Mumbai Court September 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.
Krishna Export Corporation Umakant Tiwari Solanki Trade Links Vs. Comm ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal Out of these three appeals, one of the appeal filed by M/s. Krishna Export Corporation against the confiscation of their goods and imposition of redemption fine along with the penalty holding that they have imported goods without Special Import Licence in contravention with the provision of the Exim Policy and the Customs Act, 1962 and the other appeals filed by the appellants namely Shri Umakant Tiwari and M/s. Solanki Trade Links against the penalties imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The facts of the case are that during the course of investigation by DRI it came to their notice that Special Import Licences were forged mainly in the following manner:- i) The license bearing the given number had not been issued by the Licensing Authority and the same had been forged on original stationery with forged seals and signatures, ii) The license bearing the given number had been issued by the Licensing Authority however, multiple copies had been ma...
Prima Papers and Engineering Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Exci ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2010
Per: S.S. Kang 1. Heard both sides. 2. The appeal filed by the present appellant is against the impugned order whereby the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Act was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various motor vehicle parts and availed credit of Rs 27,641/-. On 31.8.2005 the Revenue pointed that the documents on the strength on which credit was availed is in the name of other unit of the appellant which is situated in the same locality. The appellant reversed the credit alongwith interest and are not contesting the reversal of credit. The contention of the appellant is that as the duty paying documents are in the name of the appellant and the address was given in the invoice was of other unit which is situated in the same locality and therefore there was no intention to evade payment of duty. Hence penalty under Section 11AC of the Act was not sustainable. 3. The contention of the Revenue i...
Kalsis Kitchenette Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Iii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2010
Per: S.S. Kang 1. Heard both sides. 2. The appellant has filed this appeal against imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act. The appellants are providing canteen service to National Institute of Bank Management. Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant demanding service tax on account that the appellants were providing outdoor catering services and also for imposition of penalties. The appellants paid the amount of service tax alongwith interest and are not contesting the same. The adjudicating authority also imposed a penalty equal to confirmed demand under Section 78 of the Finance Act. The appellants filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed their appeal. The contention of the appellants is that during the period of dispute the appellants were under a bona fide belief that they are not providing any taxable service. The contention is that they entered into an agreement with the Institute and as per the agreement the Institute has to provide water...
Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad Vs. Vishwa Elec ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2010
Per: S.S. Kang 1. Heard learned JDR and the respondent made a request for adjournment through proxy counsel Shri S.N. Kantawala. I find that the case was adjourned three times earlier at the request of the respondent. Therefore, the request for adjournment is declined. 2. The Revenue filed the present appeal against the impugned order whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the quantum of penalty under Section 11AC and also set aside the confiscation of the goods which were found unaccounted in the statutory records. 3. The contention of the Revenue is that as the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the respondent is liable for penalty under Section 11AC of the Act, hence there is no discretion with him to impose penalty less than the amount of confirmed demand. In the present case, the demand confirmed is of Rs 44,880/- and penalty of equal amount is imposed by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the impugned order reducing the penalty imposed under Section 1...
Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-2010
Heard the learned SDR as the appellant has made a request for decision on merits vide letter dated 02/08/2010. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the refund claim of the appellant was rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that the 'Business Auxiliary Services' / 'Business Support Services' provided by the appellant for export of goods was not covered under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06/10/2007 during the period July, 2008 to September, 2008. 3. The contention of the appellant is that as the services which are provided for export purposes are exempted from payment of service tax vide Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06/10/2007 hence refund was wrongly denied. 4. Revenue submitted that the Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. was amended w.e.f. 07/12/2008 and vide this amendment exemption is granted to 'Clearing and Forwarding Agency Service' if the same are for export of goods and/or export of service. The amendment is prospective in natur...
Indian Explosives Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Servi ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-2010
Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby demand of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act is confirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant are clearing goods to their sister-unit and paying duty on approximate basis. Subsequent clearances of the goods, at the end of the financial year, as per the cost construction method the appellant are arriving at the cost of assessable value of the goods and paying differential duty. Show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for demand of interest under Section 11AB of the Act in respect of the differential duty paid subsequent to the clearance of the goods. 3. The contention of the appellant is that at the time of clearance it is difficult to arrive at the cost of manufacture. Therefore, at the end of the financial year, when the actual data of cost is available, the appellant are arriving at the actual cost of production and are paying differential duty, in case lesse...
Bullows Paints Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-2010
Heard both sides. 2. The appeal is being taken up in pursuance of the order dated 02/02/2009 passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The Hon'ble High Court has held as under: "3. Learned counsel on both sides agree that in view of the Larger Bench decision of the tribunal in MRP Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore 2007 (208) ELT 19 (Tri.-LB) as also in the light of Notification No. 7/99-C.E.(N.T.) dated 9-2-1999, the decision of the tribunal be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the tribunal to pass fresh order in accordance with law. Accordingly, the order of the tribunal dated 28-8-2001 is set aside and the matter is remitted back for denovo consideration in accordance with law." 3. The appellant are engaged in the manufacture of paint equipments and working under the MODVAT scheme. In respect of certain imported inputs the appellant availed credit after six months from the date of return of the Bill of Entry. The Revenue disallowed the credit and adjudi...
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Vs. Sun Earth Cerawies Ltd. ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
Per: Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President 1. Heard the Ld.SDR as none appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of notice. The respondent filed cross-objections. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of ceramic tiles. On the day of visit it was found that the respondent cleared six consignments of finished goods without debiting excise duty. On physical verification of the stock, certain quantity of raw materials was also found short and certain unaccounted finished goods were found in the factory. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty after denying the credit in respect of the inputs found short and also confirmed the demand of duty and ordered confiscation in respect of the goods cleared without payment of duty. The unaccounted goods found in the factory also confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine and penalty was also imposed. On appeal filed by the respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals) set a...
Sussan Asia Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
Per: Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President 1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellants nor is there any request for adjournment. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution....
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra L ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
Per: Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President 1. Since a common issue is involved in these appeals, we taken up these appeals together. 2. Revenue filed these appeals against the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the waste lube oil after retrieval from the machinery is not excisable goods, hence not liable for duty. We find that this issue has already settled by the Tribunal in the case of Spic Pharmaceuticals Division Vs. CCE, Chennai, reported in 2007 (213) ELT 679 (Tri-Chennai), Vikrant Tyres Ltd., Vs. CCE, Mysore, reported in 2004 (171) ELT 23 (Tri.-Bang.) and CCE, Chennai Vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd., reported in 2008 (230) ELT 470 (Tri-Chennai). The Tribunal in the above decisions has held that waste lube oil after retrieval from the machinery is not liable to excise duty as the same is not manufactured goods. 3. In view of the above decisions, we find no infirmity in the impugned order, the appeals are dismissed....