Mumbai Court June 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.
Jai Bharat Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nas ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2012
S.S. Kang 1. Heard both sides. 2. Applicant filed the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs 15,01,921/-, interest and penalty. 3. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant demanding duty with interest and for imposition of penalty on the basis of electric consumption of their rolling mill. The Revenue is demanding duty in view of the trial run conducted in the mill in the presence of the authorized signatory of the appellant. The case of the Revenue is that the applicant is showing more consumption of electricity than the actual to suppress the actual production. 4. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) alongwith application for waiver of pre-deposit against the adjudication and the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the appellant to deposit whole of the duty amount within 15 days for hearing of the appeal. Appellant had not complied with the condition of the stay order and the appeal filed by them was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) f...
Akzo Nobel Chemicals (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-2012
Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellant has filed this appeal along with application for stay and application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal. 2. We have examined the reasons stated for delay in filing the appeal and find it satisfactory and we condone the delay in filing the appeal. After hearing both sides, we are of the opinion that the appeal can be disposed of at this stage. We waive the requirement of pre-deposit and take up the appeal for final disposal. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant are discharging service tax liability under the reverse charge mechanism on GTA and availing benefit of Notification 32/04 dated 03.12.2004. As per the said Notification, if the transport agency has not taken input service credit and same is mentioned in the consignment note, then the service receiver is entitled to the benefit of Notification 32/04 availing the abetment of 75% from the gross value of services. As the declaration was not mentioned in the consig...
Paswara Chemicals Ltd. and Another Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-2012
Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) M/s. Paswara Chemicals Ltd. has filed an appeal against the imposition of penalty under Section 112A of the Customs Act, 1962. Revenue has also filed an appeal against the impugned order for enhancement of penalty. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant imported ‘Heavy cut oil, Mineral Oil’ and filed bills of entry for clearance of the same. On examination of the same, it was found that the oil imported by the appellant is hazardous and therefore, same were found to be prohibited and accordingly confiscated. On request of the appellant same were allowed to be re-exported on payment of redemption fine of Rs.10 lakhs and penalty of Rs.5 lakhs. The appellant are not challenging the imposition of redemption fine. They are challenging the quantum of penalty. 3. On the other hand, revenue is also challenging the quantum of penalty. 4. Heard both sides. 5. On behalf of the appellant it is contended that the appellant has suffere...
B.E. Billimoria and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-2012
Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Appellant are in appeal against the impugned order confirming the service tax demand of Rs.14,28,30,465/- along with interest and equivalent penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Heard both sides. 3. After hearing both sides at length we are of the opinion that the matter can be disposed at this stage. Therefore, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and take up the appeal for disposal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the ‘Construction of Complex Services’ and ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction Service’. The appellant are registered under ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction Service’, ‘Construction of Complex Services’ and ‘Work contract services’. The impugned period is October 2008 to March 2009 for the services provided by them under the category of ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction Service’ and ‘Construction ...
Commissioner of Customs (import), Nhava Sheva Vs. M/S. Ndc Drug and Ch ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) This is a revenue’s appeal directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 03/(GR.II-C)/2010 (JNCH)-IMP-03 dated 23.04.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Nhava Sheva. The issue relates to classification of Xanthan Gum. 2. The respondent M/s. NDC Drug and Chemical P. Ltd. imported consignment of Xanthan Gum USP 80 Mesh vide bill of entry no. 813195 dated 18.12.2009 and claimed classification under heading no. 39.13 of the Customs Tariff. On examination of the goods, it appeared that the classification claimed by the appellant is not correct and the product merit classification under heading no. 13.01. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Dy. Chief Chemist along with catalogue and literature submitted by the importer. The Dy. Chief Chemist vide report dated 31.12.2009 opined that since the product under import is produced by natural process (bacterial fermentation of carbohydrates which are also natural in origin) and has char...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. M/S. Kalmeshwar Textiles Mi ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-2012
S.S. Kang Heard the learned Deputy Commissioner (A.R.) 2. As none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice. 3. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority denying the facility of then Rule 96-E(1) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944. 4. Rule 96E (1) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 permitted removal of cotton yarn from one factory to another without payment of duty. Such removal could be for the purpose of processing, packing or for the manufacture of cotton fabrics. The word ‘factory’ was defined in sub-rule (2) of the Rules, the factory means a factory working with the aid of power in which - (a) Cotton yarn or (Jute Twist Yarn, Threads, Ropes and Twine) Supn and Cotton Fabrics or jute manufacture are woven. (b) Only Cotton Fabrics or jut manufactures are woven and the duty thereon is paid on square meter, adva...
inox Air Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2012
Ashok Jindal: The appellant are in appeal against the impugned order along with application for stay wherein their appeal has been dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant are manufacturer of liquid gases. For manufacture of gases they import liquid helium from outside India. The liquid helium is required to be stored in temperature of minus (-) 269:C. Therefore, these gases are imported in a special tank and the tank in which these gases are imported is required to be exported within six months from their importation. There is no dispute that these tanks were exported after storing the gases in their own. The only dispute is that for supply of liquid helium gases stored in these tanks, which are being re-exported, the appellant are paying some charges to their foreign supplier. Revenue is of the view that the appellant are liable t...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs. M/S International Conve ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2012
Shri S.S. Kang, Vice President Heard both sides. 2. Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of conveyor belts and for manufacture of the conveyor belts, the respondents have made import of Industrial Nylon Yarn during the period 7.2.1987 to 18.2.1988 by availing the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification 38/78-Cus. Revenue denied the benefit of Notification and respondent paid the higher rate of customs duty under protest. The respondent challenged the order denying the benefit of Notification No. 38/78-Cus before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 5.4.1991 set aside the demand and allowed the benefit of Notification. The respondent filed refund claim in pursuance of the order passed by the Tribunal and the same was sanctioned. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued on 1.3.2003 for recovery of the erroneous refund. The ad...
Bhima Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2012
Ashok Jindal: The appellant are in appeal along with a stay application against the impugned order wherein their appeal has been disposed of for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. After hearing the learned counsel, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, we have taken up the stay application as well as the appeal together for disposal. 3. The facts of the case are that the Commissioner (Appeals) has asked the appellant to make a pre-deposit of 50% of the service tax demanded along with interest. Against the said order, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay and during the pendency of the writ petition, the matter came up before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of their appeal on the premise that the appellant failed to comply with the provisions of Section 35F of the Centra...
Commissioner of Customs (import) Nhava Sheva Vs. Bharathi Rubber Linin ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan: There are 40 appeals C/931-970/10 filed by the Revenue against the Order in Appeal Nos. 217 to 256 (GR-IV)/2010/(JNCH)/ IMP-205 to 244 dated 09/09/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhava Sheva, Mumbai. As the issue involved is common and arise out of a single order, they are taken up together for disposal. 2. For the purpose of reference and decision, we take up appeal No. C/931/2010 and the facts are identical in other cases also (except for the quantity and price and the quality of scrap). The facts arising for consideration in the said appeal are as follows:- 2.1. The importer M/s Bharati Rubber Lining and Allied services Pvt. Ltd., Thane filed a bill of entry No.747223 dated 19/02/2006 for import of 126 MT of aluminium scrap of grade ‘Twang’ and declaring a value of US$1639 per MT. The assessment was done provisionally under bond pending determination of value and submission of documentary evidence...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »