Mumbai Court January 2012 Judgments
Commissioner of Customs (imports) Nhava Sheva Vs. Nitco Tiles Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2012
Ashok Jindal: Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order and are seeking stay of operation of the impugned order. 2. We have heard both the sides and find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, we are considering the appeal as well as the stay application together. 3. It is a case where the Bills of Entry filed by the respondent were assessed provisionally wherein they paid SAD @ 4% and being a trader they sold the goods imported by them within one year and discharged CST/VAT and claimed refund of SAD paid by them. The refund claim filed by the respondent were not entertained by the adjudicating authority holding that the assessment of bills of entry were provisional, therefore, the refund claim is premature and were directed to file refund claims as and when the assessments are finalised. After the Notification No. 93/08 dated 01/08/2008, wherein it was pointed out that the refund claim of SAD is to be filed within one year from the date of payment of...
Tag this Judgment!Jugal Kishore Shivlal Vs. Commissioner of Customs (imports) Nhava Shev ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2012
Ashok Jindal: The appellant are in appeal against the impugned order confirming levy of CVD on ‘Gum Arabic waste’ imported by the appellant. As common issue is involved in both the appeals, therefore, both the appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant imported ‘Gum Arabic Waste/Rejects’ and filed Bills of Entry for the clearance of the same by classifying their product under Chapter Heading 1301 2000. The Bills of Entry were assessed and it was held that CVD is payable on the imported ‘Gum Arabic Waste/Rejects’. The said order was challenged by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected their claim and confirmed the adjudication order. Therefore, the appellant are in appeal before us. 3. Shri Krishan Kumar, advocate/learned counsel appeared for the appellant before us and submitted that the first appellate authority has rejected their claim for non-levy...
Tag this Judgment!Anay Tours and Travels Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Pune - Iii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2012
Ashok Jindal: The appellant are in appeal against the impugned order along with a stay application. 2. After hearing both the sides, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, we take up the appeal itself for final disposal as agreed by both the sides. 3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on limitation only without discussing the merits of the case and the appeal was dismissed by holding that the appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation as the order-in-original was issued on 24/10/2008 and the appeal has been filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 05/03/2010. 4. On perusal of the records and obtaining the report of service of the order-in-original from the Assistant Commissioner, Pune - III, and as per the report, we find that the order-in-original was served on the appellant on 17/12/2009 and, thereafter, t...
Tag this Judgment!Wellman Hindustan Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export) Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2012
Ashok Jindal: The appellant are in appeal along with the stay application against the impugned order confirming the demand of duty along with interest and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. 2. As the issue involved is of narrow compass, therefore, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, we take up the appeal itself for disposal as agreed by both the sides. 3. Today, when the matter was called for considering the stay application filed by the appellant, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that they have not received the impugned order which is ex parte order. He further submits that they neither received any notice of hearing in the matter as their unit was under the custody of Court Receiver appointed by the hon’ble High Court during the impugned period. Therefore, the matter be sent back to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration of the issue involved and to pass an appropriate order. 4. Heard the learned counsel and perused the records. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Ii Vs. Kay Iron Works Pvt Ltd. an ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2012
S.S. Kang 1. Revenue filed these applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. 2. The adjudication order was passed on 31.5.2001 and the Board reviewed the order in respect of M/s Eagle Engineering Works and Revenue filed an appeal against M/s Eagle Engineering Works. The Tribunal vide Order dated 25.05.2008 declined to condone the delay in the appeals filed against the present respondent on the ground that sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the normal period of limitation is not shown. The Revenue challenged the order of the Tribunal before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 5.5.2009 held as under: “4. On behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel submits, that from the grounds it will be clear that if was against the show cause notice. In our opinion, when a body has to exercise jurisdiction, it has to apply its mind to what was placed before it and what is had understood. The permission was sou...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Sai Shraddha Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bela ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2012
S.S. Kang 1. Heard both sides. 2. As common issue involved, therefore, all the applications are taken up together for disposal. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals filed by the applicants as time barred on the ground that the same were filed beyond the condonable period as provided under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. We find that this issue is now settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur- 2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this decision held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore the appeals are being taken up for hearing. 5. The present appellant filed four appeals against different adjudication orders before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the same. T...
Tag this Judgment!Vinar Ispat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Nagpu ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2012
S.S. Kang 1. Heard both sides. 2. The applicant filed the application for condonation of delay of one year and 26 days in filing the appeal. 3. The reason mentioned in the application and during the argument is that the adjudication order was passed on 26.10.09 and received by the applicant on 30.10.2009. The contention of the applicant is that the concerned employee who was dealing with Excise matters Mr. Santosh expired on 12.2.2010 and thereafter the applicants took sometime to appoint another employee and thereafter a consultant was appointed and due to this process undertaken by the applicant, there is a delay in filing the appeal. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner (A.R) appearing for the Revenue submitted that as per the death certificate produced by the applicant, Mr Santosh expired on 12.2.2010 i.e. much after the expiry of normal period of limitation, as the adjudication order was received by the applicant on 31.10.2009 and this fact is not in dispute. 5. We find that as ...
Tag this Judgment!indira Namdeo Patil Vs. the Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of Ind ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-2012
Narendra Kawde, Member (1) This is an old complaint lying unattended and was listed on Board for hearing and disposal. Notices were issued to parties on 03/06/2011 and complaint was fixed for hearing on 27/06/2011. Complainant was present through Adv. H.H.Dave and on behalf of all the opponents, Sanjay Parekh was present. On next date of hearing i.e. on 14/09/2011, Adv.Naveen Kumar Poojary was present for all the opponents and filed his Vakalatnama, However, complainants advocate remained absent. Case was heard finally at the stage of admission on 13/12/2011 with the consent of parties and reserved for orders. (2) Salient facts giving rise to the complaint are summarized as below:- Shri Gajanan Namdeo Patil (Life assured), son of the complainant subscribed to life insurance policies as details herein below issued by opponent, LIC:Sr.NoPolicy NoPlanDate of MaturitySum AssuredDate of Commencement190075216914-20Rs.50,000/-Rs.50,000/-19/01/20112.90075217014-20Rs.50,000/-12/01/199112/01/201...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Sal Steel Vs. Cce and Customs, Nashik
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.1,63,17,206/-, interest and penalty. 3. The applicants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S Flats and M.S. Bars of various sizes and are availing value based S.S.I exemption under Notification No. 8/2003 dated 01.03.2003. On 26.12.2008, the officers of the Revenue visited factory premises of the applicants and a trial run regarding electrical power consumption were conducted for two hours. On the basis of power consumption of two hrs in respect of goods manufactured during trial shows suppression of their production. Show-cause notice was issued for the period 2005-2009 on the ground that the applicants was showing higher consumption of electricity and the quantum of electric consumption during the two hours trial made bases for the demand. In this regard the demand of Rs.84,13,887/- is confirmed. Another demand of Rs.78,75,000/- is confirmed after denying the benefit of exempti...
Tag this Judgment!Madavdas Wanwari Pbm Polytex Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Custo ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
Ashok Jindal 1. The appellants are in appeals along with stay applications. Today, the stay applications on behalf of he appellants were listed but after hearing both sides at length, we find that the appeals itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of the demands/penalties adjudged in the impugned orders, we have taken up the appeals for disposal. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants, viz., M/s.Bajaj Exports and M/s.Wimpex International exported some fabrics and filed shipping bills before the customs authorities. After clearance of the their export goods, on the basis of the shipping bills, the appellant firms applied to DGFT for DEEC licences, which were granted to them. Later on, during the course of investigation, it was found that the appellant firm has obtained DEEC licence from DGFT by forging the quantity/weight/blend of the fabrics on the shipping bills and obtained that DEEC licence for higher quantity. On t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »