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.
Geldhof Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-03-2012
Ashok Jindal 1. The appellant had filed this appeal along with stay application against the impugned order. 2. The facts of case are that the appellants have cleared the goods from their factory and as the appellants are having their own vehicles for transportation of goods. Therefore, they used their vehicles for transporting the goods and charged transportation charges, which have been shown in the invoices separately. 3. The department is of the view that the transportation charges shown in the invoice are more than the actual expenses incurred by the appellant for transportation charges therefore, the amounts, which they have referred excess over and above the expenses incurred by them in transportation charges is includable in the assessable value. Therefore, the demand of Rs.2,92,492/- was confirmed along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before us. 4. After hearing both sides at length, we find that the matter itself ...
Maharashtra Dyeing and Printing Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Exci ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-03-2012
Ashok Jindal 1. The appeals along with stay applications have filed by the appellants against the impugned order wherein duty demand has been confirmed on the basis of annual production capacity under Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. 2. 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, we have taken up the appeal for disposal. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants has contended that their annual production capacity was first assessed provisionally, which was finalized by order dated 01/07/99 under Section 3A (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Against that they have made a representation to the Commissioner of Central Excise for re-determination of their annual production capacity, as the annual capacity of production was fixed is not proper as there were one Stenter was permanently closed under Section 3A (3) of the Cent...
Jaika Motors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Nagpu ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-02-2012
Ashok Jindal: The appellant are in appeal along with stay application. 2. After hearing both sides, we find that the issue involved is in a narrow compass and, therefore, after granting waiver of pre-deposit, we take up the appeal itself for disposal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant were directed by the first appellate authority to deposit the entire amount of service tax on 17/08/2010. The stay order was received by the appellant on 21/08/2010 wherein a direction was given to make pre-deposit within 5 days of the receipt of the order. As the appellant could not make pre-deposit till 26/08/2010, therefore, on 31/08/2010 their appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of the Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. On 04/09/2010 the appellant has complied with the stay order and, therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant prays that the matter be remanded back to the first appel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›