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.
Cummins (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Pune
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan The appeal is directed against the order-in-original No.31/2010-11 dated 21.03.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Pune. The appellant M/s. Cummins India Ltd., Pune are manufacturer and exporters of IC Diesel Engines. During the period from May, 2005 to December, 2008, they exported the said goods under advance licence-cum-draw back scheme and from December, 2008 onwards under draw back scheme. The appellant applied for determination and sanction of draw back for the goods exported during May, 2005 to January, 2010 under Rule 6(1)(a) of the Draw Back Rules and the Jurisdictional Commissioner of the Central Excise determined the amount of draw back in respect of the said goods under Rule 6(1)(b) based on the declaration made in the application for fixation of brand rate and draw back was sanctioned and paid to the appellant. Thereafter the department noticed that Diesel Engines are notified under Rule 3 of Draw Back Rules for the purpose of All Industry Rate...
Gupta Coal Field and Washeries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, N ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2012
Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellant are in appeal against the impugned order wherein penalty under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 has been confirmed against the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant are registered with the service tax department and paying service tax and filing their service tax returns regularly. But for the period October 2008 to March 2009 they did not file their service tax returns in time and had not paid the service tax in time. On their own ascertainment on 17.12.2009, the appellant filed their returns of service tax of October 2008 to March 2009 and paid the entire service tax along with interest. On 15.4.2010, a show-cause notice was issued to appropriate the amount of service tax paid along with interest and invoking the provisions of Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The show-cause notice was adjudicated and service tax along with interest was appropriated and penalty under Section 76 and 77 were also i...
B.G. Shirke Technology P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pun ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2012
Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order for demanding the service tax of about Rs.9.7 crores and Rs.10.82 lakhs and equivalent amount of penalty imposed on them under the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in providing construction services i.e. construction of commercial building and residential complexes. The appellant were availing the benefit of Notification 15/04 in relation to commercial construction and Notification 18/05 in respect of residential construction which provides an abatement of 67% from the gross value received of the service provided by them if the appellant has not availed CENVAT credit on inputs/capital goods. On 1.3.2006, Notification 1/2006 came into force and as per the said Notification abatement of 67% was available only in case where the CENVAT credit of input/capital goods/input service is not availed by the assessee. 3. During the course of scrutiny ...
Vasco Da Gama Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Cu ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan The appeals and stay applications are directed against order-in-original No. 18/2010-COMMR dated 24.02.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Goa. 2. The relevant facts in the case are as follows. 2.1 The appellant M/s. Vasco Da Gama Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., had imported a consignment of 80 drums of 200 litres each of concentrate of Scotch whisky vide Bill of Entry No. 108861 dated 07.06.2007. The DRI, Goa Unit had intelligence that the importer had under-valued the consignment and, accordingly, initiated investigation into the matter. It was noticed that the importer had declared the goods as comprising of ‘Concentrates of Alchoholic Beverages, matured for more than three years’ and the total quantity of import was 16000 litres of Scotch Whisky at a unit price of US $ 1.00 per bulk litre (CIF), Goa. It was also revealed that they had imported another such consignment vide Bill of Entry No. 107071 dated 28.09.2006 wherein also a t...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs. Concept Pharmaceuticals ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
S.S. Kang Heard the learned AR as none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz. Curadex/Dexamethazone Injection falling under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff. Two show cause notices dated 3.4.1995 and 13.2.1995 were issued to the respondents demanding duty of Rs.20,705/- and Rs.56,758/- respectively on the ground that the said product contained Niacinamide which is a vitamin B compound and therapeutically active ingredient in addition to Dexamethazone, hence the exemption availed by them under Notification No.30/98 dated 1.3.1998 was not eligible. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad-I confirmed the impugned demand vide order-in-original dated 15.10.1997. The respondents filed appeal against this order before the Commissioner (Appeals), Pune, who vide his order-in-appeal dated 14.8.1998 remanded back the case for de novo adjudicatio...
indo Afrique Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.16,426/- and interest. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants are engaged in the manufacture of varieties of paper, which are liable to excise duty as well as paper cess. A show cause notice was issued to the applicants demanding duty on the ground that paper cess is to be taken into consideration while calculating the amount of education cess and higher education cess. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. 4. The applicants filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground that there is a delay of 20 days in filing the appeal and no sufficient reason has been explained by the applicants. 5. The applicants vide letter dated 6.4.2012 made a request to decide the issue on merits. 6. In the grounds of appeal, the applicants stated that in the forwarding letter of the adjudication or...
Microworld Software Services Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. Applicant filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.36,38,585/-, interest and penalties. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants are engaged in the manufacture and clearance of software such software is cleared in packaged form on payment of appropriate excise duty. The applicants are also the effecting sales of the software through internet. The demand is confirmed in respect of the software which is downloaded by the customer through internet. 4. The adjudicating authority confirm the demand and imposed the penalties. The applicants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) along with the application for waiver of dues. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide stay order dt. 30.6.2011 directed the applicants to deposit 25% of the duty and 25% of the penalty for hearing of the appeals. Applicant only deposit 25% of the duty and filed modification application. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the modification applicat...
Era Infra Engineering Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs (imp ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
Ashok Jindal 1. The appellant M/s.Era Infra Engineering Ltd., is challenging the duty confirmation of Rs.3,27,47,724/- under Section 28 (1) of the Custom Act, 1962 along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty under Section 114A. The co-appellants have also challenged the penalty imposed on them under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The facts in brief are that during the period 05/01/2007 to 31/03/2008 the main appellant imported five Hydraulic Piling Rigs to be used for a contract for setting up Indira Gandhi Super Thermal Power Project of Aravali Power Company Pvt. Ltd. The goods were classified under chapter 9801 of CTA. After completion of the project intended for, these rigs were transferred to another Mega Power Project, namely Pragati Power Project at Bawana, New Delhi on 02/04/2009. These rigs were seized under Section 110 (a) of the Customs Act and released provisionally on deposit of Rs.50 lakhs and furnishing of bank guarantee on various amounts. Thereaft...
Consumer Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export), Nhav ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
Ashok Jindal 1. The appellants are in appeal along with stay application against confirmation of demand of duty of Rs.1,51,673/- along with interest under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a transferee of Advance Licence, which has been issued to the transferor against the exports made by them and the appellant imported certain goods and availed the benefit of Notification No.203/92-Cus dated 19/05/92. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellants on the premise that the transferor might have taken the inputs stage credit under Rule 56A and 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Therefore, they are not entitled for the benefit of Notification No.203/92 dated 19/05/92, accordingly duty was demanded from the appellants. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. After hearing both sides at length, we find that the appeal itself can be taken up at this stage for final disposal. Therefore, we waive the requirement ...
MSRTC's Central Workshop Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangaba ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
Sahab Singh These are two appeals, E/1806/04 and E/1674/06 filed by MSRTC’s Central Workshop (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) against order-in-appeal No. BPS(124)89/2004 dated 19.3.2004 and order-in-appeal No. PI/473/05 dated 23.12.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Aurangabad and Pune respectively. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of body building on new chassis and also component parts required for bus body building falling under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants were also clearing some body components manufactured by them to their various divisional workshops for the purpose of repairing and maintenance of the old vehicles. The unit was visited by the officers of the department in 2001 and it was noticed that the assessee was not paying central excise duty on the components manufactured and supplied to their divisional office and also not paying any duty on the scrap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »