Mumbai Court January 2012 Judgments
Shreeji Knitters and Crimpers and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central E ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
Sahab Singh These appeals are filed by the appellants, M/s. Shreeji Knitters and Crimpers, Shri J.P. Maheshwari, Shri Gautam Dutta and Smt. Pushpa Maheshwari, against order-in-appeal No. PD/09 to 12/Th-II/2004 dated 30.1.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of nylon crimped yarn and polyester crimped yarn. The period of dispute is August 2000 to July 2002. Prior to March 2000, excise duty on the above two types of yarn was on ad valorem basis. With effect from 1.3.2000, the specific duty was prescribed for polyester texturised yarn and the ad valorem duty continued for the nylon crimped yarn. However, the appellants continued to pay the duty on the texturised nylon yarn on the specific rate basis. Based on intelligence, the case was investigated by the officers of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence. During the scrutiny of the records, it was found that the a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs (imports) Vs. Vinayaga Marine Petro Ltd. and O ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
Ashok Jindal: Revenue has filed these appeals against the impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). As the issue involved in all the appeals are common, therefore, all the appeals are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondents had imported various items of iron and steel and paid SAD at the time of clearance of the goods from the Customs. It is the claim of the respondents while clearing the goods in the domestic market that they have discharged their liability of VAT/CST and accordingly they have filed refund claims of SAD paid by them under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14/09/2007. Except in appeal Nos. C/433 and 434/2009 the refund claims were rejected by the adjudicating authority and in these two appeals, the refund claims were sanctioned. The rejection of the refund claims were challenged by the respondents before the Commissioner (Appeals) and Revenue challenged the sanction of refund claims in their appeal Nos. C/433 and 4...
Tag this Judgment!Financial Technologies (i) Ltd. Dewang Neralla Vs. Commissioner of Cen ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. The applicants filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.68,86,990/-, interest and penalty of equal amount. The demand is for the period March 2006 to December 2006 in respect of software licence key. The contention of the applicant is that prior to 1.3.2006 the software was exempted from payment of central excise duty. It is only with effect from 1.3.2006 the software is liable to central excise duty. The applicant is engaged in the manufacture of software and got themselves registered with the Revenue authorities on 29.3.2006. The applicant had already supplied software to various customers prior to 1.3.2006, regarding which they supplied software licence key subsequent to 1.3.2006 for additional use of the software by the customers. The applicant took a specific plea before the adjudicating authority that the applicant had only supplied the key which permits the right to use the information technology software and the document wh...
Tag this Judgment!Sriroz Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Ex ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
Ashok Jindal: The appellants are in appeal along with the stay applications. It is the submission of the appellants that the impugned orders are not passed on merits but their appeals have been dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are providing the services of erection, commissioning and installation of green houses to their customers. The department is of the view that the said activity is covered under ‘Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service’ and, therefore, a show cause notice was issued for demanding service tax for the period 01/07/2003 to 31/03/2008. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands as proposed in the show cause notice along with interest and various penalties under the Finance Act, 1994. On appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), while considering the applications for stay, the Commissio...
Tag this Judgment!Sancalp Constructions Through Its Partners Prabhakar Pandurang Bhosale ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member 1. These two appeals are cross appeals, one filed by complainant and another filed by opponent and hence, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. Undisputed facts are that there was multiparty agreement in respect of flats constructed for economically poor section of the Society on a land belonging to Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe Magasvargiya Sanstha Maryadit, Dhanori, Pune. The complainant-Jaywant (hereinafter referred to as complainant) is one of the allottees of a flat in respect of flat No.14, building No.C. Total price agreed was Rs. 3 Lakhs which was payable directly to the developer/builder-M/s.Sankalp Constructions i.e. opponent (hereinafter referred to as builder). The possession was also to be received directly from the builder by the complainant. This particular registered multiparty agreement is dated 08/06/2005 and both the parties to this lis i.e. complainant and the builder are one of the signatories to the same. 3. It is allege...
Tag this Judgment!Cable Corporation of India Ltd. and Another Vs. Commissioner of Centra ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2012
S.S. Kang The appellant-manufacturer filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the demand is confirmed after denying the benefit of Exemption Notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.8.1995. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of insulated electric wire cables classifiable under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellant cleared certain quantity of wires and cables by claiming the benefit of Notification No.108/95-CE for setting up small hydro project at Hemavathy, Hassan District, Karnataka. The benefit of the Notification is denied on the ground that the appellant had supplied the goods to M/s. Sulzer Flovel Hydro Ltd. and not to the hydro project. 3. The contention of the appellant is that the wires and cables supplied to M/s. Sulzer Flovel Hydro Ltd., supplier of electro mechanical equipment to the hydro project, as the wires and cables are for the hydro project, therefore entitled for the benefit of the Notification....
Tag this Judgment!Ceat Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2012
Sahab Singh This is an appeal filed by M/s. CEAT Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) against the order-in-appeal No. BPS(314)6/2003 dated 9th October 2003. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s.South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd. (M/s. SATPL) were engaged in the manufacture of Tyres, Tubes and Flaps falling under Chapter 40 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985,. W.E.F.1.3.1997, the goods became chargeable to ad valorem rate of duty. Since M/s. SATPL was a joint venture between the CEAT i.e. the appellant on one side and M/s. Goodyear India Ltd. Goodyear, U.S.A. from the other side, the price charged by M/s. SATPL from the appellant was not considered as a transaction at arms length and accordingly during the period 17.4.1998 to 30.6.2000, the assessment of duty in respect of the goods manufactured and cleared by M/s. SATPL to the appellants were made on provisional under Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules. The manufacturer was required to discharge the Central ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Thomas Baker (Chemicals) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Ex ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2012
S.S.Kang Heard both sides. 2. Common issue is involved in these appeals therefore are taken up for together. 3. The applicant field these applications for total waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.24,22,487/-, interest and penalty. The applicant has already paid reversal of credit amounting to Rs.2,47,401/- and Rs.1,25,212/-. 4. The contention of applicant is that the demand is confirmed on the ground that applicants are availed credit in respect of the common inputs i.e. packing material used in or in relation to the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods. The demand is confirmed in view of the provisions of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules. On the ground that the applicants are liable to pay 10% of the price of exempted goods as applicants were not maintaining separate records in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods. 5. Applicant submitted that the provision of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules has been amended retrospectively by the Finance...
Tag this Judgment!The Employees Provident Fund Organisation Through the Authorised Repre ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2012
P.N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member (1) This is an appeal filed by the original Opponents - Regional Provident Fund Commissioner against the judgement and award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane in Consumer Complaint No.160/2006 decided on 29.08.2009. By allowing the complaint filed by the Respondent Kamalaprasad Bachai Pal, the District Forum directed the Opponents/Appellants to deposit Rs.56,960/- in the Bank Account of the Complainant with interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 07.04.2006 and to comply with this order within 30 days. (2) Facts lie in narrow compass are as under: The Consumer complaint was filed in 2006 for non-payment of provident fund dues by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Thane. According to Complainant he was working with M/s.Kiran Spinning Mills and he was having Provident Fund Account No.MH/9048/4028. Since M/s.Kiran Spinning Mills was closed in 2001 he applied for settlement of provident...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. Ballarpur Indus ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
S.S. Kang 1. Heard both sides. 2. Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand for the period from 1.3.2002 onwards on the ground that there was no recovery procedure prescribed either under the Central Excise Act or under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. 3. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of various types of paper falling under Chapter No. 48 of the Central Excise Tariff and cleared on payment of duty as well as exempted goods and availing credit in respect of the common inputs. Respondents were not maintaining separate records in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods and dutiable goods. Therefore, as per the provisions, the respondents were liable to pay 8% of the price of the exempted goods. Show Cause Notice was issued and the adjudicating authority confirmed demand of Rs 1,13,53,995/- alongwith interest and imposed a penalty by taking into con...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »