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.
Diffusion Engineers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Nagpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2010
Per: D.N. Panda, Member (Judicial) 1. Both sides are on rival submissions as to recovery of service tax from the appellant on the service provided by the foreign consultant to the appellant prior to a notified date. Revenue's claim is that the appellant agreed in terms of an agreement, to pay service tax liability, for which it shall be liable following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kerala State Electricity Board vs. CCE, Thiruvananthapuram 2008 (9) STR 3 (SC). But the appellant rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association reported in 2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom.) and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2010 (17) STR J57 (SC) and negates the proposition of Revenue. 2. There is no dispute that the adjudication related to the period 1999-2000 and 2000-01. Consultancy service was provided by foreign consultant to the Indian appellant in terms of an agreement and as per appellate order para 7(vii), there w...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-iii Vs. M/S Blue Star Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2010
Per: Ashok Jindal This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner wherein he reduced the demand to Rs.35,15,930.80 after giving the benefit of Notification No. 166/86 for exemption/concessional rate of duty to the respondent considering the cooling capacity not exceeding 7.5 tonnes. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 8.1.91 the officers of Central Preventive Unit of Central Excise visited the respondent s unit and scrutinized certain documents relating to the production of package air-conditioners viz. gate passes and quality control reports maintained by the respondent. As a result of such scrutiny, discrepancies between the quality control reports and the gate passes in respect of the capacity of the package air-conditioners i.e. tonnage of air-conditioners came to be noticed. The capacity of the PACs reported in the quality control chart was found to be higher than that mentioned in the gate passes. Quality control reports which contained spe...
Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai Vs. Filtra Material Research (P)lt ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2010
Per : D.N. Panda The Revenue’s appeal is that the respondents’ services should be categorized as ‘Consulting Engineering services’ instead of ‘Scientific and Technical Consultancy Services’. The ld.DR submits that the first appellate authority, without examining the substance of the transactions, came to the conclusion that the assessee has provided Scientific and Technical Consultancy services. He took us to para 6 of his order to suggest that the nature of the activity depicted therein falls within the category of ‘Consulting Engineering Services’. Ld.counsel on the other hand submits that the respondent is a ‘Scientific Research Institution’ and it has been registered with Government of India, Ministry of Science and Technology, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research vide letter No.TU/IV-RD/1438/91-92 dated 14.3.1992. He also submits that the respondent has been assessed under Income-tax Act 1961, as a Scientific ...
M/S. H and R Johnson (India)ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumb ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2010
Per : D.N. Panda None present for the appellant. 2. The ld.D.R. submits that the appellant could not substantiate their claim by representation or adducing the evidence. Therefore, the appellate authority was bound to pass the order upholding the Order-in-Original. 3. Heard the Revenue and also have gone through the first appellate order. It appears that the personal hearing was fixed before the first appellate authority on 13.3.2003. The appellant was granted a personal hearing before the adjudicating authority on two occasions. The grievance of the appellant was that a writ petition was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the subject matter. It was also the grievance of the appellant that the impugned order was passed by the lower appellate authority without following the due course of natural justice. 4. The absence of the appellant before the ld.adjudicating authority to convince him leading evidence, suggests that the appellant deserves a fair opportunity of being ...
Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai Vs. Ian Christopher Crosby and Oth ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2010
This is a very sad state of affairs that the Revenue has no evidence to contradict the findings of the first appellate authority. We are in a helpless situation to come to the rescue of the Revenue, if no cogent evidence is adduced for consideration of the Revenues appeals. Consequently, we dismiss the appeals of the Revenue....
Cms Securitas Limited 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 The appellant is not present today. 2. We are surprised to note that the appellant who is claiming refund of Rs. 20,41,085/-has not come forward to lead any evidence in support of his claim nor its vigilant attitude shown by any adjournment application. Therefore, we sought assistance of the Revenue to examine the whole case. 3. Ld. D.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that the authorities have rightly examined the issues and finding no evidence for refund did not grant any refund. The appellant also could not explain its case nor led any evidence before the adjudicating authority for proper conclusion of the matter. 4. On hearing the Revenue and also perusal of the record, we find that the show-cause notice dated 18.9.07 was issued directing the appellant to produce various documents for examination by the Revenue about the nature of the activity carried out by the appellant so as to ascertain whether any service tax was collected by the appellant. The ld...
Gyro Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2010
Per : B.S.V. Murthy The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of transformers and supplied transformers to various electricity boards claiming full exemption under Notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.8.95. The Notification exempted goods when supplied to United Nations or International Organizations for their official use or supplied to the projects financed by United Nations or International Organizations. The Notification also defines International Organizations. The project undertaken by the electricity board were financed by Japan Bank for International Cooperation. Duty demand has been confirmed against the appellants on the ground that Japan Bank for International Co-operation is not an organization covered by the declaration of the Central Government and therefore the appellant is not eligible for exemption. The show cause notice was issued on 28.06.2002 whereas the period during which goods were removed was from 20.12.2000 to 10.11.2001. No penalty has been imposed on the ap...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs. Ganesh Ssk Ltd. and Oth ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2010
Per : B.S.V. Murthy Even though the appeals have been filed against different orders, the issue involved is same and facts are also same in all these cases and therefore all the appeals have been considered together and a common order has been passed. 2. The issue involved is that all the appellants are manufacturers of sugar and they also have distillery unit. Molasses is a bye-product which arises during the course of manufacture of sugar and it is used for manufacture of Ethyl Alcohol. The assessees are manufacturing sugar, molasses and Ethyl Alcohol of dutiable as well as non-dutiable nature. The assessee followed the procedure prescribed as per Rule 57CC and discharged duty liability as per the provisions of Rule 57F(12) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and utilised the surplus CENVAT credit of duty paid on molasses for payment of duty on sugar. The department is in appeal on the ground that the credit of duty paid on molasses cannot be used for payment of duty on sugar. 3. Hea...
M/S. Hindustan Colas Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2010
Per : D.N.Panda The appellant’s grievance in this case is that the entire technology was provided before the commencement of the commercial production i.e. 1.3.1996. That cannot be converted into Consulting Engineering Services’. The ld.counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that when the appellant did not provide any service of the nature prescribed as ‘Consultaing Engineering Services after 7.7.1997 or before that, there shall be no liability of the appellant under Finance Act, 1994. To support his plea that the service provided was not Consulting Engineering service, he relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of NYCO S.A. vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi [ 2009(15)S.T.R. 470 (Tri-Del.). 2. The ld.D.R. supports the order of the authority below. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. The Order-in-Original brings out the fact that the commercial production of the Appellant started on 1.3.96. There is no evidence on record to suggest...
Shri Munilal Mehra Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2010
Per : B.S.V. Murthy Penalty of Rs.1 lakh each has been imposed on the appellant in the two impugned orders under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that he had abetted in the disposal of raw silks imported into India on the basis of Advance License contrary to the terms of license by opening an account in the name of fictitious firm and obtaining the bank draft and sending the same. 2. Shri Anil Balani, learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant had not dealt with the goods which are liable to confiscation nor he had assisted the importation in rendering the goods liable to confiscation. Therefore, he submits that penalty cannot be sustained. Further he also relied upon the following two decisions of the Tribunal in support of the contention that no penalty can be imposed when a person had not dealt with the goods:- (a) Munilal Mehra vs. CC (Adj.) - 2008 (226) ELT 102 (Tri.-Mum.) (b) Jiwraj Srinivas Rathi vs CC (adj.) - 2008 (228) ELT 415 (Tri....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »