Mumbai Court February 2012 Judgments
M/S Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Exci ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
Shri S.S. Kang, Vice President Heard both sides. 2. Appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the demand was confirmed after denying the credit inn respect of the capital goods. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of petroleum product and was availing the benefit of credit in respect of duty paid goods as well as inputs. The appellants received duty paid capital goods and availed the credit of 50% of the duty paid on capital goods during the year 2002-03. As per the provisions of Rule 4(2)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, the balance 50% credit was availed in the subsequent financial year. A show-cause notice dated 16.4.2004 was issued denying the credit of 50% of the duty paid on the capital goods availed in the subsequent financial year on the ground that the balance 50% of the credit is inadmissible inasmuch as according to the Rule, the manufacturer is entitled to take credit in the case when capital goods are in possession and used in course of the ma...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs (Export), Nhava Sheva and Another Vs. Indo Zin ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan 1. There are two appeals, one filed by the appellant and another filed by the Revenue along with stay application against the order-in-appeal No.236 (Gr.-VII-D)/2009/(JNCH) dated 28/05/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals),Nhava Sheva. As both the appeals arise out of the same appellate order, we take them up together for consideration and disposal. 2. The facts arising for consideration of this case are as follows:- 2.1 M/s.Indo Zinc Ltd., Indore, imported electrolytic copper wire bars vide nine bills of entry during January and February 1995 and sought to clear the goods under transferable DEEC/Advance licence. However, the clearance of the import duty free under the aforesaid licence were denied to the importer on the ground that the transferor had availed inputs stage credit while exporting their resultant product in contravention of provisions of notification No.203/92 dated 19/05/92 and 204/92 dated 19/05/92 and the importer was asked to clear ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S LupIn Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ltu ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
Sahab Singh These are 16 appeals filed by M/s Lupin Ltd. (herein after referred to as appellants) against six Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his Order No. SB/94-99/LTU/MUM/2010 dated 11.06.2010. Out of 16 appeals, 12 appeals pertain to Lupin - Goa Unit for the period August, 08 to July, 09 and 4 appeals pertain to Lupin - Mandideep Unit for the period January, 09 to April, 09. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturer of excisable goods namely - Medicament falling under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They had filed 16 refund claims in respect of both the units pertaining to the period August, 08 to July, 09 under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Alongwith their refund claim they had submitted following documents: - (i) Application for refund of CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. (ii) Statement of input credit availed and u...
Tag this Judgment!Synergic India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax Pune - Iii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
Ashok Jindal: The appellants are in appeal along with stay applications. 2. After hearing both the sides, we find that the appeals themselves can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, we take up the appeals for disposal. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of solar water heater system and they are selling it to their customers at site and installing the same. For the activity of installation, they are not charging any separate amount. As the activity of installation, erection and commissioning falls under the service category of ‘Installation, Erection and Commissioning Service’ therefore, the department was of the view that the appellants are required to pay service tax by claiming abatement as per Notification No. 15/2004 on the total value received i.e. on balance 33% they have to pay service tax. Accordingly, show cause notices were issued and the matter was adjudicated confirming the demand...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. S.K. Agency Vs. Fritz Freight Forwarding India Private Limited
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
S.R. Khanzod, Presiding Judicial Member (1) This consumer complaint deals with alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Fritz Freight Forwarding India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Carrier) for not keeping with the commitments of time bound delivery of the consignment i.e. turbine rotor to Skoda Works, Plezen, Czech Republic and also to reship and deliver the same at Mumbai, the entire cargo passage was by air. For the alleged deficiency on the part of the Carrier the Complainant M/s.S.K. Agency (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) total compensation of Rs.16,75,186/-, which inter alia includes the reimbursement of the amount of Rs.1,67,386/- which the Complainant had to pay to its principal M/s.Atutl Ltd.; Rs.9,22,800/- being the entire freight charges paid by the Complainant to the Carrier; and further compensation of Rs.5,85,000/- on account of mental stress, loss of reputation, loss of business etc. (2) Undisputed facts are that, upon enquiry made by the...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Rehab Housing Pvt Ltd. and Another Vs. Bmw Germany and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
P. N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member [1] This complaint has been filed jointly by the Complainant No.1, namely M/s. Rehab Housing Pvt. Ltd., and it Director, namely Mr. Bhupesh Patel, the Complaint No.2 as against the Opponent No.1, namely BMW Germany, the Opponent No.2, namely BMW India Pvt. Ltd., and also against the Opponent No.3, namely Navnit Motors Pvt. Ltd. The Opponents Nos.1 and 2 are the manufacturers of BMW brand of luxury cars and the Opponent No.3 is a dealer of BMW cars at Andheri (West), Mumbai. According to the Complainants, they decided to purchase a BMW-X5 3.0d SAV (Highline) 2009 model car and approached the Opponent No.3 Dealer; on 29/8/2009. After discussions, the Complainants agreed to purchase the car for an aggregate price of Rs. 66,05,000/- and further amount of Rs. 14,02,514/- toward taxes, registration charges, insurance, service charges etc. Entire consideration was paid by the Complainant No.1 Company for the benefit of its Director, namely Mr....
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Anant Joshi and Another Vs. M/S. Vardhaman Homes Through Its Par ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
P. N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member [1] This is a consumer complaint filed by the Complainant, who is a pensioner and advocate by profession. His wife is also impleaded as Co-Complainant. They have filed a consumer complaint jointly against the Opponent, namely M/s. Vardhaman Homes, through its partner Mr. Hirachand S. Vardhan (hereinafter referred to as the Builder/Developer for the sake of brevity). [2] According to the Complainants, they jointly purchased a flat bearing No.805, B Wing, Venus Building No.10, situate at Gawand Baug, Pokhran Road No.2, Village Majiwade, Thane (West) from the Builder/Developer. According to the Complainants, their contractual relations are governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 and rules framed thereunder, so also, D. C. Regulations for ThaneCity, 1994 are also applicable. The Complainants pleaded that their family purchased only one flat in the building and the stilt and 09 meters open space on all four sides o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs (import) Nhava Sheva Vs. Gudel India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2012
Ashok Jindal: Revenue has filed this appeal along with application for stay and application for condonation of delay. To proceed with the appeal, first we have to deal with the application for condonation of delay. 2. This appeal is filed with a delay of 697 days and the reason stated by the learned AR is that the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai - II has passed the impugned order. Against that order, if the department is aggrieved, then the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva and Commissioner of Customs (Export), Nhava Sheva are having the jurisdiction to review the order and thereafter to take appropriate decision to file the appeal. In this case, the impugned order was reviewed by Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai and thereafter the Committee of Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai and Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai, who were not having the jurisdiction to review the impugned order. An appeal was preferred on the basis of the above said recommenda...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Chokhani Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Cust ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
Ashok Jindal The appellants, M/s. Chokhani Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., M/s Tax Fab Corporation and M/s Punit Impex are in appeals against the confirmation of demand of duty under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Notification No. 204/92-Cus dated 19.05.1992 and imposing redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act and penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The other appellants have filed appeals against the imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) and 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. On behalf of M/s Harish Clearing Agency, Shri G.B. Yadav, learned Advocate appearing before us and submitted that M/s Harish Clearing Agency (CHA) was a proprietorship concern. As Shri Harish the Proprietor of the CHA has expired during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, the penalty is not sustainable. 3. As stated by the learned Counsel it is a settled law that penalty cannot be imposed on the legal heirs of a person who is already dead. In the facts and circums...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Wellchem System Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the South Indian Bank L ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
S.R. Khanzode, Judicial Member 1. This consumer complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent-The South Indian Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Bank for brevity). It is the case of complainant-M/s.Well Chem Systems Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as complainant for brevity) has a business of manufacturing as well as trading activities. As a part of its export business, it supplied 10 M.T. of Hexagonal Bolts of two types viz. M-10 Type 3MT and M-12 Type 7 MT to one M/s.Jumaia Trading Post Box No.4958, Dubai (UAE). Services of the Bank were hired for negotiating the documents with the importers bankers, namely, Bank of Baroda, Deira Branch, Dubai (UAE). Those goods were shipped as per Order No.94805 dated 13/09/1994 as per Bill of Lading dated 25/10/1994 and Invoice No.Exp/94-95/05 dated 17/09/1994. The importer has extended facility of DA 45 days i.e. Documents Acceptance for 45 days which means a credit facility to make payment for value ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »