Mumbai Court July 2010 Judgments
Shri Hareshkumar Kanhayalal. Vs. Eknath Chendu Mahajan. and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
1.The present petition raises an issue regarding applicability of the concept of 'child in the womb' vis-a-vis the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948(here-in- after referred as 'Act, 1948').2. The Petitioner has initiated proceedings invoking section 25 of the Act, 1948, demanding the possession of the agricultural lands by filing an application bearing tenancy case No. 10 of 1981. The Tahasildar, Raver, dismissed the said application of the petitioner vide its judgment and order dated 23/06/1983, the petitioner aggrieved by the said order, preferred tenancy appeal bearing No. 52 of 1983, before Sub Divisional Officer, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon. The said appeal was allowed by the sub Divisional Officer, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon, vide judgment and order dated 06/09/1986. The respondents aggrieved by the same preferred revision application No.186 of 1986 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal vide its judgment and ord...
Tag this Judgment!Liladhar S/O Purushottam Narkhede, Age45 Years, Vs. Central Bureau of ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
1. The present criminal application, u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, takes exception to the order dated 11.03.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon below Exhibit260 in Sessions Case No.8/2006. By the said application (Exhibit260) the applicant, had prayed for discharge u/s 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, however the same is dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge vide the impugned order.2. Rule.3. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.4. Such of the facts as are necessary for the just decision of this criminal application, may briefly be stated as follows: a) An offence at CR No.242/2005 came to be registered on 21.09.2005 with Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon against two unknown persons for an offence punishable u/s 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of complaint of one Mahendra Panditrao Mahajan in respect of murder of Vishram Giridhar Patil, the then ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Ruby Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
Per: Shri P. Karhikeyan After hearing both sides on the stay application for some time, I find that the issue involved lies in a narrow compass and the appeal itself can be disposed of. Accordingly, the appeal is taken up for disposal after waiving pre-deposit. 2. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed demand of Rs.3,34,733/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 found to be due from the appellants towards excise duty of their finished products P and P medicines destroyed and accounted in its Annual reports for the year 2002-03 and 2003-04. The original authority also demanded applicable interest and imposed equal amount of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11AC of the Act. The impugned order rejected the appeal filed by the assessee. 3. I have heard both sides. 4. I find that the consistent plea of the appellant before the lower authorities was that the goods, which were accounted as destroyed in its Annual repor...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs (G), Mumbai Vs. Akm Trading Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the appellate Commissioner's order granting the benefit of Notification No.48/2000-Cus. dated 25.4.2000 to the respondent in respect of processed cotton fabrics imported by them under Duty Free Replenishment Certificate (DFRC) No.0410009541 dated 12.10.2000. The respondent had purchased the DFRC from the original licensee, viz. M/s. Texsyard International, Chennai, who had obtained it from the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Chennai, on the strength of two shipping bills covering export of "cotton processed made-ups other than grey". The DFRC permitted import of "processed cotton fabrics" to the extent of 12 kg. in quantity and Rs.19,933.80 in value. The respondent, as transferee of the DFRC, imported what was described as "cotton fabrics (55% cotton and 45% polyester)" in the relevant bill of entry. They also claimed the benefit of the above Notification. The bill of entry was provisionally assessed with th...
Tag this Judgment!NavIn Flourine International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import) ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
Per: Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member 1. Heard both sides. 2. Shri Prakash Shah, learned advocate appearing for the appellant states that the basis of the impugned order passed by the adjudicating Commissioner is the alleged cancellation of the import permit authorising the appellant to import 'Boric Acid' for non-insecticide use. He states that the cancellation order has not been given to the appellant either along with the show-cause notice or before passing the adjudication order. The appellants were also not heard by the adjudicating Commissioner before passing the impugned order. 3. Heard the learned DR who fairly states that the cancellation order is not in the records available with him, but he states that the appellants were given opportunities for personal hearing but they did not appear before the adjudicating Commissioner. 4. Considering the fact that the cancellation order, which is the basis of the impugned adjudication order, has not been provided to the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Nayasa Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Nh ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
Per: Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellants (exporter) have filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Exports) extending the time limit for issuing the show-cause notice for another period of six months in terms of the proviso of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The facts of the case are that during the course of investigation into large scale misuse of export incentive scheme like duty drawback and DEPB in the export of ready-made garments and fabrics by a number of export firms, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Mumbai came across that the appellants are having the IEC number and the activities of the appellants are managed by its Director Shri Yunus H Mithwani. On examination of the Customs-Edi data, it was observed that the appellants had availed export benefits as below: - Year Numbers of shipping bills filed FOB value of exported goods (Rs. in crores) DEPB benefit claimed/availed (Rs. in crores) Drawback benefit clai...
Tag this Judgment!Sandoz Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Thane - I
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
Per: Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member 1. Heard both sides. Shri Prakash Shah, learned advocate appearing for the appellants states that the same issue for an earlier period in respect of the appellants has been decided by the Tribunal vide final order No. A/307-308/09/EB dated 08/10/2009. 2. Learned DR appearing for the department confirms that the issues involved in the earlier case and in this case are identical. As such, following the ratio of the earlier decision of the Tribunal we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and allow this appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Hotel Sai Siddhi Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Cust ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
Per: Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member 1. Heard learned DR. Nobody is present on behalf of the appellant and there is also no adjournment request. 2. Learned DR states that the delay is of 317 days and that the explanation is not satisfactory for such a long delay in filing the appeal. 3. We find that the appellants are not present nor they have requested for any adjournment. It appears, that the appellants have no interest in pursuing their application for condonation of delay. We also find the explanation given for the delay in their application is not satisfactory. Hence, the appeal as well as the COD application, along with stay application are dismissed as not maintainable....
Tag this Judgment!Gitanjali Gems Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (C.S.i. Airport), Mumb ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal This appeal is filed against the order of imposing redemption fine and penalty on the appellant. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant had imported a consignment of assorted Cut and Polished Diamonds and sought clearance on the same under Bill of Entry through their CHA. In the Bill of Entry the weight of the said consignment was declared as 1946.550 CTS and the value (C.I.F) as US $ 5,81,483.60 equivalent to Rs.2,54,39,908/-. The assessable value of the said consignment was declared in the Bill of Entry as Rs.2,56,94,307/-. A supporting invoice, issued by the supplier, was also submitted by the importer wherein it was mentioned that there were totally 19 packets of cut and polished diamonds. The said consignment was examined in DPCC by the customs officials. On examination, only 18 packets were found inside the box as against the 19 declared in the supplier’s supporting invoice. One packet, having declared weight of 96.38 CTS value of Rs.14,75,819/-...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs (Export), Sheva Vs. Nippon Bearing Pvt Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko 1. In this application filed by the Revenue, the applicant (appellant) seeks stay of operation of the impugned order, whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case to lower authority (assessing authority) for passing a speaking order of assessment. The grievance of the Revenue is that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the transaction value of the subject goods before ordering remand. 2. After hearing the learned SDR for the appellant and the learned Consultant for the respondent (assessee), we are of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, we take up the appeal. 3. The respondent (assessee) imported bearings and filed a Bill of Entry dated 15.4.08. The assessing authority loaded the value of the goods by 134.90%. Upon receipt of printout of the Bill of Entry so assessed in the EDI system, the assessee paid the duty assessed. Subsequently, however, they submitted a letter dated 23.6.08 to th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »