Mumbai Court January 2012 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.
M/S. Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
Sahab Singh Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as - the appellants) are engaged in the manufacture of optic fibers and optic fiber cables falling under Chapter 90 and 85 respectively of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are carrying out the manufacturing activity of optic fiber cables at plot No.E-1 and optic fibers at plot No.E-2 both located at MIDC, Waluj, Aurangabad. Optical fibers manufactured by them are captively used in the manufacture of optical fiber cables. Adjacent to plot No.E-1 and E-2. Plot No.E-3 MIDC, Waluj, Aurangabad was also in the name of the appellants where no activity was carried out by them. The said plot was vacant plot without any construction on it. The appellants had applied to the Board of Approval, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Industry, New Delhi for setting up an 100% Export Oriented Unit at plot located at E-3. The appellants, after getting t...
Essar Projects (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (imports) Mumb ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
Ashok Jindal 1. The appellants have filed an appeal along with stay application against the impugned order. 2. After hearing both sides at length, we find that the issue is in a narrow compass, therefore, we felt that the matter can be disposed of at this stage. With the consent of both sides, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty, we have taken up the appeal itself for disposal. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant is an EPC contractor to Essar Power M.P.Ltd., for the purpose of power project. Therefore, they have imported 2 Nos Off Road Mining Truck with accessories and filed bill of entry for warehousing. The goods were confiscated for violation of licensing note No.2 (2) (II) (a), (b), (c) of Chapter 87 of ITC (HS) and allowed to be re-export of payment of redemption fine of Rs.45.00 lakhs and a penalty of Rs.15.00 lakhs was also imposed under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before us. 4. The Ld....
Arihant Telecommunication Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Custo ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
Ashok Jindal: The appeal as well as the stay application have been filed by the appellant before us. 2. Today, only the stay application is listed before us. But, after hearing both the sides at length, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, as agreed by both sides, we take up the appeal for final disposal after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of the interest and penalties as service tax has already been paid by the appellant. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the activity of selling of SIM cards and registered with the service tax department. They are paying service tax regularly but not on proper challan of the Central Government, but they are depositing the same to the State Government and not filing their regular returns. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued for demand of service tax which adjudicated ex-parte as the appellant did not respondent to the show cause notice as well as to the notice of hearing...
Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad Vs. Chemo Servi ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
S.S. Kang 1. Heard the learned Superintendent (A.R) on behalf of the appellant, as none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice. On the last date of hearing also, respondents were unrepresented. 2. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 30.09.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents M/s Chemo Services are engaged in the manufacturers of HDPE/PP Woven Fabrics (non-laminated) falling under Chapter 39 of the Central excise Tariff Act, 1985. A Show Cause-cum-Demand Notice dated 28.5.1998 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad alleging that the respondents had cleared 6171.900 kg of HDPE laminated fabrics purported to have been woven on Circular looms valued at Rs 3,33,884.86 after discharging duty @ 25% in terms of SSI Exemption Notification No. 1/93 in the month of May, 1993. They were not having facility of Circular...
M/S. Loreal India Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pun ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
Sahab Singh M/s. Loreal India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellants’ ) are engaged in the manufacture of various types of Cosmetic preparations falling under Chapter 33 of Central Excise Tariff Act,1985. They have their Head Office at Mumbai and Branches located at various parts of the country. During the scrutiny of records of the appellants by the Central Excise Officers, Pune, it was noticed that they were importing and trading in certain types of cosmetic preparations from their Head Office at Mumbai. The same were being imported by their Head Office and subsequently cleared directly to customers or to their branches located at various parts of the country. They were availing Cenvat credit on inputs and input services used in or in relation to manufacture of their final products. Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods was availed on the basis of duty paid on inputs and capital goods received by them in their factory. Cenvat credit on input services wa...
Techcoat (Nashik) Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
S.S. Kang 1. Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Brief facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of Lacquered Metalised Polyester Film as well as Imitation Zari. The appellants were clearing Lacquered Metalised Polyester Film on payment of appropriate duty. The appellants were also clearing Lacquered Metalised Polyester Film to the job worker under Rule 57 F (4) challans for further processing in the manufacture of Imitation Zari. Imitation Zari was received by the appellant and after packing the same were cleared at nil rate of duty as Imitation Zari is exempted. The case of the revenue is that the appellants are clearing Lacquered Metalised Polyester Film to job worker which is finished product without payment of duty and the appellants are liable to pay duty at this stage as the same cannot be treated as input for Zari. 3. The Show Cause Notice was issued and the adjudicating...
Chandubhai Babubhai Patel and Others Vs. Bank of Baroda Through Chief ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member This consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opponent- Bank of Baroda (herein after referred as Bank) in rendering the banking services. Undisputed facts are that the complainants jointly opened a Saving Bank account with Dombivali (E) branch of the bank bearing no.07330100017422 on 16/01/2009. As an initial deposit, they have deposited an amount of Rs.1000/-. On the same day they were also issued a cheque book of 20 leaves bearing nos.037101 to 037120. On the following day i.e. on 17/01/2009, Rs.1,00,000/- were credited to their said account as received from one Mr.Dahyabai S.Patel holding an account with the banks Kapadwanj Branch (Gujarat). On such deposit complainant issued a cheque in favour of M/s.Laxmi Home Makers for Rs.1,00,000/- and it was honoured on 21/01/2009. Thereafter, on 29/01/2009 another credit of Rs.4,50,000/- was received as Real Time Gross Settlement from one Mr.Pachanbhai Samjibhai P...
Rafiq Mahmood Naik Vs. Samrat Construction Through Its Partners Irfan ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member [1] This consumer complaint alleges deficiency in service on the part of the Opponents/Builders and Developers for not handing over possession of a shop situated on the ground floor admeasuring 300 sq. ft. and residential accommodations situated on the first and second floors having total area admeasuring 2,100 sq. ft., from the property which was developed. [2] Undisputed facts are that the Complainant, namely Mr. Rafiq Mahmood Naik (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant for the sake of brevity) entered into an agreement of development of his property bearing Survey No.215, Hissa No.5/2-B/5, having area admeasuring 0H.12.44Ares, situated at Village Zhadgaon, out of municipal limit within Gram Panchayat Shirgaon, Taluka and District Ratnagiri. Accordingly, a development agreement dated 27/2/2004 was executed with said M/s. Samrat Constructions, having partners, namely Mr. Irfan Muhammadalli Chougule and Mr. Irfan Ismail Mungi (hereinaft...
Surbhit Impex P. Ltd. and Another Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Ep), Mu ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) These appeals and stay applications are filed against Order-in-Original No. 68/2011-12/CAC/AK dated 30.09.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (EP), Mumbai. 2. The facts arising for consideration in this case are as follows. The appellant Surbhit Impex imported textile fabrics of various quantities under bills of entry numbers 940205 dated 22.3.2010, 940191 dated 22.3.2010, 938696 dated 10.3.2010 and 940190 dated 22.3.2010. They declared the description of goods under import as polyester fabrics. In respect of bill of entry no. 938696 dated 10.3.2010 they claimed classification under CTH no. 54075210 whereas for the other three bills of entry, classification was claimed under CTH 5407 5220. All the bills of entry were subjected to ‘first check examination’ and samples were drawn from the consignment and forwarded to the textile committee for test. The textile committee after testing the fabrics reported that the sample characte...
Saimehar Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-03-2012
Ashok Jindal 1. The appellant had filed an application for early hearing of the appeal on the ground that the issue involved is valuation of imported goods, which is recurring in nature. Therefore, the appeal can be heard on priority basis. 2. Heard the Ld. Counsel and we allow the application for early hearing and considered the merits of the case. Therefore, we have taken up the appeal today itself for disposal. 3. We have gone through the impugned order wherein the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation as the appellant has not filed any appeal within the prescribed period of 60 days before the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the appellant has filed an appeal within the extended period of limitation of 30 days. The contention of the appellant (for condonation of delay) has not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the reason stated is not satisfactory. 4. We have considered the submission of the appellant as the demand of duty made on the basis of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »