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.
Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Aurangabad Vs. Sark Chemica ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan: This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No: BPS(421)/80/2003 dated 16/12/2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad. 2. In the impugned order the lower appellate authority has set aside the penalties on the appellant M/s. Sark Chemicals (P) Ltd. and Shri S.S. Saboo, Director of the company. Hence the Revenue is before me. 3. The relevant facts for consideration in this case are as follows: 3.1. The respondent is a manufacturer of Ferric Alum and cleared the goods. The respondent also collected packing charges separately in respect of the same; however, they did not include the same in the assessable value of the goods. Thus, there was a short-payment of duty to the extent of Rs. 48,383/-. The respondent was also availing small-scale exemption and on the date of availing of small-scale exemption, there was duty-credit in their books of accounts amounting to Rs. 9,575/- which the respondent faile...
Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
The appeal and the stay application are directed against the Order-in-Appeal No: US/114/RGD/2012 dated 22/02/20112 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals - II), Mumbai. 2. The appellant M/s. Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. availed CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 1,74,118/- on the service tax paid on the outdoor catering service. The department was of the view that outdoor catering service is not an ‘input service’ as defined under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and accordingly, issued a show cause notice dated 20/12/2010 for denial of the credit taken on the outdoor catering service during the period November, 2006 to October 2009. The same was confirmed by the adjudicating authority who ordered recovery of the CENVAT credit wrongly taken along with interest thereon and also imposed penalties of equivalent amount under Rule 15(1) and Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2.1. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who v...
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
The appeal and stay application are directed against the Order-in-Appeal No: SB(50)50/MI/2010 dated 27/09/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone - I. 2. The facts relevant for consideration in this case are as follows: 2.1. The appellant, M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., procured base oil from the refinery at Mahul and received the same at their Terminal at Mumbai and thereafter, the same was stock transferred to their depot at Silvasa. When they stock transferred the goods the appellant reversed the credit of the duty paid by the refinery and paid the equivalent amount and from the Silvasa depot, once again it was cleared on payment of excise duty. The issue involved is for the service tax paid on the freight from the terminal at Mumbai to the depot at Silvasa, whether the appellant is eligible for the CENVAT credit of service tax paid on the GTA service. 2.2. The department was of the view that as per the appellant’s averments before ...
Nitco Tiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan: The appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No: BC/273/M-III/2011-12 dated 24/01/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai - III. 2. The appellant, M/s. Nitco Tiles Limited, are manufacturers of mosaic tiles falling under Chapter 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. During the period 2006-07 they availed credit of service tax paid on outward freight i.e., freight from the factory premises to the premises of the customers amounting to Rs. 63,366/-. They also availed CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 3,076/- based on documents which were not notified under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 25/05/2010 issued to the appellant proposing to deny CENVAT credit. However, they reversed the credit taken before the issuance of the show cause notice. The said notice was adjudicated by order dated 30/06/2011wherein CENVAT credit was denied on outward transportation and also the credit taken on th...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Ii Vs. Virtual Computers Pvt Lt ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
S.S. Kang 1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondent. 2. The appeal is being taken up in view of the remand order dated 11.2.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3560 of 2007. 3. The issue involved in this appeal is regarding classification of motherboard and add on card. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the goods in question are classifiable under Heading 8471 of the Central Excise Tariff, whereas the Revenue wants to classify the same under Heading 8473 of the Central Excise Tariff. 5. We have heard the learned Additional Commissioner (A.R) at length. The add-on card provides more features by adding circuit connected to the motherboard using peripherals component inter-connected. Motherboard is the central printed circuit board of the computer and holds many of the crucial components of the system providing connectors for other peripherals. We find that the sub-heading 8471 of the Central Excise Tar...
M/S. Mahabal Auto Ancillaries P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Exci ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
The appellant are in appeal against the impugned order along with stay application wherein their appeal has been dismissed for non-compliance of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Heard both sides. 3. After hearing both sides, I find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, I waive the requirement of pre-deposit and take up the appeal itself for final disposal. 4. I have gone through the impugned order wherein the appeal has been dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, on the premise that on 07.2.2012 a personal hearing was taken up and in that personal hearing, it is reported that appellant is directed to make a pre-deposit of entire amount of service tax before 22.02.12. For better appreciation, the order passed while dealing with the application for waiver of pre-deposit is reproduced as under:- “Sh.Ramesh G. Joshi CA appeared for PH for waiver of predeposit and reiterated the submissions ...
Veer Jawan Security Services Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashi ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
The appellant has filed this appeal against the impugned order wherein demand has been confirmed against them under security agency services for the period 16.10.1998 to 30.9.2003 along with interest and penalty under Section 75A, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant started security agency in the year May 1997 under the name and style as Jai Jawan Securities under the proprietorship of Shri S.N. Mahajan. In May 2002 Shri Mahajan changed the name of the security agency to Veerjawan Securities Services and applied for registration to the department on 28.11.2003. During the course of proceedings, statements were recorded. On the basis of statement of Shri S.N. Mahajan, a show-cause notice dated 08.4.2004 was issued for demanding service tax of Rs.3,54,202/- for the period 16.10.1998 to September 2003. The show-cause notice was adjudicated, demand of Rs.3,04,693/- was confirmed along with penalty under Section 75A, 77 and 78 were impos...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai.V Vs. M/S. Gtc Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
Sahab Singh This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who allowed the appeal filed by M/s. GTC Indus.Ltd. ( hereinafter referred to as the Respondent). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Cigarettes and they had initially filed refund claim of Rs. 54,40,642.71 vide their letter dated 30.10.1984. This amount was paid by them against show cause notice dated 23.12.1982 issued by the Range Supdt. The said amount was paid by the respondent vide TR6 challan No.82/83/280 dated 3.1.1983 being the differential duty on the clearances of cigarettes effected during the period 30.11.1982 to 13.12.1982 on account of rescinding of Notification No. 30/79-CE dated 1.3.79 ( prescribing concessional rate) by Notfn. No.284/82-CE dated 30.11.1982 which made the tariff rate of duty applicable to cigarettes with effect from 30.11.1982. However, the respondent cam...
Shri Ramchandra Babaji Thali and Others Vs. Shri Bhaskar Babaji Thali ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
Oral Judgment: 1 Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The above Petition takes exception to the Order dated 5/10/2010 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Uran by which order, the Application filed by the Petitioners herein who are the original Defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.61 of 2006 came to be allowed, and the following directions were issued:- “(1) Plaintiff is hereby directed to correct the valuation of the suit i.e. @ Rs.4000/- per sq.mtrs. (2) Plaintiff is also directed to pay one fourth of the ad-voleram fee as a court fee within one month from today.” 3 It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary facts. Suffice it to say that the said suit has been filed by the Plaintiff claiming his share in the plots allotted by the CIDCO at villages Chanaje and Bokadwira in lieu of the acquisition of the land of the Petitioners' joint family for setting up a new township of Navi Mumbai by CIDCO. The ...
Shri Mohit Chari, S/O Subhas Chari and Another Vs. State Through Pp.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
Heard Mr. De Sa, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') take exception to the judgment and order dated 15/01/2010 passed by the Children's Court in Special Case No.20/2006 by which the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. read with Section 8(1) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 and sentenced each one of them to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo one month's Simple Imprisonment. Amount of Rs.5,000/-, if paid, has been ordered to be handed over to victim girls though their parents by way of compensation. 3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is as under: On 12/07/2006, the accused kidnapped the victim girls from lawful custody of their guardians by deceitful manner by enticing them and took them at Cabo de Rama...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »