Mumbai Court April 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.
Hindustan Platinum Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Acc and Import), ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellants are in appeal along with stay applications. After going through the facts of the case and the issue, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and taken up the appeal itself for disposal. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant obtained advanced licence issued to them in terms of Customs Notification 94/04 and 92/04. the appellant has executed a bond with the department to fulfil the corresponding export obligation within the prescribed period and would submit the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate within the period of 30 days from the expiry of export obligation period allowed for fulfilling of export obligation under both the advance licences. As the appellant could not submit EODC within the prescribed time limit, therefore a impugned demand along with interest has been confirmed against them. Aggrieved from the said orders, the appellants are before ...
Archana Maruti Shingade Vs. Sai Pushpa Construction and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member [1] This appeal filed by the Appellant/original Complainant (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant for the sake of brevity) takes an exception to an order dated 29/3/2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigad (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.106 of 2007, Smt. Archana Maruti Shingade Vs. M/s. Sai Pushpa Constructions and Anr. Facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:- [2] The Complainant had booked a flat in a construction to be carried out by the Respondent No.1/original Opponent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the Opponent No.1 for the sake of brevity). The land belonged to the Respondent No.2/original Opponent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the Opponent No.2 for the sake of brevity) who has executed a development agreement in favour of the Opponent No.1. The Complainant states that she has booked a flat admeasuring 446 sq. ft. situated on the gr...
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan 1. The appeal and stay application are directed against order-in-appeal No.SB/54/M-IV/10 dated 13/07/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-I. 2. The appellants, M/s.Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. are the manufacturer of motor vehicles, tractors and parts thereof. They exported certain automobile parts under 12 shipping bills. The goods were cleared from the factory under Central Excise Supervision and sealing under ARE-1 procedure and these goods were exported through Mumbai port. There was a variation in the description of goods given in the ARE-1 and the shipping bills. Since the appellant exported the goods under DEPB scheme, in the shipping bill they gave the description relating to their product as given in the DEPB schedule whereas in the ARE-1, they had given the description as reflected in the excise records. Since there was a variation between the two, the excise authorities were not satisfied with the proof of export and demanded...
Suhel Roadlines Harish Bulchandani Vivilon Textile Ind. Pvt. Ltd. and ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
Ashok Jindal These stay applications are filed by the applicants for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Heard the appellants namely M/s. Harish Bulchandani, Vivilon Textile Ind. Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Confidence Exports Pvt. Ltd. None appeared on behalf of M/s. Suhel Roadlines despite notice nor is there any request for adjournment. 3. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Vivilon Textile Ind. P. Ltd. is a 100% EOU who cleared the goods against the CT3 form issued by M/s Sunrise Textiles through M/s. Suhel Roadlines. During the course of investigation, it was found that those goods were dispatched through M/s. Suhel Roadlines but were diverted to some other place and did not reach to M/s Sunrise Textiles, therefore a case was made out for diversion of goods without discharging the duty. The duty demand has been confirmed against M/s. Sunrise Textile and penalties have been imposed on the appellants. Against the said order, the appe...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai and Another Vs. Rexnord Electro ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan 1. There are two appeals, one filed by the appellants and the other filed by the revenue against order-in-appeal No.171/M-V/2002 dated 01/05/2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. As both the appeals are arising out of a common order, they are being taken up together for consideration and disposal. 2. The appellant M/s. Rexnord Electronics and Controls Ltd., Mumbai, are manufacturers of industrial cooling fans. They availed Modvat credit on capital goods, viz., moulds and dies. These moulds and dies were removed to their job workers, M/s.Sagar Engineering, at Vasai, without taking permission from the department. Therefore, a notice was issued to the party for reversal of the Modvat credit taken amounting to Rs.2,51,337/- on the said moulds and dies. The notice was later on confirmed by the adjudicating authority confirming the reversal of Cenvat credit along with interest thereon and also imposing an equivalent amount of penalty under ...
Ship Containers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce Thane I
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
Ashok Jindal The applicant filed these appeals along with stay applications and condonation of delay applications in filing the appeals. 2. Shri Ketan Shah, Director of the appellant company submitted that against twelve impugned orders they filed one composite appeal and on pointing out by the Registry about the defect, they filed separate appeals for separate impugned orders therefore, there was a delay of 430 days in filing these appeals. Considering the contention of the applicant is satisfying I allow the applications for Condonation of delay. 3. Further I find the issue involved is in narrow compass therefore, after granting waiver of pre-deposit, I take up the appeals themselves for disposal. 4. The short issue involved in this matter is that a penalty of Rs.5,000/- on each appellant have been imposed under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the ground that the appellant did not file their regular returns in time. 5. It is find that the appellants were in bonafide beli...
M/S. Synex Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce Mumbai V
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the allegation against the appellant is that they have returned the rejected material but did not reversed the credit taken on the inputs in their CENVAT credit account. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the appellant had cleared the goods on payment of duty which were returned back to them and they took the credit on the said goods but failed to correlate with their records that the goods after further processing have been cleared on payment of duty. Therefore the impugned demand has confirmed against the appellant with equivalent amount of penalty. In the adjudication order as well as the first appellate authority’s order it is observed that the appellant could not produce the relevant records to co-relate with the records. 3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant had produced the records for correlation of the goods on which they have taken the credit and were ...
Navnit Dhirjalal Sheth and Another Vs. NitIn N. Mehta Proprietor of M/ ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
[1] Appellant No.1 in person is present. Respondent is absent. Respondent is duly served with a notice issued by this Commission. There is a report to that effect downloaded from the website of postal department, namely India Post and, therefore, service of notice to the Respondent is declared as complete under Section 28-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. [2] Heard the Appellant No.1. Perused the record. [3] This appeal filed by the Appellants/Complainants is directed as against an order dated 13/4/2012 passed by the District Forum, Mumbai Suburban District in Consumer Complaint No.105 of 2009. By the said order, the District Forum has partly allowed the complaint and directed the Respondent/Opponent to refund to the Appellants/Complainants an amount of Rs.50,000/- together with interest thereon @ 12% p.a., with effect from 12/5/2008 besides costs of Rs.5,000/-. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order, the Appellants/Complainants have preferred this appeal. This appe...
Reliance Communications Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs (A ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2012
Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) C/278/10 and C/410/10 are filed by the revenue for dropping the penalty against the respondent. Appeal no C/51/11 has been filed by Reliance Communication Ltd. for imposition of penalty. As the issue involved are common in all the appeals, so they are disposed of by common order. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under. An intelligence was gathered by the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch, JNCH that Reliance Communication Infrastructure Ltd. c/o Terene Fibres India Ltd., Navi Mumbai were importing ‘Free Wireless Terminals’ (FWT) by wrongly classifying them under CTH 85171210 instead of CTH 85177090. It was also gathered that they were claiming undue benefit of Central Excise Notification 6/2006 Sr.no.28 and also benefit of Cess Notification 69/2004 (Sr.no.1). The importer has declared the description as FWT for ‘Free Wireless Terminals’ and in some bills of entry had declared ‘Cellular Telephone’ in bra...
M/S Rochem Separation Systems (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Centra ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2012
Shri S.S. Kang, Vice President Heard both sides. 2. Applicant filed this application for wavier of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.2,09,34,411/-, interest and penalty. Demand is confirmed in view of the provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules on the ground that the applicants were availing input service credit in respect of common input services and the same were used in the manufacture of excisable as well as exempted goods during the period from March, 2005 to November, 2008. 3. The contention of the applicant is that provisions of Rule 6 were retrospectively amended by Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010 and as per the provisions of retrospective amendment in case where the manufacturer is availing credit in respect of the common inputs common input services and the same are being used in exempted as well as excisable goods, the manufacturer has to reverse the credit attributed to the exempted goods and for the past period an option was given to file a declaration reversing ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »