Mumbai Court June 2010 Judgments
imran Suleman Shaikh Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2010
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and APP for the State.2. The petitioner is challenging an order of externment dated 15th March, 2010. It is submitted that the show cause notice which was issued by the respondent mentions the criminal case which was filed against the petitioner in the year 2004 and in which, he was convicted in the year 2006. Secondly, he refers to chapter case which was initiated against the petitioner in the year 2004. It is submitted that the said cases which are mentioned are not proximate in point of the time to the show cause notice and thereafter, order of externment which has been passed. It is submitted that one of the requirement which has to be established by the Externing Authority is that the Externing Authority is to be satisfied that the petitioner is likely to commit the said offence. It is submitted that the Externing Authority could not have arrived at such a conclusion particularly, when the said case which was filed against the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Trinity Auto Components Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant has filed this appeal against the confirmation of duty demand of Rs.1,63,644/- together with interest and equivalent amount of penalty. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant had imported some machinery in 1995 on which it availed CENVAT credit of the CVD paid on the same. The CVD was paid on the purchase value of the machine at Rs.13,02,717/-. After using the said machine for about 8 years, it was cleared on the transaction value of Rs.3 lakhs and excise duty was paid on the same. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant on 01.05.2007 demanding duty of Rs.1,63,644/- being the difference between the credit originally taken in 1995 and duty paid at the time of clearance in 2003. Interest was demanded and penalty was also proposed. The department took a view that the appellant should have reversed the duty equivalent to the credit taken originally as per the provisions of Rule 2/ Rule 3 (4) CENVAT credit Rules, 2002. Both the lower autho...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Nadeem Gubitra and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Jnch
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal These appeals are filed by (a) Shri Maqsood Mahmood Ali @ Lucky Ali - the 2nd possessor of the car, (b) Shri Nadeem Gubitra - 3rd possessor of the car and (c) Shri Charanjit Singh - against the imposition of penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one Shri Mohamed Ebrahim Mahmood Haji - the importer, imported one BMW car under Transfer of Residence scheme. At the time of initial import it was found the Model Number was not correctly declared and the car was not in the possession of the importer for required period of one year. The said car was therefore confiscated and redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs.3.25 lakhs. After release of the car, the importer sold the car to one Shri Bimal Natwarlal Mehta, the first possessor who in turn sold the car to Shri Maqsood Mahmood Ali, the 2nd possessor and the present appellant before me. Later on, this car was handed over to the 3rd possessor Shri Nadeem Gubitra wh...
Tag this Judgment!KeihIn Fie Private Limited. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the rejection of refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant had cleared Carburetors to their customer, M/s. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. (HHML) under 36 invoices on payment of Central Excise duty. M/s. HHML had subsequently on receipt of the goods reduced the price and communicated that payments would be made to the appellants as per this reduce price. Based on this the appellant filed refund claim for Rs.2,61,629/- claiming that the reduce price was the transaction value on which duty was payable and therefore claimed that they were entitled for refund of excess duty paid on the goods cleared. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants denying refund on the ground that the mutual adjustment, subsequent to clearance of goods was not a transaction value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and that the value of excisable ...
Tag this Judgment!Sunflag Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Centra ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal This appeal is filed by the appellant against the rejection of their refund claim. 2. The appellant is the manufacturer of iron and steel products. The appellant filed a refund claim of Rs.2,72,727/- claiming the benefit of exemption Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 as amended. The Notification No. 41/2007-ST exempts certain taxable services specified in the schedule received by an exporter and used for export by way of refund prescribing certain conditions therein. Out of Rs.2,72,727/-, the Asst. Commissioner rejected the refund claim of Rs.2,48,272/-. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who also rejected their refund claim of Rs. 2,48,272/-. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before me. 3. Today the matter was listed for final hearing. None appeared on behalf of the appellant but a communication was received from the appellant on 11.01.2010 with a request to decide the appeal on its merit taking into consideration the su...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Kishormal Shah, Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Senior Police ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2010
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties.2. The Petitioner No. 1 and 2 are the landlords and Petitioner No. 3 is their employee. Respondent No. 2 is son of the original tenant. The Respondent No. 2 claims that he was carrying on his business in shop No. 8. On 06.02.2009 he was present in his shop along with his employees since 9 a.m. On that day whenever his customers came there to purchase goods from his shop, they were not allowed to enter from the main gate with their bycycles, three wheelers, tempo etc. None of them were allowed to take their vehicle inside. Similarly, the vehicles of Godrej Vegetable Oil Company and of Virchand Khemaji came there with the goods to be unloaded at the godown of the Respondent No. 2. Those vehicles were also not allowed to enter inside the compound. The gate was chained in such a manner the vehicles could not enter into the compound. On enquiry by the Respondent No. 2, care taker watchman Kiran...
Tag this Judgment!S.V. Pathak and Company a Partnership Firm Registered Under the Indian ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2010
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The petitioner seeks to challenge orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur on 28 September 1995 and on 25 March 1996. By the first of those orders, the Commissioner rejected an application filed by the petitioner under Section 264 questioning the imposition of a penalty on him under Section 271B. By the second of those orders, an application for rectification that was filed by the petitioner was dismissed.2. The facts in so far as they are relevant fall within a narrow compass. The petitioner filed his return of income for assessment years 1990-91 to 1993-94 together with audit reports under Section 44AB, on 19 November 1993, 23 July 1993 and 30 December 1993. The position as it emerges from the record of this proceeding is that the petitioner had obtained the tax audit reports under Section 44AB before the specified date. The specified dates for the aforesaid four assessment years, for obtaining tax audit reports were 31 October 1990, 31 October...
Tag this Judgment!Sau Rekha Ramesh Warghe, Vs. Tirandas Bansi Wankhede,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2010
A.P. Bhangale, J.1. Heard. Admit. Notice to respondent No. 1 (driver of the vehicle) dispensed with.2. This appeal is directed against judgment and Award dated 23.7.2008 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati in MACP No. 413 of 2005.3. The facts briefly mentioned are:On 8.7.2005 deceased Ramesh Bhimraoji Warghe while returning walking towards his house from Zilla Parishad Colony, Amravati was violently dashed from behind by a Tractor bearing registration No. MH27-L-1360 driven rashly and negligently which resulted in serious injuries and consequent death of said Ramesh. The offending Truck was driven by one Tarundas Bansi Wankhede and was owned by one Ishwardas P. Ingale. It was insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited, Amravati during relevant period. The claim was filed by widow and three daughters of the deceased who was aged about 48 years, at the time of accident. The claimants claimed compensation of Rupees Ten lakhs, interest and costs.4. The ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Gee Tee Silk Mills Shri Prakash Kukreja Vs. Commissioner of Centr ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko, M(J) The appeal filed by the company (assessee) is against a demand of duty confirmed against them under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act and also against penalties imposed on them under Section 11AC of the Act and Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appeal filed by the Managing Director of the company is against a penalty imposed on him under Rule 209A of the said Rules. These appeals are arising before us today pursuant to the Hon’ble High Court’s remand orders dated 18.6.2009 in Central Excise Appeals no. 218 and 219 of 2006. The Hon’ble High Court has directed this Tribunal to take fresh decision on the penal liability, if any, of the parties. In respect of the company, the Hon'ble High Court requires us also to consider the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in UOI vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors 2007 (215) ELT 321 (SC). 2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we find that the enti...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs (import), Mumbai Vs. M/S Voltas Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko, M(J) In this appeal of the Revenue, the question arising for consideration is whether the know-how fee (licence fee) paid by the respondent to M/s. Robertshaw Controls Co., USA under agreement dated 26.11.1991 was liable to be included in the assessable value of the capital goods imported by the respondent from the same company, under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1998. Under the said agreement, the respondent had paid a sum of USD 2,60,000 to the above company as consideration for technical know-how (including drawings and other information) for the manufacture, in India, of refrigeration equipments. Under the same agreement, the respondent was also liable to pay royalty as a percentage of their sale proceeds, to the US company. The question of includability of royalty in the assessable value of the capital goods imported by the respondent was settled in the assessee s favour at an earlier stage of the lis between them and the Revenue. The surviving question...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »