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.
Shri Bharat Kandhari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Ministry of Publ ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2010
S.A. Bobde, J.1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. This petition involves question of regulation of prices of certain drugs and medicines manufactured in India with a view that such drugs are made available to the consumers at the lowest possible price.3. Mr. Naik, the learned Amicus Curiae, pointed out from AnnexureA to the petition, a list of drugs, which clearly shows a wide disparity in the prices of drugs merely because they are manufactured by different companies. The said list is reproduced below:DRUG NAMECOMPANY NAMEQUANTITYCURRENT PRICECetrizine 10 mg (Anti Allergic Tablet)Alzine(Core)10's7.80Hicet(Micronova)10's14.80Cetrizet(Sun)10's34.00Ciprofloxacin 500 mg (AntibioticTablets)Zoxan(FDC)10's44.75Biocip(Biochem)10's49.95Clfran(Ranbaxy)10's89.60Flunarizine 10 mg (Migraine)Migon(Le Sante)10's19.90Migraid(Cipla)10's20.25Slblium(Johnson & Johnson)10's52.00Gabapentin 300 mg (Anticonvulsant)Gabapin(Instas)10's98.00Neurontin(Pfizer)10's312.87...
Motiram Marotrao Bhongade, Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Polic ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2010
A.P. Lavande, J.1. By this appeal the appellants take exception to judgment and order dated 30th July, 2005 passed by 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 504 of 2001 convicting the appellants/ accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. By the impugned judgment they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. One Thousand each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months on the first count, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years on the second count, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. Five Hundred each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months on third count and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. Five Hundred each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months on the fourth count.2. Briefly the prosecution case is as under:Deceas...
Malhari S/O Amruta Surnar (Deceased Through Legal Heirs Haribai Malhar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2010
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Challenge in this Petition is to judgment and order dated 17.7.1992 rendered by learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurnagabad, in Revision Petition No. 106-B-91-P and to the judgment and order dated 27.6.1991 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Parbhani in Tenancy Appeal No. 1981/TNC/A/48.2. There is a checkered history to the tenancy litigation between the parties to the Petition. The period of litigation looms over a period of about 40 years. The petitioners are legal representatives of deceased Malhari Amruta Surnar. He was admittedly declared as a protected tenant of agricultural land bearing survey No. 22, to the extent of 21 acres area, situated at village Makni under Gangakhed Tehsils as per provision of Section 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (For short 'H.T. and A.L. Act'). Originally, land survey No. 22 was owned by one Rajaram S/o Niloba from whom deceased respondent No. 1 Rangnath Amruta Kachave...
Stefan Mueller, (German Citizen) Bearing Passport Vs. State of Maharas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2010
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP.2. On 4.3.2007, Police Inspector Sanjay Pawar, attached to the Haweli Police Station, Pune, got information that 300 to 400 youngsters were enjoying a party called 'Rave Party' on the land of one Chandrakant Hagawane, police raided that place and some persons were arrested. The present petitioner was accused No. 4. A plastic bag containing Ganja and 15 grams of Charas were allegedly found with him. The weight of Ganja is not given. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the police under different provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') against 15 persons. The accused Nos. 8 to 15 were discharged by the Court. By order dated 4.10.2008, the learned Special Judge under NDPS Act, Pune,directed to frame different charges against different accused. The learned Judge directed to frame charge against accused Nos. ...
M/S. Shree Sant Kripa Appliances (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellant has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeal) wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time-barred as per the provisions of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The facts of the case are that the Bill of Entry filed by the appellant was assessed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex Mumbai. On 18.1.2008 which was communicated to the appellant on 18.1.2008 itself the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) only on 17.6.2008 beyond the period of 2 months + 30 days as provided under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 without explaining any reasons for delay only saying that the goods were classified wrongly by oversight by the clearing agent of the appellant. 3. Despite several notices dt. 29.10.2009, 9.2.2010, 13.4.2010, 18.5.2010 and today i.e.23.6.2010, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. Accordingly, it seems that appellant is not interes...
M/S. Veekay Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal Heard both sides. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the authorities below holding that refund claim filed by the appellant is barred by limitation. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant filed a Bill of Entry dated 17.05.2006 and paid duty accordingly. On realizing that 4% additional duty was not chargeable to them as the machine under import was imported under EPCG Scheme, they filed refund claim on 18.10.2010. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim as time barred holding that as per Section 27 (1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, refund claim has to be filed within a period of six months and the same was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Against that order the appellant is before me. 4. The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submitted that in this case the duty has been paid by the appellant which was not payable by the appellant. Hence, the department should not have accepted the duty which was ...
Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Heard both sides. 2. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant for the issue involved in this case is that whether the activity of supply of drawing and designs for modernization and development of seamless pipe plant fall under the category of Consulting Engineer and whether the appellant is required to pay Service Tax on the amount paid by the appellant to foreign based service provider in terms of the provisions of Rule 2(1)(d) (iv) of the Service tax rules 1994. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant obtained designs and drawing from M/s. ABB Ltd. USA in the month of January 2003 for modernization and development of their seamless pipe plant. A show cause notice was issued in 2007 proposing that this activity fall in the category of Consulting Engineer and proposed to impose Service Tax on the said activity.. Initially, the demand was dropped by the adjudicating authority holding that mere supply of designs and drawing does not a...
Basf India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur-ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Heard both sides. 2. This is the second round of litigation wherein the duty demand has been confirmed against the appellant. 3. The issue involved in this case is that whether the appellants are required to reverse the duty on lost quantity which were not issued by the manufacture of finished goods and whether the reconciliation statement submitted by the appellant and had any relevance with the demand confirmed. 4. Shri Bharat Raichandani learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant argued the matter on merits as well as raised the point that the show cause notice is bad. In this case the show cause notice is bad and in not accordance with law as it was issued when the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2000 were in force by invoking old Modvat Rules. To support this contention he placed reliance on Sunrise Structurals and Engg. Ltd. reported in 2004 (117) ECR 307 (Tri.-Mumbai). Wherein it was observed that therefore, the law applicable on the date ...
Mirc Electronics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Acc), Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko In this appeal filed by the assessee, the dispute relates to both classification and valuation of the goods imported by them. The appellant (assessee) filed a bill of entry on 4.7.2000 describing the goods as "MEDIA WORKSTATION NON-LINEAR EDITING SYSTEM" and classifying the same under 8471 10 00. In the connected invoice of the supplier, the goods were described as "JVC PROFESSIONAL PRODUCTS Media Workstation Non-Linear Editing System (Including 3D DVE, MW-D30U and SDI, MW-D10U)". The invoice provided the total value of the goods as JY 3,255,000. Before the goods were assessed, the importer, in a letter dated 7.7.2000 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Gr.VA), stated that they had imported a hardware (CPU) loaded with editing software, keyboard and a mouse and that they would be using a local monitor in conjunction with the imported system. In this letter, the importer also canvassed classification of the goods under SH 8471.49. Subsequently, the importer...
D.P. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against determination, by the Commissioner, of their annual capacity of production (ACP, for short) and the consequential demand of duty. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of hot re-rolled products of iron and steel during the material period. These products were specified for compounded levy under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and the relevant Rules framed thereunder. According to the Compounded Levy Scheme, the manufacturer was required to declare the parameters of his mill to the Commissioner and the latter was, after verification, required to determine the ACP in terms of the prescribed formula given under the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1997 Rules'). The appellant had declared the parameters of their hot re-rolling mill to the Commissioner on 28.8.1997. On 8.9.1997, they received information from the Assistant Commissioner (Tech...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »