Mumbai Court June 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.
Smt. Anajani Shrikant Naik and ors. Vs. the Deputy Collector (Rev) and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2010
A.S. Oka, J.1. These two first appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as these two appeals were ordered to be heard together by the earlier bench.FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS IN F.A. No. 283 Of 20022. By First Appeal No. 283/2002, the appellants have taken exception to the judgment and award dated 1 1th February, 2002 passed by the learned District Judge, North Goa at Panaji in Land Acquisition Case No. 111/1994. The appellants are the claimants, who applied under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1894). The acquisition relates to land bearing Survey No. 418 situated at Marcaim village of Taluka Ponda admeasuring 40,425 square meters. The notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act of 1894 was published on 27th January, 1992. An award was made under Section 11 of the said Act of 1894 on 15th February, 1994. By the said award, market value of the acquired land was offered at the rate of Rs. 5/- per square meter. In the app...
Sukriti Maingi Vs. Indrani Chowdhary and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2010
JUDGMENT : 1.The Plaintiff has sued for recovery of possession of flat No.18/A in Sparsh Co-operative Housing Society at Janakalyan Nagar, Marve Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400 095 (the suit flat) from Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 on title under Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act. 2.The Plaintiff is the proprietress of M/s.Global Maritime Organisation. She has shown her title under the Deed of Sale dated 21.8.1992 produced by her in evidence along with the share certificate issued by Sparsh Co-operative Housing Society showing the admission of the Plaintiff s proprietary concern as a member upon the shares being transferred to her on and from 14.3.1992. 3.It is the Plaintiff s case that the husband of Defendant No.1, who was the father of Defendant Nos.2 and 3, (since deceased) was employed by Defendant No.4- Company in which the Plaintiff as well as her husband were Directors. He was given occupation of the suit flat during his service under his letter of appointment. The employment of t...
P.M. Chordia Foods and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Aurangabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant has filed this appeal against the confirmation of demand and equivalent amount of penalty by the lower authorities. 2. Despite several notices dated 10.11.09, 9.12.09, 13.4.10, 18.5.10 and today i.e. 24.6.10 none appeared on behalf of the appellant although I find letter dated 05.04.2009 is on record with a request that the impugned order be set aside to the extent of penalty since the unit is closed and nobody is there to look after the litigation. Hence, I have taken the matter for final disposal today. 3. On perusal of the record, I find that this is a case of shortage in the stock of packaged drinking water. During the visit of preventive party to the unit of the appellant on 16.12.2006, the shortage was found to the extent of 396 boxes of 9504 bottles containing 1 litre each, 517 boxes of 4653 bottles containing 2 litres each and 42 jars of 20 litres each. During the course of investigation, Shri. Santosh Agrawal, Plant Manager, has accepted in his...
Shri Manish Ramavtar Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal The short issue in this case involved is levy of penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the appellant. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Shri Mayur Shroff, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant was a mere broker and has not dealt with goods or knowing that the impugned goods are liable to confiscation hence, no penalties are leviable. 4. The issue has been discussed by this Tribunal in the case of Nasik Strips Pvt. Ltd. and 5 others vide Order No. A/88 to 93/10/SMB/CENVAT credit-IV dated 10.02.2010 following the decision of the case in the case of Dr. Writer Food Products reported in 2009 (242) ELT 381 (Tri. Mum) wherein this Tribunal has held that the appellant cannot be given any relief from penalty merely because he did not physically dealt with the goods removed clandestinely, without payment of duty. Hence, following the same ratio I confirmed the penalty on the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected....
The Commissioner of Customs (Ep), Mumbai Vs. Mother Dairy Fruit and Ve ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko 1. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that the question to be considered in this case is whether, in respect of furnace oil procured by the respondent (100% EOU), the benefit of exemption under Notification 1/95-CE dated 04/01/95 would be admissible for the period of dispute. A similar issue was considered by this Tribunal in the case of Tata Tea Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2004 (164) ELT 202 (Tri-Delhi) and it was held that the furnace oil brought to the EOU and used in boilers as fuel during the period from 01/01/2000 to 21/05/2000 fell within the category of ‘consumables’ and hence exemption from payment of duty was available to it in terms of Entry No.7 of Annexure-I to Notification 1/95-CE. It is pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the respondent that the Special Leave Petition filed by the department against the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Tata Tea Ltd. was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The ld. SDR,...
The Commissioner of Customs (Acc and Import), Mumbai Vs. Atlas Shippin ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko 1. This appeal of the Department is against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs in a case remanded by this bench. The respondent in this appeal had filed transhipment permit No.384 dated 21/01/92 with the proper officer of Customs at Air Cargo Complex, Sahar Airport, Bombay for the clearance of communication equipment at # 400/- (F.O.B) equivalent to Rs.23,779/- (C.I.F) covered by an Invoice dated 07/01/92 of M/s.Kelvin Hughes Ltd., H.K. and cleared the equipment for the vessel ‘M.V. Kashi Sagar’ as ship spares. Earlier, the respondent had filed transhipment permit No.11468 dated 11/12/90 for clearance of another communication equipment valued at BEF 308,640/- (F.O.B) equivalent to Rs.2,23,856/- (C.I.F) covered by Invoice dated 07/12/90 of M/s. Sait Marine International, Belgium and cleared the equipment for the same vessel as ship spares. The Collector of Customs issued a show-cause notice dated 12/03/93 to the respondent for recovery of Customs...
Hindustan Unilever Ltd., and Another Vs. the Commissioner of Customs ( ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko 1. There is no representation for the appellants despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. The respondent is represented by the JCDR. He points out that waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery were allowed to the appellant in this case by the bench considering solely the fact that about 50% of dues had been paid by the assessee during the course of investigation into large scale evasion of duty by them. It is submitted that any prima facie case was not made out by the appellant at the stay stage. It is submitted that, at that stage itself, the Bench had suo motu fixed a hearing date (27/03/2008) for these appeals considering the high stakes involved in the case. Hearing in this case, however, came to be adjourned from time to time mostly at the instance of the appellants. We note that the notice for today’s hearing was issued on 27/04/2010 and the same appears to have been served on the appellants and their Counsel. Today, however, none of the...
Abdul Rashid Khan Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant has filed this appeal against the confiscation of motor cycles in question. This is the 2nd round of litigation. In the earlier round of litigation the matter was remanded back by this Tribunal directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter in the light of principle laid down by the Hon’ble apex court in the case of Collector of Customs, Madras and Others vs. D. Bhoormull - 1983 (13) ELT 1546 (S.C.). 3. Heard both sides. 4. The facts in general are that R and I Wing of the Customs department has conducted various searches in Mumbai city on specific information that a certain number of branded motor cycles are being smuggled / imported without payment of customs duties and some of such motor cycles are registered with Regional Transport Authorities on fake bills of entry. The officers of R and I Wing of Customs (P) Commissionerate, Mumbai conducted search operation at five different premises and seized 28 motor cycles of foreign origin...
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs. Vishnu Dyeing and Print ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko 1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the appellate Commissioner’s order setting aside the demand of duty on certain processed fabrics. The respondent has filed their counter styled as ‘cross objection’. On a perusal of the records, we note that an earlier final order passed by this bench in the Revenue’s appeal in favour of the appellant was set aside by the Hon’ble High Court and the case was remanded for fresh decision vide order dated 16/07/2008 of the Hon’ble High Court in Central Excise Appeal No.104/07 (Vishnu Dying and Printing Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise). The Hon’ble High Court has directed the Tribunal to reconsider the Revenue’s appeal in the light of Order No.A/1403-1406/WZB/05/C-III dated 21/07/2005 passed by this Bench in a batch of appeals No.E/2560, 2694, 2718 and 2890/01 (Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sree Ram Textiles and Processing Mills, Paramount Silk Mills (P) Ltd., , Para...
Sangita Shah Parent/Guardian of Ativ Shah Poonam and ors. Vs. State of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2010
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 who are the contesting Respondents waive service. It is not necessary to issue notice to Respondent Nos. 6 to 12. The pleadings are complete and, therefore, by consent of parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The Petitioners are parents of minor students who have appeared for the 10th standard examination conducted by the Council for Indian School Certificate Examinations (Respondent No. 5) (hereinafter for short referred to as 'ICSE'). The Petitioners have appeared from the secondary schools impleaded as Respondent Nos. 6 to 12 in this Petition. These examinations have been conducted in March 2010. The son/daughter of each of the Petitioners has passed the standard 10th examination conducted by Respondent No. 5 Council.3. The first Respondent is the State of Maharashtra. The second Respondent is the Principal Secretary, Department of School Education and Sports, State of Maharashtra, whereas Respo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »