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.
Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-2012
Ashok Jindal 1. The applicants have filed an appeal along with an application for stay against the impugned order denying the inputs service credit taken by them during the period 2003-2004 on account of non filing of the prescribed proforma as per Rule 5 (4) of the Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002. 2. After hearing both sides, we find that the issue involved is in a narrow compass; therefore, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and taken up the appeal for final disposal. 3. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that they have filed ST-3 return within time but admittedly they did not file the annexure to ST-3 returns as prescribed under Rule 5 (4) of the Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002. He further submits that now they have filed the returns as per the Rule 5 (4) of the Service Tax Credit Rules, on 20/10/2011 before the adjudicating authority; therefore, the matter be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for reconciliation and verification and to pass an appropriate order ...
M/S Harsh Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-2012
Shri S.S. Kang, Vice President Heard both sides. 2. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.7,68,000/- along with interest and penalty. The applicants during the period in dispute were engaged in the processing of fabrics and filed a declaration on 02.8.1999 under the provisions of Rule 3(3) of Hot Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 declaring 4 chambers of their stenter. Thereafter the applicants stopped the business and surrendered their registration on 4.11.1999. A show-cause notice dated 22.8.2002 was issued demanding duty on the ground that the appellant had not paid duty as determined by the Commissioner of Central Excise under Hot Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. The appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) along with application for condonation of delay of 28 days i...
Loop Mobile (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-2012
Ashok Jindal 1. The appellants are in appeal along with application for stay of the impugned demand. The facts of the case are that a show-cause notice was issued for the period 01/04/2003 to 31/03/2004 for demand of differential service tax on the basis of difference between ST-3 returns and value of service provided in their profit and loss accounts. 2. In reply to the show-cause notice, the appellant filed a reconciliation statement along with a certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant although in the impugned order, the same has been recorded, the demands have been confirmed against the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before us. 3. The Ld. Advocate submits that in the impugned order, the Commissioner has not given any findings on the reconciliation statement/certificate of Chartered Accountant issued by them during the course of adjudication; therefore, impugned order is a non-speaking order and stay may be set aside. 4. Heard the Ld. Counsel and pe...
Capricon Transways Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Commissioner of Central E ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-2012
Ashok Jindal 1. The assessee has filed the appeal No.ST/55/08 against the impugned order for confirming the demand of service tax for the period post 10/09/2004 and the revenue has filed the appeal No.ST/49/08 against the impugned order for dropping the demand of service tax for the period prior to 10/09/2004. 2. The assessee is engaged in the service of providing bus service to various companies for transporting their employees from the designated spots to the Company and back on a contract basis. The spots from which the employees were to be picked up and timing at which they are to be picked up and dropped was determined by the Companies who hired the buses and the appellant was transporting the employees as per the schedule given by the companies. This activity was considered as taxable service as defined under the category of ‘Tour Operators’ which was under vogue with effect from01/04/2000. The appellants were accordingly issued a show cause notice requiring them to p...
Hanumant Bapurao Bagal and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-2012
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Kakade, AGP, waives service for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Mr. Sarda waives service for Respondent No. 6. 2) By consent of Counsel for the respective parties, matter is taken up for final disposal, forthwith. 3) By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners, claiming to be members of Respondent No. 5 Agricultural Produce Market Committee, have challenged the order passed by Respondent No. 1, dated 19th April, 2012, granting 3rd extension to the Board of Directors of Respondent No. 5 Market Committee, which would come into effect from 26th May, 2012 till 25th November, 2012. The Petitioners seek direction that the Respondent No. 2 must take steps to hold/conduct the elections of the Respondent No. 5 Committee forthwith. They have further sought direction against Respondent No. 1 to initiate action against Respondent No. 5 Committee for appointment of Administrator, on account of failure of...
M/S. Sanjay Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-14-2012
S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty. 3. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held as under: “In the instant case, during scrutiny of the appeals it is found that, the appellant has claimed that the Order-in-Original appealed against was communicated to them on 22/02/2011. Under the provisions of Section 35A (3) an enquiry was conducted with the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad-III Dn, regarding the date of communication of the above Order-in-Original. The Deputy Commissioner vide his letter F.No.V(17)27/Adj/SI/08/387 dated 08/04/2011 confirmed that the date of receipt of above OIO by the appellant, M/s. Sanjay Enterprises is 19/11/2009 and also submitted a copy of ‘acknowledgement of receipt’ of said Order in Original. As per Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ...
Gautam Vora Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-14-2012
P.C. Heard Mr.Rajendra Sorankar, learned advocate for the applicant and Mrs.A.A.Mane, learned APP for the State. 2. Prima-facie, from the facts alleged, no offence punishable under Section 225 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the present applicant. The allegation against the applicant is that he has harboured the main offender-Vijay Palande. The offences punishable under Section 212 and 202 of the IPC are bailable. 3. Under these circumstances, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 4. The application is allowed. 5. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only), with one surety in the like amount....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs. M/S. Devgiri Textiles M ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-11-2012
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 Cotton Yarn and Cotton Fabrics falling under Chapter 52 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The officers visited the factory premises of the respondent. During the course of scrutiny of the records it was noticed that there was difference in the quantity of yarn produced for the year 2000-2001 as compared with quantities mentioned in the RT 12 returns. The statement of Shri V.K. Pathak, Sales Manager was recorded, the show cause notice was issued and the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs.4,49,196/- and imposed a penalty of equal amount by rejecting the contention of the respondent that in the private records the figures are mentioned in respect of production for monthly target. The respondents filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (...
M/S. Minex Metallurgical Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Exc ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-11-2012
S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. Appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. The applicant received periodical show cause notices for denial of deemed credit in respect of goods received from various Re-rollers of Iron and Steel, who had opted for procedure laid down under Rule 96ZP (3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. We find that for the previous period when the demand is confirmed on the same ground on the appeal filed by the appellant the Tribunal held in favour of the appellant’s own case reported in 2005 (191) E.L.T. 694 (Tri.Mumbai) held as under:- “The appellants, M/s. Minex Metallurgical Co. Ltd., are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and availing Modvat credit in respect of the inputs under Rule 57A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. During visit of the Preventive Officers of Central Excise, Division-I, Nagpur-II, it w...
M/S. Supreme Petrochem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-11-2012
S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty. The applicants are engaged in the manufacture of various grades of Polystyrene availing credit in respect of the duty paid on input/input services used in or in relation to the manufacture of excisable goods. 3. During the period in dispute applicants availed credit of Rs. 14,91,567/- in respect of the taxable services which relates to trading activity. 4. The contention of applicant is that the credit of Rs. 9,05,583/- is in respect of the trading activity which is reversed by the applicant after the adjudication order. Applicant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time barred. Admittedly, there is delay of 2 days in filing the appeal and applicants had not filed any application for condonation of delay. The applicant relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Ajinkya Enterprises ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »