Mumbai Court May 2012 Judgments
M.D. Shipping Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Gen), Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-31-2012
Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellant who is a CHA has filed this appeal against the revocation of their CHA licence no. 11/2006 on violation of provisions of Regulation of CHALR 2004. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Ventura Alloys and Electronics (India) imported zinc ingots under Advance Licence Scheme. The appellant were assigned the work of clearance of the said consignment. It is the allegation that the said consignment was allegedly diverted to some other place in spite goods being transported to the importer. In this scenario, proceedings under CHALR 2004 were initiated against the appellant and their licences were suspended on 17.5.2005. The said suspension was revoked on the direction of the Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter proceedings under CHALR were initiated against the appellant. 3. The article of charge was that the appellant has violated Regulation 13(d) of CHALR, 2004 as the import clearance were made under advance licence scheme by M/s. Ventura Allo...
Tag this Judgment!Sharda Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Kishan Bihari Kagzi Vs. Commissioner of Ce ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-31-2012
S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. The applicants filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.14,60,340/-, interest and penalty. The demand is confirmed after denying cenvat credit in respect of grey fabric on the ground that the credit has been availed on the invoices issued by non-existent firms. 3. The contention of the applicants is that in the show cause notice, the Revenue relied upon the verification report dated 26.10.2005 by the jurisdictional central excise office, whereby it has been reported that the suppliers of the grey fabric had not filed monthly returns, hence the invoices on the strength of which credit has been availed by the applicant, the duty payment particulars cannot be verified. 4. The contention is that in reply to the show cause notice, the applicants submitted necessary information by way of certificates issued by the suppliers of grey fabric whereby the details of invoice number, the quantity of the goods, duty amount and particulars regard...
Tag this Judgment!Gini and Jony Apparels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, M ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-31-2012
S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. The applicant filed this application for condoning the delay of 94 days in filing the appeal. The contention of the applicant is that the applicant filed appeal against the adjudication order along with application for waiver of dues and the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the applicant to deposit 50% of the duty and penalty for hearing of the appeal. As the appellant had failed to comply with the conditions of the stay order, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The applicant tried their level best to arrange the amount so that the same be deposited as per the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the papers were given to the Advocate, Shri C. Subba Reddy, and he had undergone a surgery of his eye for diabetic retinopathy. As he recovered from the surgery, the appeal was filed. In view of the reasons explained, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The applicant a...
Tag this Judgment!New Holland Fiat (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-30-2012
S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals). 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Motor Vehicle and four cars were cleared directly to their customers i.e. the Nuclear Power Corporation of India. The vehicles were cleared under the excise invoices showing the payment of duty after reducing the dealer’s retail price to the extent of Rs.8000/- as the dealer’s margin. 4. The motor vehicles are cleared in the year 1999-2000 and show cause notice was issued on 7th August 2002 demanding duty by invoking the extended period of limitation on the ground of suppression. The case of the Revenue is that as the motor vehicles are cleared directly to the customers. Therefore there is no question of reducing Rs.8000/-per car as dealer’s margin. 5. The applicants argued on merits as well as submitted that the demand is time barred as applicant filed neces...
Tag this Judgment!Aditya Appliances Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune I
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-30-2012
S.S. Kang 1. Heard both sides. 2. Appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Philips brand ‘steam irons’ falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants on the ground that the appellant suppressed the fact that the cost of moulds used in the manufacture of the plastic parts is being borne by M/s Phillips India Ltd (Domestic Appliances and Personal Care Division) (hereinafter referred to as M/s PDAP for short). As the appellants were clearing the finished goods to M/s PDAP, thus the same is additional consideration flowing to the appellants. 4. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. The appellant filed appeal and the same is dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. The contention of the appellant is that the appellants were procuring the raw materials suc...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Nashik Vs. M/S. Beico Indu ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-30-2012
S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. The brief facts of the case are that respondents are engaged in the manufacture of goods ‘laminated non woven fabrics’, and the respondents were classifying the goods under chapter 56 of the Tariff which was not notified under the modvat scheme. The demand of differential duty was confirmed by re-classifying the goods under chapter 39 of the Tariff. The respondents made a request to grant credit in respect of the duty paid on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of goods as goods are classified under Chapter 39 of the Tariff and the same is covered under the modvat scheme at that time. The adjudicating authority allowed the benefit of modvat credit. The Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal. 4. The contention of revenue is that the show cause notice was is...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Gini Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-i ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-30-2012
S.S. Kang Common issues are involved, therefore, we take up them together and dispose of them by this common order. 2. Appellant filed these appeals against the impugned order whereby the refund claim of the appellants were rejected. 3. The appellants are engaged in the processing man made fabrics. During the period in dispute the annual capacity of the stenters were determined by the competent authority. Consequential to the determination of the annual capacity of two show cause notices were issued demanding duty. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. S.P.B.L. Ltd. reported in 2002 (146) ELT 254 (S.C.). Revenue had not challenged the adjudication order whereby the proceedings for demand of duty were dropped. Subsequently, the appellant filed refund claim in respect of the differential duty paid. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim and the rejectio...
Tag this Judgment!Jet Airways (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Thane
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-29-2012
Ashok Jindal: These appeals are filed by the appellant against the confirmation of demand against them under the category of Cargo Handling Service. 2. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on the ground that the appellant is a service provider under the category of Cargo Handling Service and is liable to pay service tax on the activity of transporting passengers and goods by their aircrafts. 3. It is the contention of the Revenue that as the appellant are transporting cargo from one destination to another, therefore, they fall under the category of Cargo Handling Service. The show cause notices were adjudicated and impugned demands were confirmed against the appellant. 4. Shri J.H. Motwani, learned counsel for the appellant appeared before us and submitted that in their own case, on the identical issue for the same period, the issue came up before the Ahmedabad bench of this Tribunal and vide order reported in 2008 (11) STR 645 (Tri.Ahmd) held that the activity of transporti...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Nahar Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-29-2012
Shri S.S. Kang, Vice President Appellants filed these appeals against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in manufacturing of Readymade Garments falling under Chapter 62 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and export of the same. During the period in dispute, the appellants made export of Readymade Garments and filed a refund claim under the provisions of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 54/2001-CE (NT) dated 29.6.2001 claiming refund of accumulated deemed credit on excisable goods i.e. Readymade Garments exported under Bond. 3. The Notification No. 54/2001 dated 29.6.2001 allows the deemed credit @ 20% of duty of excise leviable under Central Excise Act on the final products, which were cleared thereunder. The notification further provides that the credit shall be allowed to the manufacturer of the final products without production of documents evi...
Tag this Judgment!M/S P.V. Mahadevan Rpg Cables Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-29-2012
Shri S.S. Kang, Vice President Heard both sides. 2. Appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby a demand of Rs.30,45,573/- is confirmed with interest and penalty is also imposed. The demand is confirmed after denying the benefit of Notification No. 10/97-CE dated 1.3.1997. 3. The appellant is engaged in manufacture of cables. During the period from 1998 to March, 2002, the appellants cleared various consignments of cables to Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, INSAT - Master Control facility, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre of Indian Space Research Organization by availing the benefit of Notification No. 10/97-CE. 4. A show-cause notice was issued on 2.5.2003 alleging suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty and for denial of the benefit of notification. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand by invoking extended period of limitation on the ground of mis-decla...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »