Mumbai Court February 2012 Judgments
Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
Ashok Jindal 1. The appellants are in appeal along with stay application against the order wherein the inputs service credit on CHA service, port authorities and services of storage and warehousing were denied to the appellant, who is manufacturer of excisable goods on the ground that the appellant have availed these services after removal of the goods from their factory, which is beyond the place of removal. 2. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that the issue has attained finality by the various decisions of this Tribunal preferably in the case of CCE Rajkot Vs. Adani Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2008 (232) ELT 804 (Tri-Ahmd), wherein this Tribunal has held that CHA service is required to facilitate clearance of final products from the place of removal i.e. load port, therefore credit is available. 3. He further submits that the matter traveled upto the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCEandC Vs. Mundra Port and Special Economic Zone Ltd., reported in 201...
Tag this Judgment!Precision Punches and Dies (Unit Iii) Vs. Commissioner of Central Exci ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan 1. The appeal and stay application are directed against Order-in-Appeal No. RBT/203/2011 dated 02.05.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone I. 2. The appellants, M/s Precision Punches and Dies (Unit III), District Thane, are manufacturers of goods falling under Chapter 82 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants are registered with the Central Excise department at three different galas at three different places. These different galas are numbered as Unit I, Unit II and Unit III. Examination of the records maintained by the assessee revealed that there is no manufacturing activity undertaken at Unit No. III and the said Unit is for storing of imported raw materials which are then stock-transferred to Unit II. Since Cenvat credit is taken in Unit III, the full amount of credit is reversed while stock-transferring the inputs to Unit II. Investigation conducted revealed that due to shortage of space in their manufacturing...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (imports)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
Ashok Jindal: The appellant are in appeal along with stay application against the impugned order dated 18/10/2000. On 21/12/2011, when the stay application came up for hearing, the learned AR took the objection that the appeal has been filed with a delay of almost 10 years. Therefore, the appeal is barred by limitation and not maintainable before this Tribunal. On these submissions, the learned AR was directed to get the relevant documents, i.e., proof of service of show cause notice and the impugned order on the appellant and the matter was adjourned to today. 2. When the matter was called today, the learned AR failed to produce the proof of service of the impugned order. Therefore, we turn down the contention of the learned AR and take up the appeal as well as the stay application for disposal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that, in this case, they have neither received any show cause notice nor any order-in-original. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and...
Tag this Judgment!Suyash Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Thane - Ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan: The appeal and stay application are directed against Order-in-Appeal No: MI/AV/227/2011 dated 21/04/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone - I. 2. The facts arising for consideration in this case are as follows: 2.1. The appellant, M/s. Suyash Laboratories Ltd., Thane are manufacturers of drugs and chemicals falling under Chapter 29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. As per the provisions of Sales Tax Act of the Maharashtra Government, the appellant were availing the benefit of deferred sales tax payment scheme under Section 38 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. Under the said scheme, the assessee collects sales tax from the customers but retain such amount collected with him for a particular period and then passes to the State Government the sales tax liability over a period. In 2003-04 they opted for premature payment of sales tax deferred liability under the package incentive scheme introduced in respect of...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Dee Pearls (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (imports ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan The appeal is directed against order-in-original No. 83/2007 dated 28.09.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Nhava Sheva. 2. The appellant M/s Dee Pearls (India) Pvt. Ltd., Silvasa, imported 2117.74 MT of Rough Marble Blocks under 13 Bills of Entry during the period from 13.6.2007 to 06.08.2007. As per EXIM Policy 2004-09, import of Rough Marble Blocks was restricted and needed a import licence for import. Inasmuch as the appellant did not have any such licence, the goods under import were held liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the appellant was allowed to redeem the confiscated goods valued at Rs.2,74,19,409/- on payment of a redemption fine of Rs.1,29,18,926/- and a penalty of Rs.12,87,000/- was imposed on the appellant. Hence the appellant is before us. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that subsequent to the issue of the above order, the appellant has obtained a licence date...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Muljimal Gandhi Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc, Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) The appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. CC/PMS/39/2008 ADJ.ACC dated 29.7.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Exports), ACC, Mumbai. 2. The facts arising for consideration in this case are briefly discussed below. Acting on intelligence, officers of the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB) of ACC, Sahar, Mumbai and Customs officers attached to Air port Sorting office (APSO), Mumbai detained 12 postal consignments intended for export to Dubai. Examination of the said consignments in the presence of intelligence witness revealed that the consignment contained Indian currency of denomination Rs.500 each and totally contained an amount of Rs.11,50,000/-. Different names of consignor and consignee were declared in the documents. As export of Indian currency is prohibited in terms of Section 11 and Section 82 of the Customs Act read with RBI Notification no. FEMA 6 RB-2000 dated 03.05.2000, the said currency was se...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs (import), Nhava Sheva Vs. L.G. Electronics (i) ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) These appeals are filed by the revenue along with stay application and application for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. 2. The reason for condonation of delay is stated that the appellants filed a composite appeal against the impugned order and on direction of the Registry, they filed separate appeals against separate orders, therefore delay has been caused. Considering the delay has been explained satisfactorily, we condone the delay by allowing the application for condonation of delay. 3. As the issue involved is of narrow compass, therefore, we take up the stay as well as the appeals themselves for disposal all together. 4. This appeal has been filed by the revenue on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to entertain an appeal which is filed beyond the period of 90 days of passing the adjudication order. 5. We have gone through the impugned order wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has entertained the appeals which were be...
Tag this Judgment!Gala Precision Technology P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) The appeal and the stay applications are directed against Order-in-Original No. 13/BR-13/Th-1/2011 dated 30.03.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane I. 2. The facts arising for consideration in this case are as follows. The appellant Gala Precision Technology are manufacturers of goods falling under Chapter 73 and 84 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985. From the balance sheet of the appellant company for the year ending 31.3.2007, 31.3.2008 and 31.3.2009, it was noticed that the appellant had received sales tax incentives amounting to Rs.4,06,59,806/-, Rs.4,07,05,652/- and Rs.4,06,85,835/- respectively on account of pre-payment of deferred sales tax liability as per the scheme of Government of Maharashtra under the Bombay Sales Tax Act. The department was of the view that these amounts of sales tax incentives received by the assessee should be included in the assessable value for the purpose of levy of excise duty and inasmuch a...
Tag this Judgment!Grand Organics P. Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Goa
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Appellants are in appeal along with stay application and miscellaneous application for bringing additional evidence on record. As the issue involved in all the matters is common, therefore all are disposed of by a common order. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants took advance licences from DGFT on adhoc basis. The goods were imported duty free on the basis of these advance licences. Later on, DRI investigated the matter and found that licence has been obtained fraudulently. Thereafter, the Norm Committee rejected the licence as the appellant could not fulfill the requirement norms as desired by the Norm Committee. On the basis of these rejection, DRI started investigation against the appellants and show cause notices were issued for demands of duty on the imported goods imported by the appellant duty free on the basis of these advance licences. In some cases duty was paid during the course of investigation but the appellants approached the N...
Tag this Judgment!Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellant are in appeal along with stay application against the impugned order denial of input service credit which were availed by them in the manufacturing of tractors and their parts as the tractors are falling under heading 87.1 which are fully exempted, same has been exported by the appellant in bond. 2. Ld. counsel for the appellant submits that the case is squarely covered by the Hon'ble High Court in Repro India Ltd. 2007-TIOL-795-HC-BOM and in their own case for the earlier period by this Tribunal reported in 2010-TIOL-163-CESTAT-MUM. Therefore issue is no more res integra and appellant are entitled to availing the CENVAT credit on input service availed by them in the manufacturing of tractors which are exempted from duty and same were exported under bond. 3. On the other hand, Shri Y.K. Agarwal, Ld. AR reiterates the finding in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. After hearing both sides, we find that issue has already been settled by ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »