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.
M/S. Globe Plastics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-02-2010
Per : P.G. Chacko This appeal filed by M/s. Globe Plastics ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) is against demand of duty of Rs. 34,99,417/- confirmed under sub-section (2) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and equal amount of penalty imposed under Sec.11AC of the Act. An amount of Rs. 86,296/- paid by the assessee during the course of investigations has been appropriated towards the demand of duty. The impugned demand of duty is for the period from April 1997 to March, 2001 and the same is confirmed in adjudication of a show-cause notice which was issued on 3.7.02 invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Sec.11A(1) of the Act. In the present appeal, the demand has been challenged both on merits and on the ground of limitation. 2. The goods in question are acrylic plastic sheets which were allegedly undervalued by the assessee with intent to evade payment of appropriate duty during the aforesaid period. The assessee is a partnership fi...
Cce, Kolhapur Vs. Modern Metal
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 dropped the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as the duty was paid by the respondent before issuance of the show-cause notice. 2. The learned DR submitted that in this case the demand has been confirmed against the respondent and they have paid duty on that but the Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped penalty under Section 11AC as the respondent has paid the duty before issuance of show-cause notice which is no more a good law in the present scenario. He further submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the case of Union of India vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills - 2009 (238) ELT 3 (S.C.) that mandatory penalty under Section 11AC is to be imposed equivalent to the duty. In this case also penalty equivalent to duty is to be confirmed. 3. Heard. 4. I have gone through the records and found that in this case while f...
Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Ex ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-01-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal These appeals are filed by (a) DCM Shriram Industries Ltd. the Exporter, (b) Asha Clearing Agencies (P) Ltd. the CHA and (c) Omega Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. the Shipping Line. All the above three appeals filed by the appellants are against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that the exporter filed a shipping bill No.6308080 dated 16.5.2008 consisting 24 Pkgs of Rayon Tyre Cord Fabrics undipped through their CHA. Thus LEO for the said shipping bill was given on 22.5.2008, however the shipping line had loaded the container on vessel before 21.5.2008 and the vessel sailed on 21.5.2008. The show-cause notice was issued and order be passed against the exporter by imposing redemption fine of Rs.6 lakhs and with condition that the Export Promotion copies of the Shipping Bill shall be issued, after payment of all the above dues, along with interest and a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- was imposed on the CHA and Rs.5 lakhs on the shipping agency. 3. The learned Cou...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Ii Vs. M/S. Gnat Foundry Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-01-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal Revenue has filed this appeal against dropping of the penalty of Rs.2,08,253/- under Section 11AC by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Cast Iron Casting and Cast Steel Castings. On the basis of intelligence, Preventive Officers visited the factory premises on 10.07.2003 and recorded the statements wherein it was stated that entries in the note book are made by one Shri K.T. Yezare and that they had supplied from their factory, the cast steel casting of Trunnion Bracket, Trunnion Shoe and Pit to M/s. R.A. Somavanshi without preparing invoice / bill, also without accounting in their Daily Stock Account and without payment of Central Excise duty. Therefore show-cause notice was issue for clandestine removal of the goods for demanding duty along with interest and penalty also proposed on them under provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rule 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise ...
Mohammed HusseIn Abdul Sattar and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central E ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-01-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko 1. These appeals are directed against the Commissioner s order, wherein certain amounts of Customs duty and Central Excise duty were sought to be recovered from M/s Crystal Exports and penalties were imposed on several persons including the appellants. The duty demand on M/s Crystal Exports was sought to be enforced against Shri Mohammad Hussain Abdul Sattar (one of the appellants) and one Shri Naresh Govardhandas Bhatia. It appears, before the Development Commissioner, Shri Mohammad Hussain Abdul Sattar represented M/s Crystal Exports as a 100% EOU. He also presented himself as the authorized signatory of the EOU before the Customs authorities. Apparently, sometime in the year 2000, Shri Naresh G Bhatia became a partner alongwith Shri Mohammad Hussain Abdul Sattar in M/s Crystal Exports. The raw materials imported and indigenously procured by the EOU without payment of duty in terms of the relevant notifications during the period from May 2000 to September 2002 are th...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune I Vs. M/S Elpro International Ltd ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-01-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal This is Revenue’s appeal. Earlier the Revenue’s appeal was rejected holding that as the respondent has paid the duty and interest before issuance of show-cause notice, no penalty can be levied under Section 11AC on the respondent. 2. The Revenue went to the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to pass an order in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of CCE vs. M/s. Lanco Industries Ltd. reported in 2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC). Hence this appeal is before me. 3. The learned DR appearing for the Revenue submits that the respondents had availed the CENVAT credit on damaged or defective inputs and also claimed insurance for the said damaged goods. The wrongly availed CENVAT credit is in contravention of Rule 3 and Rule 4 of CENVAT credit Rules, 2004. The duty demand has been confirmed against the respondent hence the mandatory penalty under Section 11AC is leviable. 4. On careful exa...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai V Vs. Modern Chemical Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-01-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal The Reveenue has filed this appeal against order of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein he set aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority confirming the duty demand and imposition of penalty on the respondent. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.09.98 based on telephonic information, surveillance was kept in the vicinity of the factory premises of the respondent and a tempo was intercepted with excisable goods of the assessee along duty paying documents used to camouflage other goods viz. ‘Lysonal 1568’ which were non-duty paid and were prima facie manufactured in the registered premises of the respondent but covered with the challan and invoice in the name of M/s. Scan Surgical Industries Pvt. Ltd. (later found to be residential address of the owners) meant for delivery at M/s. Crystal Chemicals. Under reasonable belief that the goods in question were manufactured and cleared from M/s Modern Chemical Works, Goregaon without payment of duty...
Ccex, Nasik Vs. M/S. Bini Medilabs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-01-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) uphold the admissibility of the credit on Sulphamethoxazole which is being used as anti bacterial agent which can kill bacteria present in the atmosphere and was required for removing impurities of their raw material i.e. Isaphghula husk and therefore has to be considered as being used in or in relation to manufacture of final products. 2. The issue involved in this case is that whether Sulphamethoxazole used by the respondent is to be considered as an input used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products or not? 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned DR submitted that Sulphamethoxazole is not an anti bacterial agent which has been confirmed by the Dy Chief Chemist, Mumbai saying that Sulphamethoxazole is an anti-biotic drug. It is further contended that anti-biotic cannot kill bacteria in atmosphere and can act only when consumed by human ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›