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.
Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan 1. The appeal and stay application are directed against order-in-appeal No.P-III/VM/209/2010 dated 08/09/2010 dated 08/09/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune. 2. The facts relevant for consideration in this case are as follows: 2.1 The appellant supplied excisable goods to SEZ developers without payment of excise duty and availed Cenvat credit on the inputs and input services under the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The period of dispute relates to prior to 31/12/2008. The department was of the view that inasmuch as the goods have been cleared without payment of duty, they are not eligible for availing Cenvat credit on inputs/input services and they are liable to pay a sum @ 10% of the price of the goods supplied in terms of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules. Accordingly, a show-cause notice dated 11/12/2009 was issued to the appellant and the demand was confirmed vide order dated 03/03/2010. The appellant preferred appeal before...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs. Nectar Steel Cast Pvt L ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
S.S. Kang 1. Heard the learned Deputy Commissioner (A.R.), as none appeared on behalf of the respondents. 2. Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that as per the provisions of Section 35E (2) of the Central Excise Act, the appeal against the adjudication order is to be filed by the same authority who passed the impugned adjudication order and in the present case the adjudication order is passed by the Joint Commissioner whereas the appeal is filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. 3. We find that as per the provisions of Section 35E (2) during the relevant period, the Commissioner of Central Excise may, of his own motion, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which an adjudicating authority subordinate to him has passed any decision or order under this Act for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order and may, b...
Welspun Maxsteel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharn 1. This appeals and stay applications are directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.US/110 and111/RGD/2012 dated 20/02/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. 2. The short issue for consideration in this case is, whether the appellant is eligible for Cenvat credit on the security service availed by them at their pump house for pumping water, which is required as a coolant in their manufacturing operations or not. 3. The revenue’s stand is that inasmuch as the input service has been consumed outside the factory premises, they are not eligible for Cenvat credit. 4. The appellant on the other hand argues that without water, the manufacturing operations cannot be carried out and the water has to be pumped from Kundalika river, which is situated away from their factory and there is a pump house for undertaking this activity. The security services provided there is integrally connected to the manufacturing activity at the appellant’s fac...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›