Mumbai Court February 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.
Commissioner of Customs (import), Nhava Sheva Vs. Delhi Photocopiers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2010
In this appeal, the department prays for enhancement of the quantum of redemption fine and penalty imposed on the respondent by the lower appellate authority. The respondent had imported used/old photocopying machines without licence and filed a bill of entry on 17.10.2008 for clearance of the goods. They had declared the value of the goods as USD 28005. The Customs authorities, who doubted the correctness of the declared value, engaged a Chartered Engineer to examine the goods and ascertain its value. The Chartered Engineer, upon such inspection, found the goods to be old and used but in good condition with a residual life of over 5 years. He ascertained CIF value of the goods to be USD 34340 Rs.16,23,456/- on the basis of the value of certain contemporaneous imports. The Customs authorities worked out the assessable value of the goods, accordingly, as Rs.16,39,690/-. On this basis, the importer was alleged to have misdeclared the value of the goods. As the goods were imported without...
Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import), M ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2010
The appellant had imported various cosmetic items during 2003-06. They filed seven bills of entry from time to time, which were assessed on a provisional basis against Revenue Deposits. Later on, pursuant to an order of the Dy. Commissioner of Customs (SVB), the assessments were finalised. The date of finalisation of assessment is not clear from the records. The appellant claimed refund of the excess duty paid by them. They also produced the relevant balance sheet and profits of the relevant invoice and sales tax challans as and when required, to show that the duty burden had not been passed on to any other person. After hearing them, the Asst. Commissioner of Customs sanctioned refund of Rs.4,02,244/- but ordered the amount to be transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund. In an appeal filed by the assessee against the Asst. Commissioner’s order, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the said order after holding that the assessee had failed to produce incontrovertible evidence beyond ...
Krishnakumar Vishwanathprasad Chaturvedi Vs. the State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
A.P. Bhangale, J.1. By this appeal, appellant (original complainant) impugns judgment and order dated 21st December 2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, FC, 23rd Court and Special Court (for trial of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act) whereby complaint of appellant has been dismissed solely on the ground that it was barred by limitation.2. It is not disputed that legal notice was sent by complainant on 10.9.2004 making demand of money under dishonoured cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of notice. Postal acknowledgment filed on record as Document No. 7 shows that below her signature, accused has not put the date of receipt. Postal stamp on the acknowledgment mentions the date '14.9.04' as to the delivery thereof to complainant. Accused in her statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. states that she received legal notice on 13.9.2004. Complainant also states in paragraph 6 of his complaint that accused received notice on 13.9.2004. Limitation of thi...
Ecohidrotechnika Llc Vs. Black Sea and Azov Sea Production and Operati ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner had invoked Sections 9, 47, 48 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act) in the matter of foreign Award dated 10.12.2008 passed by the Arbitrator in a dispute between the parties. The petition was basically for enforcement of foreign Award against respondent No. 1 filed on 22.10.2009.2. By order dated 22.10.2009, the learned Vacation Judge had granted a temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner in terms of prayer (b)(ii).3. In the petition, the prayers were as under:(a)for an order and/or declaration that the Foreign Award dated 10th December 2008 (Exhibit A hereto) is enforceable under the provisions of Chapter II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and; directions be issued to enforce and execute the said Award dated 10/12/08 as decree in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondent No. 1.(b) that pending the enforcement and/or execution of the foreign Award dated 10th December 2008, this Hon&...
Kumari Kavita D/O Baliram Wagh Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Departmen ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
S.S. Shinde, J.1. Heard Learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for respective respondents waive notice. With the consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.3. This Writ Petition takes exception to the decision dated 14-10-2009 passed by the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Division, Nandurbar, thereby invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner that she belongs to 'Thakur Scheduled Tribe'.4. The petitioner applied for issuance of Tribe Certificate as 'Thakur-Scheduled Tribe' to the competent authority i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, Dhule. The Sub Divisional Officer, Dhule Sub Division, Dhule issued tribe certificate of 'Thakur-Scheduled Tribe' to the petitioner on 18-12-2000.5. It is the case of the petitioner that she belongs to 'Thakur-Scheduled Tribe'. The petitioner was admitted in the academic year 2006-2007 to B.Tech. (Paint) course in respond...
Smt. Vijaya Wd/O Vijay Vitthalani, Vs. Shri Jagdish Kanjubhai Vitthala ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
F.M. Reis, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the respondent.2. This is an appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Gadchiroli in Regular Civil Appeal No. 50/2009 whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 30/6/2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gadchiroli in Special Civil Suit No. 34/2003 came to be dismissed.3. The appellants filed the suit for specific performance of contract and for injunction and in the alternative for refund of earnest money that was claimed to have been paid by them to the respondent. The plaint came to be rejected by order dated 9/2/2005 and as such the suit of the appellants did not survive. The counter claim filed by the respondent was as such taken up for consideration. The counter claim was for a mandatory injunction to remove the shed which was raised by the appellants and also for a perpetual injunction retraining the appellants not to d...
Shri Vithal Bakula Kokate Vs. Podar Mills Unit of National Textile Cor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This intra court appeal arises from the Judgment and Order dated 9/2/2005 rendered by the learned Single Judge, thereby dismissing Writ Petition No. 2797 of 2001. The findings recorded by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court holding that the petitioner is not an employee within the meaning of Section 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (the BIR Act for short) have been confirmed by the learned Single Judge.2. The petitioner came to be appointed as a Learner by the erstwhile Podar Mills sometimes in the year 1966. He was promoted to the post of Investigator in the year 1970 and was fitted on the basic salary of Rs. 205/- per month. He was subsequently promoted to the post of Departmental Assistant, Junior Assistant, Senior Assistant and lastly to the post of Super Senior Assistant Master with effect from 15/7/1997 and was fitted in the pay-scale of Rs. 1305-50-1605 EB-50-1905. On 16/2/1998 M/s. Podar Mills which by then had become a unit of Nati...
Smt. Kiran W/O Yugalkishore Bhattad, Through Power of Attorney Holder ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
A.P. Bhangale, J.1. The present appeal is directed against judgment and order passed by learned 7th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur (Special Court under the Negotiable Instruments Act) whereby learned Magistrate acquitted accused of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in Criminal Complaint Case No. 4334 of 05.2. According to the complainant (appellant) hand-loan in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- was advanced by him to the accused on her request for her business on or about 21st January 2002. In order to discharge the said debt or liability, cheque bearing No. 039654 dated 22.4.2002 in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- drawn on Bank of India, Sitabuldi branch, Nagpur was issued as per exhibit 52 on or about 22nd April 2002. The cheque was presented within the period of its validity in June 2002, but on 5.6.2002 it returned dishonoured with remarks funds insufficient vide exhibits 53 and 54. The complainant had demanded the amount of Rs. 50,000/- by demand notice in wr...
Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Nashik Vs. Ravi Enterprise ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
This is an appeal filed by the department, represented by SDR. There is no representation by the respondent, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. 2. The short question arising for consideration is whether, under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, a penalty should be imposed on the respondent on the facts of this case. The respondent was found to have cleared dutiable goods manufactured by them as a 100% EOU, to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) without payment of duty. Subsequently, they paid the duty at the instance of the department. In a show-cause notice subsequently issued by the department, the above payment was proposed to be appropriated under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and equal amount of penalty was proposed to be imposed on the party under section 11AC of the Act. These proposals were contested. In adjudication of the dispute, the Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,33,295/- on the respondent under Section 11AC of the Act, apart from confirm...
Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad Vs. Satyasai Oi ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the short question which arises for consideration is whether, under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, a penalty is liable to be imposed on the respondent on the facts of this case. In adjudication of a show-cause notice dated 08/02/2005, the original authority had confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 3,43,680/- against the respondent for the period from April to October, 2003. The duty was so demanded by way of denial of CENVAT credit. The amount already paid by the party was appropriated towards such demand. The adjudicating authority also demanded interest under Section 11AB of the Act on the above amount of duty and appropriated the assesssee's earlier payment towards such demand. There was no imposition of any penalty under Section 11AC on the assessee as proposed in the show-cause notice. This part of the order of adjudication was reviewed by the department and accordingly an appeal was filed with the Commissioner (Appeals) for imposition of p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »