Mumbai Court May 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.
Maheshwari Solvent Extraction Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-22-2012
S.S. Kang 1. Heard both sides. 2. The applicant filed the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs 3,71,410/-, interest and penalty. 3. The applicants are engaged in the manufacture of ‘Refined Rice Bran Oil’. Gums and Recovered Oil generated as by-products are cleared without payment of duty. The demand is in respect of the gums and recovered oil. 4. We find that on the same issue in the applicant’s own case, the Tribunal vide stay order dated 2.2.201217.02.2012 directed the applicants to deposit 25% of the duty confirmed. 5. In view of the earlier stay order, the applicants are directed to deposit Rs One lakh within a period of six weeks and on deposit of the aforesaid amount, pre-deposit of the remaining dues is waived for hearing of the appeal. 6. With the consent of both sides, the appeal is being taken up for disposal, as the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the condition of the stay order without going into the ...
Choudhary Yatra Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nash ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-22-2012
Ashok Jindal 1. The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order confirming the service tax demand of Rs.1,03,65,342/- along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rs.1,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, under the category of ‘tour operators service’. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are providing following services against the remuneration received by them: a) Bus reservation agreement (BRA). Under this category they supply ordinary buses (not tourist vehicles) to other tour operators as well as commercial or non-commercial concerns on rent basis. b) Seat reservation agreement (SRA) c) Nashik Darshan (ND) d) Tour extension (TE) 3. The department is of the view that the activity undertaken by the appellant is covered under the category of tour operators service, which is liable to service tax with effect from 01/09/1997 and the appellant has not paid the service tax under the catego...
Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mu ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-22-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan 1. There are three appeals which are taken up for consideration together as the issues involved are common. 2. The appellant, M/s. Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. (Turf club, in short) is engaged in the activity of conducting horse racing. During the horse race, licensed book makers (bookies in short) accept bets from the public in the premises of the appellant and these bookies have been provided with stalls. The appellant charges fees from the bookies in two components, one is a fixed amount under the Head ‘Stall fees’ and the other is a variable amount under the Head ‘Commission’ which is collected as a percentage of the betting amounts collected by such bookies. The Turf Club conducts live telecast of the races which can be viewed at other racing clubs in India located in Bangalore, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Mysore, Delhi, Madras and Ooty. The technical support for the live telecast of horse race events held in Mumbai and Pune is provided b...
P and B Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-v
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-21-2012
S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.78,92,155/-, interest and penalty. The applicants, M/s. PandB Laboratories Ltd., are engaged in the manufacture of P or P medicaments and the goods manufactured were cleared to M/s. Pharmachem Distributors who, in turn, sold the goods in the market. The case of the Revenue is that the applicants, M/s. PandB Laboratories Ltd., and M/s. Pharmachem Distributors are related persons, therefore the duty is to be paid in respect of the goods manufactured at the price at which M/s. Pharmachem Distributors are selling in the market. 3. We find that the adjudicating authority in the adjudication order relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of PandB Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad reported in 1995 (76) ELT 616. M/s. PandB Pharmaceuticals is a manufacturing unit situated in Gujarat, belonging to the same group of companies. We find that the ...
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-17-2012
Ashok Jindal 1. The appellant are in appeal against impugned order confirming the duty demand for denial of input credit during the period 15/01/94 to 22/02/94 along with an application for stay. 2. Heard both sides in appeal. 3. After hearing both sides, we are of the conclusion that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage; therefore, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of impugned demands and take up the appeal for final disposal. 4. The facts of the case in brief are that M/s.Ponds India Ltd., at the relevant time, was the manufacturer of leather garments, which falls under Chapter heading No.4201.90 and during the relevant time the said product was exempted from duty vide Notification No.279/88-CE dated 16/11/1988. The allegation against the appellant is that they have availed input credit for manufacturing the exempted final products. As the appellant could not produce the evidence that they have not availed the credit on the inputs, which had gone into the manufact...
Commissioner of Central Excise, (Export), Mumbai) Vs. Larsen and Toubr ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-17-2012
Ashok Jindal 1. Revenue has filed this appeal against impugned order sanctioning the refund claim filed by the respondent in pursuant to this Tribunal Order No.C-II/2846/03/WZB dated 31/10/2003, which was rejected by the adjudicating authority. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that their main appeal as well as this appeal be heard together as this appeal is in consequent to the result of the main appeal. 3. Heard the Ld. Counsel. 4. The impugned refund claim was filed by the respondent consequent to the order passed by this Tribunal stated herein above. As the said order of this Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Customs Appeal No.07/2004 and on 19/04/2012 the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has set aside the order and remand the matter to this Tribunal with direction to dispose of the appeal filed by the respondent within a period of four months from today. 5. As the above cited order of this Tribunal has been set as...
Smt. Felicidade Braganza, Widow, Since Deceased Through Her Legal Heir ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-17-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. This Second Appeal takes exception to the Judgment and Decree of the Additional District Judge, Mapusa (First Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 90 of 2000. 2.Regular Civil Appeal no. 90 of 2000 was preferred by the present appellants, challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 30/03/2000 of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mapusa (Trial Court) in Regular Civil Suit No. 98/88/B. 3. That Civil Suit had been instituted by the respondent of the present Second Appeal, who is the original plaintiff. 4. The parties shall be referred to as per their status in the said Regular Civil Suit No. 98/88/B. 5.The plaintiff is the owner of the property known as “Poriato” bearing survey no. 198/2 situated at Mudda Vaddi of village saligao of Bardez Taluka. The defendants are having a dwelling house and store room (suit room) in the said property. As on the date of filing of the suit, the original defendant was registered as Mundkar in respect of the dwelling house. ...
Acqua Bisleri (India) Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Exci ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-16-2012
S.S. Kang 1. Heard both sides. 2. Applicants filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs 36,96,860/-, interest and penalties. 3. The proceedings relate to the period April 1999 to February 2000. For the period in dispute Revenue raised demand of duty on the ground that the applicants were taking non refundable amount from the customers as security deposit in respect of the reusable containers used in the manufacture of bottled water and Revenue wants to add this amount to the assessable value to the MRP. The demands were contested by the applicants on the ground that the cost of reusable containers has been amortized and included in the MRP. Therefore, the demands are not sustainable. 4. The matter came upto the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide final order dated 20.01.2011 remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority by making the following observation : “6. In circular dated 27.2.2003 ibid, the Board clarified that the above instructions would equally app...
Castrol (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Iii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-16-2012
S.S. Kang 1. Appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of lubricating oils and its allied preparations falling under Chapters 27, 34 and 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. During the period May 1997 to June 1998, the appellants manufactured pouches of 150 ml and 250 ml of Heavy Duty Coolant (HDC) and filed a declaration under Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.3.1995 seeking exemption from payment of duty. A Show Cause Notice was issued denying the benefit of the Notification. The appellant filed a reply to the Show Cause Notice and the adjudicating authority denied the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-CE and confirmed the demand on the ground that the Notification provides exemption from duty in respect of inputs manufactured in the factory which are further used in the manufacture of excisable goods, as the Heavy Duty Coolant is not an input for manu...
M/S Vilsons Particle Board Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-2012
S.S. Kang, Vice President Heard both sides. 2. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.1,97,62,959/-, interest and penalty. The demand is confirmed in respect of intermediate product as the same has been used in the manufacture of exempted goods. 3. The contention of the applicant is that the impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the adjudicating authority in the impugned order held that no reply to show-cause notice is filed by the applicant, whereas the applicant filed an interim reply to show-cause notice on 26.11.2011 and the same has been received by the department on 28.11.2011. In the reply, applicant contested the demand on various grounds such as the demand is time barred, marketability of the product and who is the manufacturer. In spite of this, the impugned order has been passed on 29.11.2011 without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The applicant also submitted that the reque...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »