Mumbai Court November 2010 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.
Kuldeep Kumar Sethee .. Vs. Mr. R.S. Sharma, Cmd, Ongc and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
1. The petitioner came to be promoted from time to time and the last promotion he was granted was in the year 1995 to the post of Superintending Engineer (E & T) at E4 level. He claims that he was entitled for further promotion to E5 level on completion of three years of service in the post of Superintending Engineer and the subsequent promotions, but he being a whistle blower, exposed serious acts of corruption in ONGC and the management got annoyed and started harassing him, he was denied his due promotion to E5 level onwards, his ACRs were spoiled and he was hounded with disciplinary actions.2. The petitioner approached this court in Writ Petition No. 1887 of 2000 praying for directions to grant him promotion to E5 level and the said petition was dismissed on 14/2/2001. In the year 2002-03, ONGC introduced an internet Portal known as "ongcreports.net" so as to provide a platform "Forum" and "Feedback". It was intended that the employees could discuss work related issues and solve wo...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs. M/S Videocon Internatio ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko 1. Appeal 2157/03 filed by Revenue and appeal E/2200/04 filed by the assessee are directed against the Appellate Commissioner’s order dated 12.5.2003, wherein three refund claims for a total amount of duty of Rs 70,02,051/- were held to be barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and six other refund claims for a total amount of duty of Rs 1,07,98,905/- were held to be neither barred by limitation nor by unjust enrichment. The assessee’s appeal is against the rejection of the refund claim of Rs 70,02,051/- for the period October to December 1996, whereas the Revenue s appeal is against grant of refund of duty of Rs 1,07,98,905/- for the period January to June 1997. We have examined the records and heard both sides. The details of the refund claims in question are as follows: Sr No Month/period against which refund claim filed Date of filing refund claim Amount of duty claimed for refund Rs 1 Oct 96 22.8.97 22,95,610/- 2 Nov 96 22.8.9...
Shop 24 Seven India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs(import), Sheva
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
Per : S.K.Gaule Heard the ld.SDR for the department. The appellant are neither present , despite notice, nor there is any request for adjournment. We take up the appeal on merits. Briefly stated facts of the case are that M/s. Industrial and Financial Networking P.Ltd. ( Now known as SHOP24SEVEN India Ltd. ), the appellant imported certain consumer goods. The goods were subjected to first check examination and the department found the price declared was 1/6th - 1/5th of the declared M.R.P. The value was not accepted by the department in terms of Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 and the lower adjudicating authority after proceeding sequentially from Rules 5 to 8 of the Valuation Rules, determined the value under Rule 7 of the Rules by allowing 60% of the abatement on declared M.R.P., which the importer has to declare as per the Notification No. 44(RE-2001)/1997-2002 dated 24.11.2000 and loaded the assessable value by 40% approximat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›