|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 658 Records
-
2008 (10) TMI 573 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... time is given to them. 3. Heard learned SDR. She submits that they should deposit the amounts as directed as they did not have a strong case. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions. We notice from the Stay Order No. 955/08, dated 10-9-2008 2009 (13) S.T.R. 391 (Tri.-Bang.) that they were directed to pre-deposit Rs. 50 lakhs as against the total demand of more than Rs. 3.97 crores. Taking into consideration the deposit made already and also the fact that appellants have suffered huge financial losses, we direct the appellants to pre-deposit Rs. 75 lakhs within three months from the date of this Order and report compliance on 22-1-2009. On such deposit the appeal will be heard on the same date along with the pending appeal. Failure to deposit will entail dismissal of the appeal. On such deposit the balance of demands stands waived and recovery stayed. On such deposit the stay order will be in force even after expiry of 180 days. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2008 (10) TMI 572 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
CENVAT credit - tax paid on the services received even prior to the registration - Held that: - the credit will not be available even before the date of registration to enable the input service distributor to take credit.
-
2008 (10) TMI 571 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), AHMEDABAD-II
... ...
... ... ..... and other services at various port. The appellant has produced the licence issued to them by Gujarat Maritime Board, Bhavnager bearing F. No. GMB/POT/PS 2224 dated 18-12-2007, it is observed from this licence that the appellant is given licence to load or unload cargo from steamer at (Bhavnager) group of Ports. I find that in view of the above referred CESTAT judgments, the licence issued by the port authority in present case, cannot be considered as lsquo authorization rsquo , which is essential to cover the services provided by the appellants under the category of lsquo Port service rsquo . 13. In view of the above findings, I hold that the appellant are not required to got registered themselves under the category of lsquo Port Services rsquo . Demand of service tax under the category of lsquo Port Services rsquo is not sustainable against the appellant. 14. In view of the above discussion, I allow both the appeals filed by the appellants and set aside the impugned orders.
-
2008 (10) TMI 570 - SC ORDER
Eligibility to claim the benefit of cum-tax value on the bills which has been raised as service provider - allowed to assessee.
-
2008 (10) TMI 569 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Confiscation, penalty and fine - Description of goods in Bill of Entry not tallied with Advance Licence
-
2008 (10) TMI 568 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Refund - Documents for claiming refund - Merger of units - Invoices furnished in support of refund claim not in the name of appellant
-
2008 (10) TMI 567 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Valuation (Customs) - Transaction value - Enhancement of - Evidence - So long as transaction value is correct and there is absence of evidence
-
2008 (10) TMI 566 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Exemption to Naptha for manufacture of fertilizers ... ... ... ... ..... htha has been procured duty free has been used for the manufacture of fertilizers. Prima facie, the appellants have a very strong case on merits. Therefore, the demand of duty and the imposition of penalty does not appear to be proper. In any case the entire issue can be examined in depth at the time of final hearing. As Prima facie, the appellants have a strong case, both in terms of merit and also limitation, we grant full waiver of the duty/interest demanded and also the penalties imposed. The matter may come for hearing on 21-7-2008. rdquo 6. emsp In view of the facts being same, the appellants are eligible for availing the benefit of stay of the impugned order from recovering the amounts. Hence, the stay application is allowed granting waiver of pre-deposit and staying the recovery till the disposal of the appeal. The appeal to be linked with the appeal No. E/860/2007 pending in the Tribunal for hearing on 17th November, 2008. (Pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
-
2008 (10) TMI 565 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Income escaping assessment – non issuance of notice u/s 148 – remedy under section 292BB – held that:- The service of notice is a pre-condition for framing an assessment order under section 147. The learned counsel for the appellant sought to place reliance on the provisions of section 292BB of the said Act which has been introduced with effect from 1-4-2008. However, we feel that no reliance on that provision can be placed for two reasons. The first reason being that the said provision is not applicable to the assessment year 2001-02. The second reason being that this argument was not at all being raised before the Tribunal. – Decided against the revenue.
-
2008 (10) TMI 564 - SC ORDER
Issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the Circular issued by Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi, bearing No. 563/59/2000-CX, dated 21st December, 2000 which circular is binding on the Department.
-
2008 (10) TMI 563 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Assessee Sold an immovable house property asst. yr. 1988-89 - It is the contention of the assessee that in the assessment year of sale, the assessee entered into an agreement for purchase and paid an advance of Rs. 3,50,000. The balance was paid and registered sale deed is taken in the next year.
-
2008 (10) TMI 562 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Refund - Unjust enrichment ... ... ... ... ..... to the assessee rsquo s letter dt. 9-8-01 informing the Revenue that no duty would be collected by them from their customers and the same is being absorbed by them awaiting final order of Tribunal. Revenue in their appeal memo have not contested the above findings and have not advanced any arguments or reasons to rebut the above findings of Commissioner (Appeals). It is held in the same decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in case of Allied Photographics India Limited that the fact of non-passing of duty incidence to the customers can be established from other evidence. As such, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not granted relief to the respondent only on the ground of uniformity of price but also by taking into account the appellant rsquo s letter dt. 9-8-01. Reference to balance sheet further corroborates the above stand of the assessee. 9. emsp As such, we find no merit in the Revenue rsquo s appeal and reject the same. (Pronounced in Court on 8-10-2008)
-
2008 (10) TMI 561 - CESTAT,AHMEDABAD
Remission of duty - Fire accident - denial on the ground that the said raw material were received by the appellant without payment of duty against CT-3 certificate and the same has not been utilized in the manufacture of final product, which was required to be exported and as such, the condition of N/N. 1/95-C.E, dt. 4-1-95 is not satisfied - Held that: - decision of the Tribunal in case of M/s. Ginni Filaments Ltd. [2000 (10) TMI 118 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI], followed, wherein rejection for remission of duty in respect of duty free procured raw material by a 100% EOU by the lower authorities on the identical ground was not upheld - there is no dispute about the destruction of the goods in fire and by adopting the ratio of the above decisions, remission of duty has to be upheld - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2008 (10) TMI 560 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Customs House Agent’s licence - Revocation of ... ... ... ... ..... tion of the firm and allowing Shri Ramdas Dhormale to act as authorized signatory. Here also we find that the charges framed nowhere states that he acted as an authorized signatory, but these are observations made by the Commissioner, which are not based on enquiry report. Even if this breach is accepted, it cannot be considered so grave so as to call for revocation of the CHA licence. We find that Regulation 20 of the CHALR, 2004 Regulation 21 wrongly mentioned by the Commissioner gives option to the Commissioner to revoke the licence and order for forfeiture of part or whole of the security or only order forfeiture and part or whole of the security. In such a situation, we consider that forfeiture of whole of the security would meet the ends of justice. We accordingly set aside the order of the Commissioner revoking the licence of the CHA by holding that the whole of the security deposited by the CHA shall stand forfeited. Appeal is partly allowed. (Pronounced on 1-10-2008)
-
2008 (10) TMI 559 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Penalty for short levy or non-levy of duty - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... s been imposed. We have already upheld the penalty imposed on Shri Pradeep S. Mehta and set aside the penalty on Shri Bhumish M. Shah and therefore no ground remains for consideration of the appeals of the Revenue against these two persons. The appeals against these two persons viz. Appeal Nos. C/606/06 and 611/06 are accordingly dismissed. 16. emsp In the result, Appeal Nos. C/558/05 of Shri Pradeep S. Mehta, C/ 1196/05 of Shri Shammi Chanana and Appeal Nos. C/607/06, C/610/06, 605/06, C/606/06, C/608/06 and C/611/06 filed by Revenue against M/s. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., Shri Dinesh Meghani, Ashok Kumar Acharya, Pradeep S. Mehta, Shammi Chanana and Bhumish M. Shah respectively are rejected. Appeal No. C/559/05 of M/s. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., C/708/05 of Shri Bhumish Shah are allowed. Appeal Nos. C/612/06, C/609/06 filed by Revenue against M/s. Aroma International and Shri Piyush Meghani respectively are allowed by way of remand. (Pronounced in Court on 23-10-2008)
-
2008 (10) TMI 558 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... item is adulterated. At this prima facie stage, we cannot say that the appellants had imported pure edible grade palm oil. Also several arguments are taken that the goods had been cleared and utilized through PDS which can be examined in detail at the final stage. Taking into consideration of overall facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the appellants to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs only) within a period of three months from today and on such deposit, the pre-deposit of balance duty amount stands waived and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal, even after the expiry of 180 days. Failure to comply this order will entail dismissal of the appeal. Call on to report compliance on 29th January 2009. As the revenue involved in the matter is more than Rs. 1.33 crores, the appeal is listed for out of turn hearing on 27th February 2008, subject to compliance of the terms of the stay order. (Pronounced and dictated in the open court)
-
2008 (10) TMI 557 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Refund claim - Maintainability ... ... ... ... ..... son that the assessment order was not challenged and the refund claim could not be entertained unless the assessment was successfully challenged hence this appeal. 2. emsp I have heard both sides. 3. emsp I find force in the submission of the appellants that since the Revenue had not filed any appeal against the adjudication order entertaining the claim for refund, the admissibility of refund attained finality and hence it was not open to the Commissioner (Appeals), in an appeal filed by the importers, to reject the claim on the ground of non-maintainability, in the light of Tribunal rsquo s orders in ABB Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai - 2005 (181) E.L.T. 71 and Styleman v. CC, Chennai - 2006 (198) E.L.T. 559. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the adjudicating authority for decision on merits after extending a reasonable opportunity to the appellants of being heard in their defence. 4. emsp The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2008 (10) TMI 556 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Related person ... ... ... ... ..... ars under proviso to Section 11A(1) would be available to the Department and in addition to duty, the Appellant company would be liable to pay interest on duty at the applicable rate under Section 11AB and would also be liable for penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. 6. emsp In view of the above, we, while holding that M/s. CBL and M/s. Apex Traders are not related persons, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner for de-novo adjudication in respect of the allegation against the CBL regarding reducing the assessable value of the goods by inflating the ROC and transport/delivery charges being recovered from M/s. Apex Traders, and re-quantification of the duty recoverable from CBL and re-determination of the quantum of penalty on the Appellants, if the above allegation is found to be true. The de-novo proceedings shall be conducted after hearing the Appellants. 7. emsp The appeals stand disposed of as above. (Pronounced in open court on 17-10-08)
-
2008 (10) TMI 555 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Car import - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... 2008 dated 11-7-2008 in the case of Mr. Narayanan Nambiar Meloth v. CC and Others 2009 (233) E.L.T. 77 (Tribunal) . Following the ratio laid down in the above decision, we dismiss the Revenue rsquo s appeal and allow the party rsquo s appeal partially. In fact, the party has pleaded for doing away with the fine and penalty. That cannot be done. There is a very clear violation of the Import Policy because the respondents were not in possession of the vehicle for a period of not less than one year before their arrival to India. Since that condition was violated, the imposition of confiscation of the vehicle and imposition of redemption fine and penalty are justified. Moreover, the Commissioner (Appeals) has already reduced the same. Hence, that part of the order, we do not want to interfere with. Thus, we allow the appeal of the party partially and reject the Revenue rsquo s appeals. (Operative portion of the order pronounced in open Court on conclusion of hearing on 10-9-2008)
-
2008 (10) TMI 554 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Unjust enrichment ... ... ... ... ..... nrichment rsquo is based on equity and has been accepted and applied in several cases. In our opinion, therefore, irrespective of applicability of Section 11B of the Act, the doctrine can be invoked to deny the benefit to which a person is not otherwise entitled. Section 11B of the Act or similar provision merely gives legislative recognition to this doctrine. That, however, does not mean that in absence of statutory provision, a person can claim or retain undue benefit. Before claiming a relief of refund, it is necessary for the petition/appellant to show that he has paid the amount for which relief is sought, he has not passed on the burden on consumers and if such relief is not granted, he would suffer loss. rdquo In view of the above decision we find no merit in the contention of the appellants that bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable, if the amount is paid in pursuance of the provisional assessment. Appeal is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court.)
............
|
