Mumbai Court July 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.
M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Nagpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2010
ORAL ORDER Per: Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President 1. This appeal is being taken up for hearing in terms of the order passed today in Excise stay application No.E/1574/09. 2. The appellant challenges order dated 16/07/2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. By order dated 29/08/2008 the joint Commissioner, Nagpur had disallowed the Cenvat Credit to the tune of Rs.47,53,412/- to the appellants on the ground that the same was availed unlawfully. 4. The issue involved in the matter related to the availment of Cenvat Credit by the appellants on the inputs and capital goods used in erection of Fly Ash Handling Plant at Chandrapur Super Thermal Power Station (CSTPS), which is 60 Kms away from the factory, for collection and transportation of Fly ash, which was used in the manufacture of cement as inputs was admissible or not. 5. The Ld. Advocate for the appellants has drawn...
Commissioner of Customs (import), Mumbai Vs. Indo-german Laboratories
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko The appeal filed by the Revenue is against the grant of a refund to the respondent without the bar of unjust enrichment, by the lower appellate authority. The respondent has filed their counter styled as "cross objections". The appellant's case is being made out today by the learned DR on the strength of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in CCE, Mumbai vs. Allied Photographics India Ltd. 2004 (166) ELT 3 (SC) read with the Hon'ble High Court's remand order dated 10.2.2010. There is no representation for the respondent today. However, in a letter dated 22.3.2010, the respondent has requested for a decision on merits. It appears, they do not want to be personally heard. 2. The respondent had imported a chemical, viz. Diethyl Malonate, and cleared the same on payment of duty of Rs.3,25,040/- under a bill of entry dated 16.9.1997. The payment of duty was at the rate of 30% + 5% + 18% (CVD) as applicable to CTH 29.42. On 12.12.1997, the respondent filed a claim for refun...
Raymond Ltd. N.P. Dhurandhar Vasant Naag Vs. Commissioner of Central E ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko We are taking up these appeals pursuant to the Hon'ble High Court's direction contained in order dated 26.4.2010 read with its earlier order dated 9.4.2010 in Writ Petition No.2471 of 2008. These appeals are directed mainly against demand of duty of over Rs.28 crores confirmed against the appellant-company (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) by the Commissioner of Central Excise in adjudication of a show-cause notice dated 6.6.2008, which had raised the demand of duty for the period 9.7.2004 to 6.4.2008 by invoking the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The assessee's appeal also challenges the penalties imposed on them under Section 11AC of the Act read with Rules 25 and 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. There is also a challenge against the seizure of certain quantity of tops valued at over Rs.33 lakhs as well as against its subsequent confiscation ordered under Rule 25 of the said Rules. Incidentally, the redemption fine o...
Sunil Impex Vinod Lath Laxmikant Lath Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Adj ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko These appeals are directed against the Commissioner's order demanding duty of over Rs.2.25 crores from the first appellant and appropriating their payment of Rs.13,22,948/- towards such demand, demanding interest on duty under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, imposing penalty equal to duty under Section 114A of the Act on the first appellant and imposing penalty of Rs.25 lakhs each under Section 112 of the Act on the second and third appellants. 2. The second appellant was a director of M/s. Sunil Industries Ltd., a company which held 80% of the stake in M/s. Sunil Impex. The third appellant was a partner of the first appellant/partnership firm. 3. After investigations into the activities of the appellants, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) issued show-cause notice dated 30.7.1999 demanding duty of over Rs.2.25 crores from the partnership firm under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act on inputs imported by them duty-free under the Passbook Scheme, seeking to c...
Globelink Ww India Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export),nhave ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko, M(J) After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of, at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we take up the appeal. 2. This appeal is against the Commissioner s order imposing a penalty of Rs 6 lakhs on the appellant under Section 114 (iii) of the Customs Act. The short question arising in this appeal is, whether any penalty was liable to be imposed on the appellant under the above provision of law and, if so, to what extent. According to the appellant, their limited role, in relation to the subject goods, was that they allotted a slot in the ship for export of goods by M/s Inox India Ltd (exporter). In support of this claim, they submit that, in respect of export goods, the master Bill of Lading was issued by the shipping line and only a house Bill of Lading was issued by them (appellant). On the other hand, the adjudicating authority found the appellant to be the...
Vimal Arora, Vice President Indoworth India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J) We have directed the appellant to pre-deposit an amount of Rs 5 crores within four weeks from the date of receipt of order No. S/132-135/WZB/Mum/2010/EB/C-II dated 13.5.2010. The party received the order on 24.5.2010. They were required to report compliance today. There is no evidence of the amount having been deposited, nor any request for extension of time to deposit, nor any stay order produced from the jurisdictional High Court. In the circumstances, appeal No. E/396/09 and appeal E/1405/09 filed by M/s Indoworth (India) Ltd are dismissed for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Act. The stay petitions filed by Shri S.N. Maheshwary in appeal Nos E/397/09 and E/1406/09 are posted to 13.8.2010 for fresh hearing and disposal....
Dharam S/O Kondiram Gumladu Age 23 Years, Vs. the State of MaharashtrA ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the conviction and sentence inflicted upon the appellant/original accused by judgment and order dated 23.4.1998, rendered by Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.280 of 1997 convicting the appellant/accused under section 436 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/, with default condition of non payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for six months.2. The prosecution case which can be summarized as under : The appellant/original accused namely Dharam Kondiram Gumladu is resident of Dongaon and was residing with his wife in a hut erected in his field. The complainant namely Dashabai Ramchandra Namglot i.e. PW 1 also resided similarly, along with her husband and children in the hut erected in the field close to the field of the accused. It is alleged that there was some quarrel between the accused and his wife on 31.3.1997, which was overheard by PW 1 Dashabai and her h...
Shri. Vasant S/O Rangnath Chorghade, Age36 Years, Vs. the State of Mah ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.2. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.7312 of 2008 prayed for directions to Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to declare election programme for holding election of Respondent No.6 Gangakhed Taluka Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Ltd., Gangakhed, DistParbhani. The Petitioner further prayed for granting injunction against the Authorities from appointing any Administrative Board. The Petitioner prayed for directions to prevent the Administrative Board from disposing of the immovable property of the Respondent No.6 Sangh. Byway of amendment, the Petitioner prayed for directions to Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to take the charge of the Respondent No.6 Sangh and to take possession of the property of the Sangh which was illegally delivered to Respondent Nos. 13, 14 and other traders. The Petitioner prayed for interim relief.3. In Writ Petition No.1175 of 2009 the Petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned resolution dated 3rd December, 2008 passed by the Board in res...
Ganesh @ Premnath Dattu Deore. Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
1 On 22.7.2010 we issued contempt notice to Contemnor Vishwas Tulsiram Shinde asking him to show cause why action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (the said Act) should not be taken against him and why he should not be punished in accordance with law. The contemnor is the brother in law of applicant Ganesh @ Premnath Dattu Deore. The applicant is a life convict and he is lodged in Nasik Central Prison, Nasik. The present application is filed for temporary bail on the ground that the applicant ' s younger sister is to get married. 2 This Court had directed learned A.P.P. to make enquiry. Enquiry made by learned A.P.P. revealed that the applicant ' s sister Rohini was married long back i.e. on 26.5.2003 and the wedding cards annexed to the application were fabricated to persuade this Court to grant bail to the applicant. This was revealed when statements of Rohini sister of the applicant and her father in law came to be recorded. When we asked Mr. Pradhan as to how such an applicat...
Roshan Uttam Rai and ors. Vs. Somnath Shivnath Badade and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-2010
1) The above Petition takes exception to the order 4th August 2008 passed by the Respondent No.2Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nasik by which order the caste claim of the Respondent No.1 as belonging to Mahadev Koli Scheduled Tribe has been validated. The said order has been challenged inter alia on various grounds as mentioned in the above Petition but principally on the ground that certain documents which were preconstitutional relating back to the year 1920 and there abouts have not been considered in the proper perspective as well as on the ground that the affinity test has not been conducted in the manner as enunciated by the Full Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in 2009(3) Mh.L.J. 995 in the matter of Shilpa Vishnu Thakur v/s. State of Maharashtra and ors. Para40 thereof is relevant and the same is reproduced herein under :"THE CONCLUSIONS :40. Our answers to the questions referred are as follows:(i) The burden of establishing that the applicant belongs to a tribe notified...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »