Mumbai Court February 2012 Judgments
R.P. Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. The applicant filed this application for condonation of delay of approximately eight years in filing the appeal. 3. The contention of the applicant is that the applicants filed one appeal against order-in-appeal No. PD/45/Th-II/2003 dated 30.6.2003. The same has been decided by the Tribunal vide final order dated 29.9.2010. After receipt of the order passed by the Tribunal, the applicant finds that there is another order-in-appeal No. PD/88/TH-II/03 dated 23.9.2003 passed against the applicant on the same issue and the applicant has not filed any appeal under the impression that the applicant had already filed appeal against the same issue which was already decided by the Tribunal. Now the Revenue granted consequential relief restricting the relief in respect of order-in-appeal dated 30.6.2003. In view of this, the applicant filed this appeal along with application for condonation of delay. The delay is unintentional, hence may be condoned. 4. The Revenue...
Tag this Judgment!Arihant Domestic Appliances Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Pu ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2012
The appellant are in appeal along with stay application. 2. After hearing both the sides, it is observed that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, the appeal is taken up for disposal. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant are manufacturers of steel tubes and its components falling under Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The goods were cleared on payment of duty. Later on, the goods cleared by the appellant were returned by their customers as defective. At the time of receipt of these defective goods, although the appellant is entitled to avail credit on these goods, they did not avail the same. Some of the goods returned by the customers were repairable which were repaired and cleared on payment of duty. The goods which were not repairable were sold by the appellant as scrap. On goods which were sold by the appellant as scrap, the appellant availed credit of duty by following the procedur...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Brinton Carpets Asia Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise, Pu ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2012
Sahab Singh The applicants filed the stay applications alongwith appeals against the Order-in-Appeal dated 21/1/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals.III) Pune. 2. Briefly mentioned facts of the case are that the applicants/appellants are manufacturer of carpets in an 100% E.O.U and they have taken a Central Excise Registration wherein they have undertaken to comply with the provisions of Central Excise Act and Rules made thereunder. The applicants are availing the benefit of Notification No.52/2003-CUS dated 31.3.03 and 22/2003-C.E. dated 31.3.2003 as amended for the procurement of duty free imported and indigenous materials respectively to be used for manufacture of goods to be exported by their 100% E.O.U. Under both the Notifications, there is a provision that such finished goods even if not exported are allowed to be cleared into D.T.A. subject to the conditions and limitations as mentioned in para 3 of Notification 52/2003-Cus and para 6 of Notification No.22...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Pudumjee Plant Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Cce Pune Iii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 06/CEX/2009-10 dated 7.7.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune III. 2. The facts arising for consideration in this case are as follows. 2.1 The appellant, M/s Pudumjee Plant Laboratories Ltd., (PPL in short), Pune is a producer of cut flowers for which purpose they have a nursery at Village Chande, Pune where it grows flowers and thereafter sells or exports such flowers in a cut form. They were granted industrial licence under the 100% EOU scheme, vide letter No. 102 (1996)/EOB/843/95 dated 20.2.1996 for growing of roses (cut flowers) and its export thereof. Under the said scheme they were permitted to import capital goods valued at Rs.594.60 lakhs and raw materials valued at Rs.60 lakhs duty free. They were also permitted to procure indigenous capital goods, consumables etc. worth Rs.164.20 lakhs without payment of duty subject to the condition that the entire production is exported within...
Tag this Judgment!Jhawar Biotech Pvt Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-2012
S.S. Kang 1. Heard both sides. 2. The applicant M/s Jhawar Biotech Pvt Ltd filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs 2,19,97,455/-, interest and penalty. The applicants M/s Vamatex India Ltd filed application for waiver of pre-deposit of total duty of Rs 1,36,80,416/, interest and penalty. The demands were confirmed by disallowing the Cenvat Credit. The demands were also confirmed on the ground that applicants cleared excisable goods without payment of duty. The other applicants filed applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties. 3. The contention of the applicants is that a demands were confirmed after denying credit on the ground that the applicants availed credit on the strength of invoices issued by the following non-existent firms: (i) M/s Dhanlaxmi Textiles (ii) M/s Cotton Overseas (iii) Bhavesh Textiles (iv) M/s Shree Ram Textiles (v) M/s Radhe SRK (vi) Ambagi Textiles (vii) M/s Maruti Mangal Textile (viii) M/s Balaji Filanonts Ltd (ix) Chirag Textile...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. M.D. Ruparel and Sons and Another Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Ac ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-2012
Ashok Jindal The appellants have filed these appeals along with stay applications. 2. After hearing both sides for some time on the stay applications, we find that the appeals themselves can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, after allowing the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties involved, we take up the appeals for disposal. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant namely M/s. Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd. filed two shipping bills. At the time of examination of goods, it was found that the description given in the invoice and the shipping bills does not match with the goods mentioned in the aforesaid shipping bills. After conducting investigation, it was found that the goods were wrongly mentioned in the ARE-1 and, accordingly wrongly written in the shipping bills and invoices also. It was observed by the adjudicating authority that the act of the appellant is not a willful attempt to mis-declare the goods. During the course of proceedings, af...
Tag this Judgment!Manherlal C. Shah Vs. M/S. Siddhivinayak Builders and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-2012
S.R. Khanzode, Judicial Member 1. The consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service on the part of developer/builder for not handing over possession of the flat. 2. The undisputed facts are that the complainant-Mr.Manherlal C. Shah (hereinafter referred to as complainant for brevity) has agreed to purchase a flat No.702 in C wing situated on 7th floor in a building known as Emrald Court developed and constructed by opponent No.1-M/s.Siddhivinayak Builders (hereinafter referred to as builder for brevity) as per agreement dated 18/08/1997 and which was registered on 30/08/1997. 3. It is case of the complainant that at the time of agreement, Rs. 1 Lakh and subsequently, Rs. 18 Lakhs were paid by him towards part of consideration. He also paid registration charges of Rs. 17,510/- and stamp duty of Rs. 1,10,750/- and thus, in all paid Rs. 20,28,260/- against the total agreed consideration of Rs. 19 Lakhs and thus, fully paid the price of the flat. In spite of that the builder...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Sandoz P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-2012
Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellants have filed this appeal along with the stay application. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant and a request has been received by the appellant to decide the matter on merits. 3. It is a case where the appellant has paid the service tax as per Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 on goods transport agency as service recipient. The appellant paid service tax by claiming the abatement of 75% by Notification 32/04. As per the said Notification, the abatement is applicable only in case where the transporter has not availed CENVAT credit of inputs or input services availed by them. As no endorsement is on the transport document nor consignment, appellant were denied the abatement as per Notification 32/04. show-cause notice was issued demands were confirmed, therefore the appellant are before us. 4. After hearing the ld. AR, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, after waiving the requirement of ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import), N.Sheva
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) The appeal is directed Order-in-Appeal No. 116/2003 (JCH) dated 9.7.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. 2. The facts for consideration in this case are as follows. M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd., the appellant, filed a bill of entry no. 537187 dated 27.12.2001 for clearance of goods described as ‘import of exported goods chassis sent for body building bus-body model Inter Century (Model 11.2, No.150807-CH No. WLE 468819) in two numbers under home consumption. The country of origin was declared as ‘India and Spain’. They claimed duty exemption under Notification no. 94/96-Cus dated 16.12.1996 for payment of duty only on the value of the body of the bus as the goods (chassis) were claimed to be exported earlier. The same were subjected to first check examination. On examination, it was found that the goods were buses and the chassis and engine no. were the same as those indicated in the export documents. The re...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur Vs. Ajara Shetkari Ssk Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2012
S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses and availed credit in respect of capital goods. Objection was raised by the Revenue regarding availment of credit as the goods in question were not capital goods. The respondent reversed the credit and thereafter filed a refund claim. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on merit on the ground that the goods in question are not specified capital goods. On appeal filed by the respondent, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal and set aside the adjudication order. 4. The contention of the Revenue is that the respondent availed credit in respect of steel staging structures, boiler staging material, steel structures, furniture and holders, C.I. castings, air compressor etc. and the same are not capital goods as t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »