Mumbai Court April 2012 Judgments
Anmol Shikshan Prasarak Mandalanmol Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
S.S. SHINDE; A.M. KHANWILKAR,JJ.1. By this petition, it is prayed that direction be issued to Respondent No.1 to forthwith grant approval to the petitioner's D.Ed. College in the light of recognition granted by NCTE dated 22.9.2011. It is not in dispute that the State Government finally granted approval to the petitioner's institution on 7.3.2012, during the pendency of this petition. However, the petitioner could not start the college and admit the students for the academic year 2011-2012 as the petitioner was not in a position to ensure fulfillment of 200 teaching days attendance of its students. The petitioner, however, asserted that similarly placed colleges have been allowed to start by the State for academic year 2011-2012 and admit students to the course even though they are not in a position to fulfil the requirement of 200 teaching days attendance. The petitioner therefore contended that the petitioner being similarly placed college should be permitted to start its college and...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. Mechanical Hoist Mfg. Divis ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
S.S. Kang Heard the learned AR as none appeared on behalf of the respondent. 2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby a demand of Rs.29,17,879/- is confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act is also imposed. The Commissioner of Central Excise passed the following order:- “i) The duty of Rs.29,17,879/- (Rupees Twenty Nine lakh Seventeen thousand Eight hundred Seventy Nine only) as demanded in the Show Cause Notice is confirmed and is recoverable from the Assessee under the provisions of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. However, since the Assessee have already paid Rs.13,69,790/-, I order to appropriate the same against demand confirmed and order for recovery of the balance amount of Rs.15,48,089/- under the provision of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which should be paid forthwith. ii) I also order for recovery of approp...
Tag this Judgment!Hardrock International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Pune
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellant has filed this appeal against the quantum of redemption fine and penalty imposed on them under the Customs Act, 1962. 2. This matter has come second time before us. While dealing with the stay application of the appellant, this Tribunal has passed the final order on 27.6.2002 by reducing the redemption fine to 20% of the CIF value and penalty to 5% of such value. The matter travelled upto the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex court remanded the matter back to this Tribunal to pass a speaking order on the quantum of redemption fine and penalty by holding that the order passed by this Tribunal is arbitrary and whimsical. Therefore, we are hearing this matter afresh again. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant imported Iranian marble block and filed bills of entry in the year 1999. The quantity of the impugned goods was shown as 211.86MT and CIF value as Rs.8,90,454/- (@ US$ 95/MT). The goods were examined and found excess by 4...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Steel Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
S.S. Kang When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellant in spite of notice. The appellant filed appeal along with application for waiver of dues on 6.6.2011 and the application for waiver of dues was adjourned twice at the request of the applicant. As none appeared on behalf of the applicant in spite of notice, therefore the application for waiver of dues is being taken up in absence of the applicant. 2. Heard the learned Additional Commissioner (AR). 3. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.23,44,990/-, interest and penalty. The applicant is engaged in the manufacture of MS flats/angles/rounds/bars. The officers of the Revenue visited the factory premises of the applicant on 12.12.2008 and a test run was conducted. On the basis of the test run, it was found that 19.555 kgs. of finished goods were manufactured by consuming 1 KW of electric power. On the basis of this and other evidence on record, the demand is confirmed by the...
Tag this Judgment!Regi Suresh Nair Vs. Shri Suresh Putharakkal Nair.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
1. Rule. By consent the Application is taken up for hearing today.2. This is an Application filed by the Appellant/wife for condoning the delay of about 5 years, 144 days in filing the Appeal which is against the decree of divorce granted by the trial Court. The Respondent herein has filed a marriage Petition being Petition No.A- 1406 of 2005 for dissolving the marriage on the ground of cruelty and alternatively on the ground of judicial separation. The Family Court by its order dated 11 July 2006 passed an exparte decree by dissolving the marriage on the ground that though served the original Respondent/wife has not appeared in the proceedings. The trial Court accordingly allowed the application of the original Respondent/husband on 11 July 2006. It is the aforesaid order which is challenged in this Appeal. Since there is an inordinate delay for more than 5 years, this Civil Application is filed for condonation of delay.3. Mr. Khandeparkar, the learned counsel appearing for the applic...
Tag this Judgment!Technomech Engineers Vs. Cce, Nashik
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan The appeal and stay application are directed against the order-in-appeal AKP/249 to 251/NSK/2010/9094 dated 14.10.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Nashik. 2. The facts arising for consideration in this case are as follows. 2.1 The appellant M/s Technomech Engineers are manufacturers of motor vehicle parts and they availed CENVAT credit on input and capital goods used in the manufacture of the said goods. During the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 they availed CENVAT credit of Rs.1,52,779/- being 50% of the credit of the duty paid on capital goods + Education Cess and during subsequent year 2007-08 they availed the balance 50% of the CENVAT credit on the capital goods. Investigation by the DGCEI, Nasik on 25.09.2009 revealed that the appellant had claimed depreciation on the entire amount of credit of Rs.3,04,342/- under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as evident from Income Tax Return for the year 2007-08. As per CENVAT Credi...
Tag this Judgment!Cc(Prev) Mumbai Vs. SudhIn Prabhakar
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan The appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No. 37/Mumbai-III/2010 dated 19.03.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. 2. This appeal is filed by the Revenue on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for which he has no power and therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) order be set aside. 3. The facts arising for consideration are as follows. 3.1 The officers of M and P Mumbai detained goods sent by the appellant M/s Sudhin Prabhakar under a Railway parcel from Chennai to Bombay on the reasonable belief that they were smuggled goods. Of the detained goods, five parcels were released on being satisfied of the duty paid nature. The and remaining goods valued at Rs.1,14,809/- were held liable to confiscation with an option to pay redemption fine of Rs.30,000/- in lieu of the confiscation and a penalty of Rs.10,000/- was also imposed on the appellant vide order No. 5/2009 dated 5.6.2009. The ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Galaxy Sugar Vs. Cce, Kolhapur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan The appeal and stay application are directed against order-in-appeal No. PII/AV/124/2010 Dated 04.08.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune. 2. The facts arising for consideration are as follows. 2.1 The appellant namely, M/s Galaxy Sugar are manufacturers of big crystal sugar. From January, 2009 onwards, they availed exemption under Notification No. 3/2005-CE dated 28.02.2005 on their finished product and also stopped availing CENVAT credit on the inputs used in the manufacture thereof. Benefit of the said exemption was not available to the assessee as the products exempted were Bura, Makhana, Mishri, Hardas or Battasa sugar and not ‘Big Crystal Sugar’. Therefore, a show-cause notice dated 11.01.2010 was issued to the appellant demanding duty of Rs.2,97,932/- on the ground that the exemption is not available for big crystal sugar cleared during January 2009 to March 2009. The assessee admitted the duty liability; however, the...
Tag this Judgment!Crown Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Nashik
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan The appeals, condonation of delay applications and stay applications are directed against order-in-appeal No. AKP/132 and 133/NSK/2010 Dated 29.04.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Nashik. Against the said order the appellant filed a composite appeal and they were directed by the Registry to file separate appeals. Composite appeal was filed in time and there was a delay of 96 days in filing a separate appeal. Considering the reason for delay in filing a separate appeal is satisfactory, I allow the application for Condonation of Delay. 2. The issue for consideration of the case is as follows. 2.1 The appellant is a merchant exporter of food items and the has engaged the services of a transporter and a CHA for transport of the goods from the place of removal to the port of export and discharged service tax liability on the GTA services. In respect of the CHA service, the CHA paid the service tax and the appellant claimed refund ...
Tag this Judgment!Madhukar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Exc ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
The appeal is directed against order-in-appeal no. IPL/247/NSK/2008 dated nil passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nasik. 2. The appellant M/s Madhukar S.S.K. Ltd., Jalgaon is engaged in the manufacture of sugar, molasses, denatured ethyl alcohol and potable ethyl alcohol. Molasses is the common input for the manufacture of both denatured ethyl alcohol and potable ethyl alcohol. They filed a refund claim amounting to Rs.6,03,377/- paid towards education cess and secondary higher education cess paid on potable alcohol on the ground that they have reversed attributable cenvat credit on clearance of potable alcohol and potable alcohol is a non-excisable item on which no excise duty is required to be paid. A show cause notice dated 4-9-08 was issued to the appellant on the ground that since the appellant is not maintaining separate account of raw materials used in the manufacture of dutiable denatured alcohol and exempted potable ethyl alcohol, they are required to pay a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »