para 15.6 of the impugned order. On a perusal of the records, we note that similar penalties were also imposed on two other parties namely, Ms/. Shirdi Steel Rollers Private Limited and M/s. Kundil Ispat Limited for similar "offence" found against them. We further note that the appeal filed by M/s. Kundil Ispat Ltd. (E/319/2009) was disposed of along with certain other appeals by way of remand vide Order No. A/264-269/09 /EB /CI dated 09/06/2009. The present appeal being similar to the appeal of M/s. Kundil I...
indoworth India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J) The appeal filed by the assessee is against the Commissioner's decision communicated to them through the Assistant Commissioner's letter dated 25.8.2009. The assessee had imported a few consignments of second-hand textile machinery in the month of June 2009. They furnished the documents and information required by the assessing authority. Anticipating delay in release of the goods, the party made a request to the Assistant Commissioner on 17.8.2009 for provisional assessment of the relevant bills of entry. In this letter dated 17.8.2009, they offered to furnish the requisite bond for an amount equal to the differential duty which may eventually be ascertained. At the same time, they also requested the Assistant Commissioner to exempt them from furnishing any security in the form of bank guarantee on the ground of financial difficulties. In lieu of bank guarantee, they offered to keep the machinery intact/unused in the bonded premises of a 100% EOU being the...
Commissioner of Central Excise Pune Ii Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal The Revenue has filed this appeal against the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., which is a Public Sector undertaking. The Department did not get clearance so far. There is no point in keeping the appeal pending without COD clearance therefore, the appeal is dismissed for want of COD clearance and the department is given liberty to seek restoration of the same as and when COD clearance is obtained....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Ii Vs. M/S. R.R. Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein waiver of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was granted. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent had availed CENVAT credit amounting to Rs.25,575/- on the strength of invoice issued by M/s. Simandhar Steels, a registered scrap dealer of Mumbai. Since the officers of the Mumbai Central Excise had registered a case against Simandhar Steels for issuing fake invoice and passing fraudulent CENVAT credit, the Kolhapur Division office was asked to safeguard revenue. Thereafter necessary investigation was carried out and it was found that CENVAT credit of Rs.25,575/- was taken by the respondent on the basis of invoice issued by Simandhar Steels. On pointing by the investigating team the respondent reversed the said credit. Show-cause notice was issued wherein the proposal for penalty was made under Rule 13 of the CENVAT credit Rules, 2002. The adjudicating...
JaIn Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J). This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the appellate Commissioner's order holding the appellant liable to pay interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act on the amount of duty belatedly paid by them. The appellant had imported a consignment of caustic soda in 1979, on which duty was leviable @ 92.5% as per the Customs Tariff. The appellant contested the assessment by claiming that they should be allowed to pay duty @ 10%, at which rate another party was allowed to pay duty on identical goods on the strength of a Special Exemption Order of the Government. The appellant, for this relief, filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and obtained an interim order dated 10.1.1989 for paying duty @ 10% in cash and securing the balance (82.5%) through bank guarantee. In respect of similar imports by the appellant at Delhi, the claim of concessional rate of duty was denied by the department and, therefore, a similar writ petition wa...
M/S Micronix Associates and Another Vs. Cce, Aurangabad Ii and Another
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal Both the assessee and the Revenue have filed the appeals against the impugned order. The assessee filed the appeal against the order of confirmation of penalty and fine and the Revenue has filed the appeal against the reduction of penalty and non-consideration of redemption fine on Tungsten Carbide Trips value of Rs.13,916/-. 2.None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite several notices dated 14.10.09, 30.10.09, 8.12.09 and to-date. Today the matter is being taken up for disposal. 3.The learned DR submitted that although the adjudicating authority imposed redemption fine on the goods seized as per the panchnama on the value of Rs.8,45,805/- but the Commissioner (Appeals) in appeal proceedings observed that the goods valuing Rs. 4,88,000/- is not liable for confiscation and confirmed confiscation of goods value of Rs.3,43,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any findings for the goods seized valueing of Rs.13,916/- as per panchanama. Hence the matter...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Ii Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal The Revenue has filed this appeal against the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., which is a Public Sector undertaking. The Department did not get clearance so far. There is no point in keeping the appeal pending without COD clearance therefore, the appeal is dismissed for want of COD clearance and the department is given liberty to seek restoration of the same as and when COD clearance is obtained....
Ccex, Kolhapur Vs. Krishna Antioxidents Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-02-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced mandatory penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 from Rs.59,862/- to Rs.25,000/-. The issue involved in this case is whether the Commissioner (Appeals) can reduce the penalty under Section 11AC or not. 2.Heard both sides. 3.The learned DR submitted that it is a case of suppression of facts by the respondent as they have admitted the suppression but the Commissioner (Appeals) have reduced the mandatory penalty under Section 11AC from Rs.59,862/- to Rs.25,000/- which is not correct. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills - 2009 (238) ELT 3 (S.C.) has held that the penalty under Section 11AC is a mandatory penalty which is to be imposed an equivalent amount of duty confirmed irrespective of the fact that duty and interest has been paid before issuance of show-cause notice, ...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs. M/S. Dhoot Compack Ltd. ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-02-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the addendum issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeal No. RKR(166)117/07, RKR(167)115/07, RKR(168)113/07, RKR(169)114/07 and RKR(171)121/07 dated 31.08.2007. 2. The learned DR submitted that in this case orders in-appeal were issued on 31.8.2007 and the same was received in their office on 30.10.2007. The last date of review of the order-in-appeal was 29.01.08 and the addendum was issued on 21.2.2008. The addendum was issued after the review period was over and it was open for both the department and the respondent, in case of grievance to the above order-in-appeal, to file an appeal before the CESTAT within three months of the communication of the order. The department has already filed an appeal against the OIA before the CESTAT hence the addendum issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the orders passed on 31.08.2007 is not maintainable. Further as per the Board Circular No. 502/68/99-CX dated 16.12.1999 n...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »