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.
Fdc Ltd and Another Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Another
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko: The first appeal filed by the assessee involves a classification dispute for the period April 1997 to March 1998 while identical dispute is involved in the second appeal filed by the department for another period (April 1998 to February 1999). In both the appeals the dispute relates to classification of two products namely: "Vitcofol Syrup with Iron" and "Vitcofol Drops". For the period April 1997 to March 1998, the lower authorities classified both the items under Heading 29.36 (SH 2936.00) of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and the assessee (appellant) wants both the items to be classified as medicaments under Heading 30.03 (SH 3003.10) of the said schedule. For the period April 1998 to February 1999, the lower appellate authority set aside the order-in-original and allowed the claim of the assessee for classification of both the items under SH 3003.10 and hence the Revenue's appeal. 2. It is not in dispute that "Vitcofol Syrup with Iron" and "Vi...
Sudhakar Y More Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export), Nhava Sheva
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko: The counsel for the appellant has filed a copy of death certificate dated 03/08/2009 issued by the competent authority in the Grampanchayat Nandivali Panchanand, Tehseel Kalyan, District Thane in respect of the appellant who died on 15/07/2009. The counsel for the deceased has confirmed the fact in a letter dated 10/05/2010 submitted to the Registry. It is submitted that the appeals are against personal penalties and that any legal heir or representative of the deceased has not filed any application to pursue the appeals under Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules. In the circumstances, the appeals have already abated and they stand disposed of accordingly....
Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Aurangabad Vs. Paras Spun P ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko: In this appeal of the Revenue, the appellant wants the respondent to be penalised under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The learned DR submits that the respondent as an SSI unit had crossed the prescribed maximum limit of exemption after 28/09/1996 and, therefore, the penal provisions of Section 11AC are liable to be invoked against them. It is also submitted that, for the period prior to 28/09/1996, Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 is applicable. The learned JDR has claimed support from Order No. A/12/09/SMB/ C-IV (Mum) dated 23/12/208 passed by a learned Single Member in appeal No. E/2924/2003-Mum. (CCE vs. Marathwada Spun Pipes Ltd.). 2. There is no representation for the respondent despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. Their cross-objections are available on record, wherein the main prayer is to allow MODVAT credit for 'neutralising the demand of duty'. With reference to the cross-objections, the learned JDR submits that the re...
Shri Om Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import), Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2010
Per :Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Appellant has filed against the order of absolute confiscation of 850 pieces of counterfeit Nokia E 51 Mobile Phones and the penalty of Rs.3,50,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the appellant has filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of goods 850 pieces of ‘Mobile Phones E-51 (NOKIA) single SIM (without accessories) - of Chinese origin. This consignment had arrived from Hong Kong under Airway Bill. The said consignment was subjected to first check examination and as per the examination report, the goods were found to be marked as ‘Made in Finland’ as against declaration of country of origin as China in the said Bill of Entry. Samples were drawn and it was also noticed that the Mobile Phones were packed in loose polythene instead of box packing and the trade name was being used falsely as Nokia. On enquiry, it was revealed that the entire consignments were counterfeit and on tha...
Wockhardt International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import), Mum ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko: It is submitted by the learned consultant for the appellant that the appellant does not want to pursue the appeal and wants to withdraw the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn....
Shivkumar Alias Shiwalamal Narumal Chugwani Proprietor of Kanhaiya Gen ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2010
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. In these criminal applications, the applicants have put to challenge the order of issuance of process dated 7.1.2004 and the tenability of Regular Criminal Case No. 66 of 2009, so also the tenability of Criminal Case Nos. 393/2000, 81/1999, 31/1999, 5/1999, 18/2000, 463/2007 and 10 of 1999.2. In view of huge increase in the offences taking place in relation to Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954, The Seeds Act 1966, The Insecticides Act 1968 and The Drugs and Cosmetics Act 966 and in the instant cases in relation to Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and having found pitiable condition in relation to the misconceptions, knowledge and skill of the implementing agencies, and taking stock of certain provisions which act as obstacle, ultimately resulting into defeating the very object of the Parliament in framing these laws, I have decided to deal with some of the provisions of these Acts and Rules with a view to throw light on all the above aspects.3. In Crimina...
Shrimati Shripad Prabhu Dindibagkar Vs. Special Land Acquisition Offic ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2010
F.M. Reis, J.1. The above appeals challenge the Judgment and Award dated 18th June, 2004, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-III, at Margao in Land Acquisition Case No. 233/1995.2. The Appellant in First Appeal No. 240/2004 is the original Applicant and the Appellants in First Appeal No. 252/2004 are the original Respondents in the said Land Acquisition Case No. 233/1995 before the reference Court.3. The parties shall be referred to herein in the manner as they so appear in the said impugned Judgment and Award.4. By a notification dated 1 0th June, 1991, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short, the Act), an area admeasuring 37,000 square metres was sought to be acquired belonging to the Applicant situated in the property surveyed under No. 200/1 of Poinguinim Village for the construction of New B. G. line for Konkan Railway. By an Award dated 31st March, 1994, the Land Acquisition Officer, fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of ...
Bhavika Manoj Sonar Vs. Manoj Narendra Sonar and the State of Maharash ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2010
A.V. Potdar, J.1. By the present application Under Section 482 of The Cr.P.C., the applicant/original complainant is before this Court to quash and set aside the proceeding in RCC No. 132/2007 on the file of J.M.F.C. Raver.2. This application is an exception to the general rule because such type of applications are always filed by the person, who are arrayed as an accused in the criminal trial. But this is an application where the complainant is before this Court, praying to quash and set aside the criminal proceeding filed by herself.3. Rule.4. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, application is finally heard at the stage of admission itself.5. Before considering the submissions across the bar, it is necessary to summarize the facts of the application, which gave rise to file the present application before this Court. It is not under dispute that the applicant and respondent No. 1 are husband and wife. Their marriage took place on 23/01/2007. It appears that on 2...
Daryaji Exports Tradewell Engineering Works Vijay Vora Kisan Unde Moon ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko 1. In all these applications, the prayer of the appellants is that waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery be granted in respect of the dues adjudged against them by the Commissioner in adjudication of the relevant show-cause notice. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeals should be summarily disposed of. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we take up the appeals. 2. It appears from the records that one M/s Santosh Sai Exim Pvt Ltd claimed drawback in excess of what was due to them in relation to certain goods covered by a Shipping Bill. The department seized the goods for further investigations. A show-cause notice dated 9.4.2007 was issued to the said party for confiscation of the seized goods and for recovery of the differential drawback amount. Investigations conducted by the DRI into this case incidentally resulted in disclosures about past exports made by the said party and certain other parties. Inv...
Eversmile Pre-fab Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Thane-i ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J). The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of what are referred to as "RCC cement blocks" in one of the show-cause notices, "concrete blocks" in another one and "cement blocks" in the rest of the notices. They filed a classification list effective from 23.6.1988 describing their products as "hollow/solid cement blocks constituting components of prefabricated buildings falling under Heading 94.06" and claiming the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No.64/88-CE dated 1.3.1988. This and two other classification lists filed upto 1990 were approved. In respect of classification lists filed thereafter, however, only provisional approval was given in view of a classification dispute which arose between the department and one M/s. Excon Building Materials Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. in respect of identical goods. [It appears from the records that, after the dispute was settled by the Tribunal in favour of the Revenue in Excon case, the depart...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »