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.
Shubhyan Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Iii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant has filed this appeal against the confirmation of service tax under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Services’ of Rs.9,68,805/- along with interest and penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The facts are that the appellant is a dealer of automobiles for Hero Honda and Tata Motors. They were having tie up with various banks like ICICI, HDFC, Bajaj Finance or other financial institutions through whom they help to arrange finance for their customers. For that, they receive some commission from these banks. The allegation against the appellant is that the activity taken over by the appellant by helping in financial assistance to the buyers through financial institution is classifiable under Business Auxiliary Services as defined under Section 65 (19) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. A show-cause notice was issued demanding service tax, interest and proposing penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the F...
Bajaj Electrical Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune I
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal The appellants have filed these appeals against the confirmation of demand of Rs.1,70,572/- along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty. 2.Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods namely electrical fans and parts and accessories etc. 3.During the course of arguments it was found that the assessee sends inputs / partly finished goods to job workers for further processing. However, the job worker used excess materials in the process on which Cenvat credit was availed and the appellants issued a debit note and recovered Rs.6,05,716/- by way of debit from the job worker. Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 allows credit of specified duty paid on inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of final products. No credit is allowable if the inputs are not used in the process of manufacturing. Any amount recovered towards excess consumption from the job worker is in the nature of recovering the cost of t...
Commissioner of Customs (Acc and Import), Mumbai Vs. Valuable Properti ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal The Revenue has filed these appeals against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) wherein it was held that in these cases, there is a violation of the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009, the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Custom Officers cannot adjudicate such cases hence, appeals of the appellants were allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents imported architecture model without the IEC number. The adjudicating authority held that the importer was not exempted from obtaining the IEC number and held the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(d). Accordingly, the goods were confiscated with an option of redemption fine and penalties were imposed on the importer under Section 112(a). On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed all the three appeals of the respondents holding that the Custom provisions are not applicable to these cases. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue i...
Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Aurangabad Vs. General Mana ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2010
Per: D.N. Panda, Member (Judicial) No COD has been obtained in this case. Keeping this appeal pending is considered to be of no use. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of COD....
M/S Vikas Automatic Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Ex ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2010
Per: Ashok Jindal The appellants are manufacturer of nuts and bolts falling under Chapter sub-heading 7318.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants had cleared the goods described as Agricultural Implements Kit under Chapter sub-heading 8432.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 during the period April, 2001 to March, 2002. The Assistant Commissioner classified the said goods under Chapter sub-heading No. 7318.10 and confirmed the duty demand. 2. The issue involved in this appeal with regard to the classification of Agricultural Implements Kits/Parts claimed by the appellants under Chapter sub-heading 8432.00 and classified by the Revenue under Chapter sub-heading 7318.10. 3. The matter was listed for final disposal on today. None appeared on behalf of the appellant, but the appellants have filed written submissions, which were taken on record and considered. We have heard the learned SDR on behalf of the Revenue. 4. On careful consideration of th...
General Manager, Telecom District Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Commis ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2010
Per: D.N. Panda, Member (Judicial) 1. The appellant is absent today, so also there is no adjournment application. 2. Learned DR appearing on behalf of Revenue made us to understand that it is through the book adjustment the duty liability has been discharged without following due process of law. Even the appellant has to discharge duty liability on the PCO. The appellant is a public sector undertaking. 3. We appreciate that there was administrative difficulty by which the book adjustment has been done for discharge of tax liability. Procedures should not be tyrant, but should be servant of law. Ends of justice will be met by remanding this matter to the lower authority to examine adjustment whether done for appropriate amount. Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the learned adjudicating authority to examine the records of the appellant, and if found that through book adjustment the tax liability has been discharged there may not be any difficulty to grant appropriate credit to av...
M/S Prestige Hm Polycontainer Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Cent ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2010
Per: Ashok Jindal M/s Prestige HM Polycontainer Ltd. has filed this appeal against the confirmation of demand of Rs.62,81,378/- and imposition of equivalent amount of penalty and Shri P.K. Gupta, MD, Shri S.V. Hegde, VP and Shri Mohan Suvarna, GM have filed the appeals against imposition of penalty of Rs.6 lakhs, Rs.6 lakhs and Rs.2 lakhs respectively. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants having two units - one at Talasari (Maharashtra) and other in the Union Territory of Daman. At Talasari unit, the appellants were manufacturing HDPE barrels, skull barrels, lids and bungs and at Daman unit, the appellants are manufacturing HDPE barrels. They were paying duty on the said product at Talasari unit, which were being removed to Daman unit for undertaking operations such as de-burring, fitting of lids, printing where the goods were cleared on payment of duty after availing the Modvat credit to the duty paid at Talasari unit. 3. The issue involved in this case with regard...
Machine Crafters and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal These are three appeals. One filed by the Revenue and the other two by the assessee against the same order. They are, therefore, being decided by a common order. 2. The Revenue has filed the appeal against the impugned order on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) while setting aside the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner has remanded the matter for re-adjudication by the original authority. The ground on which the impugned order is sought to be challenged is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand a matter. We find that the order passed by the appellate authority is not maintainable. The Commissioner (Appeals) himself has to readjudicate the matter after hearing the parties. In the fact of the case the Revenue is justified in placing reliance in the decision in the case...
Beri Architects and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Ex ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2010
Per: D.N. Panda, Member (Judicial) 1. The appellant is not present today. There is an adjournment application. 2. The learned DR guides us to understand the case. He points out that the materials on record are not able to disclose the value of the engineering consultancy service, which is claimed to have been clubbed with the service of architect. In the absence of proper evidence, learned Commissioner (Appeals) rightly dismissed the appeal of the appellant. 3. The appellant although is not present today, better guidance has been provided by learned DR. The appeal is lying for about six years. Therefore, it is not possible to add to pendency. We noticed that there is no enough materials on record when the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal. We find that the law was at the infancy stage. The appellant was not able to bring the materials for production before the authorities below. Learned DR guides that the assessee has paid the tax on the architect service. Record doe...
Construma Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Mum ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2010
Per: D.N. Panda, Member (Judicial) 1. A fair submission has been made in Bar by the learned counsel that the appellant would not like to litigate the matter further. In view of the infancy stage of law there was series of confusion about the service tax liability which resulted in default in payment of dues unintentionally. Learned counsel also submitted that the appellant would not prefer to litigate the matter further and confusion of law itself is a good ground to consider concession in penalty leniently for the above reasonable ground. 2. Learned DR supports the order of the authorities below and submits that when the legislation enacted the provision, it was well known that no concession of penalty should be granted. 3. On hearing both sides and after examining the records as well as appreciating that the appellant does not want to litigate the matter further and also the proceedings throws light that the proceeding was initiated at the earliest stage of the inception of law, it ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »