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.
Shri Jaidev @ Rajubhai @ J.D.Ramji Mishra, Age 32 Years, Vs. Shri D. S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-2010
1. In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of habeas corpus against the order of detention passed on 8/10/2009 under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (for short MPDA Act) has been challenged by the father of the detenu - Shri Jaidev @ Raju Bhai @ J.D. Ramji Mishra. The detention order was served on the detenu on 9/10/2009. It was approved by the State Government on 15/10/2009 and was thereafter confirmed on 17/11/2009, for a period of one year from the date of its execution i.e. from 9/10/2009.2. The detention order was based on C.R. No. 261 of 2009 registered with the Borivali Police Station. In addition, there were two in- camera statements recorded on 29/8/2009 and 1/9/2009, which referred to the incidents of fourth week of June 2009 and first week of July, 2009 respectively. Along with the detention order, the ...
Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan, Through Its Registrar, and anr. Vs. Presiding O ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-22-2010
1. The petitioners have questioned applicability of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and, therefore, the tenability of the appeal filed against them by a teacher, whose services are terminated. The petitioner is a School affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi and runs three schools in Nagpur. The petitionerManagement terminated the services of respondent no.2, who, thereafter, has approached the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the Act. The Tribunal took cognizance of the appeal and issued notice to the petitioner. The petitioner approached this Court questioning the applicability of the Act and tenability of the appeal. There is no dispute that the petitioner no.2 is a School, which is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi. It is, thus, not a School recognized by the Director, Divisional Board or any such Board or by any Officer recognized by State Governme...
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs. Sumesh Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-2010
1. Heard Ld. JDR for the department. None present for the respondent. However, vide their letter dated 19/07/2010 the respondent informed that they have already paid the interest amount and the appeal may be decided on merits. 2. The Revenue is in appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order No.JAK(275)/157/2008 dated 18/11/2008 thereby the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondent an set aside the order-in-original which confirmed the demand of interest under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 11 of the CEA, 1944. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts falling under Chapter Heading 8714 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. They supplied finished goods after receiving purchase orders from their customers. The valuation of the goods is done as per the rate prescribed in the purchase order. The additional amount on enhancement in rate is in view ...
Beekay Engineering Corporation Total Shipping India Pvt Ltd., Vs. the ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-2010
1. Heard both sides. 2. The importer and CHA filed these appeals against the order dated 23/12/2008 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the confiscation of goods in question, however reduced the redemption fine to Rs.1.00 lakh. Penalty on importer was set aside and the penalty on CHA was upheld. The issue involved in these appeals is common, therefore, they are taken up for disposal, together. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the importer filed a Bill of Entry on 26/08/2008 through CHA for clearance of hand held x-ray tube based analyzer system for ore analysis and claimed exemption of Customs and Central Excise Notifications No.21/2002 and 10/2006 respectively. During the verification under the RMS system it was found that the benefit of the Notifications was not available to the importer. Therefore, the proceedings were initiated against them and the goods were confiscated and redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs.1.2 lakhs and penalty of Rs.10,000/- was impo...
Manikgarh Cement the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-2010
Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal No.SVS/202/NGP-C/2007 dated 07/06/2007 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order-in-original disallowing the Cenvat Credit of Rs.5,66,945/-. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Cement falling under Chapter Heading No.2502.29 and 2502.10 of CETA, 1985. They also availed Cenvat credit on welding electrodes, welding wire and sweat on paste etc., claiming the same as input under the provisions of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. They were using this goods for cutting, welding, maintenance of structural items of iron and steel and repair and maintenance of plant and machinery which is not a process integrally connected with ultimate production of final product. The department initiated proceedings against the appellants since the Cenvat Credit as per the provisions of Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was admissible only on inputs, which are ...
Dinesh Doshi Age 52 Years. Vs. Commissioner of Police, the State of Ma ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-2010
1. In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of habeas corpus against the order of detention passed on 11/8/2009 under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (for short MPDA Act) has been challenged by the father of the detenu - Shri Pritesh Dinesh Doshi. The detention order was served on the detenu on 12/8/2009. It was approved by the State Government on 21/8/2009 and was thereafter confirmed on 29/9/2009, for a period of one year from the date of its execution i.e. from 12/8/2009.2. The detention order was based on three CRs, namely, C.R. No. 95 of 2009 registered with the Charkop Police Station, C.R. No. 161 of 2009 registered with the Oshiwara Police Station and C.R. No. 150 of 2009 registered with the Oshiwara Police Station. In addition, there were two in- camera statements recorded on 26/6/2009 and 29/6/2009, which ...
Mohammed Shakur Javed Ali Shaikh. Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-2010
1 The appeal is filed by the original accused no.2 from jail challenging the conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Section 376(g) and Section 452 r/w. Section 34 of I.P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case Nos. 669/2000 a/w. 1053/2001. For the first charge, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ and for second charge, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/.2 Accused No.1Torikul Ijhar Mulla was also convicted for the same charges and was awarded similar sentence. He had also preferred an Criminal Appeal No.1388/2004, but that appeal came to be disposed of as infructuous by order dated 16th February 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on the ground that he has already undergone the entire sentence and also paid the fine amount.3 To state in brief, the prosecution case is that the prosecutrix was living with her husbandShariful, as a tenant ...
Haribhau S/O Rajaramji Rewasekar, Aged About 60 Years, and ors. Vs. Sh ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-21-2010
1. The appeal impugns judgment and order dated 5.12.1998 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 247 of 1992 by learned Additional District Judge, Amravati which arose from dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No. 758 of 1988 decided by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amravati on 19.9.1992.2. The plaintiff Shri Swami Narayan Mandir by Wahiwatdar had instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 758 of 1998 for recovery of possession of open plot of land admeasuring 2603 square feet bearing Plot No. 19, Gandhi Chowk, Amravati city. The defendant occupied the plot as a tenant.3. By notice dated 1.4.1988, the plaintiff had terminated tenancy of the defendant and asked the defendant to vacate and pay arrears of rent. The defendant did not comply with the notice. Hence, suit was filed.4. The defendant resisted the suit on the ground that, in absence of permission from the Rent Controller, the plaintiff could not have terminated his tenancy. The defendant also contended that the suit plot was leased in favour...
Narsingh Pan Masala Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Pune - ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-2010
The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No: PII/237/2004 dated 03/06/2004 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand of duty of Rs. 1,37,880/- and imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. None present for the appellant for today's hearing and also on the earlier two occasions in spite of notice. It appears that the appellant is not keen to pursue their appeal. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal on merit after perusing the records and hearing the learned DR. 3. The brief facts of the case are that a case of clandestine manufacture and removal of gutka pan masala was booked against the appellant and various others. The adjudicating authority confirmed the proposal issued in the show-cause notice, which order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in so far as the appellant is concerned. The appellant filed this appeal against the imposition of penalty of equal amount of duty confirmed. 4. The contentio...
Jitendra Wheels (N) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and C ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-2010
This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the Order-in-Revision No: 07/ST/2009 dated 22/04/2009 whereby the Commissioner of Central Excise has denied the benefit of Notification No. 13/2003-ST dated 20/06/2003 and confirmed demand of service tax of Rs. 1,69,852/- along with interest. 2. Heard the learned SDR. None present for the appellant despite notice. The appellant has given opportunity of hearing on earlier three occasions but they did not avail the same. The case cannot be kept pending at the cost of adding to the pendency. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant were provider of service on commission basis to certain financial companies by way of collecting / forwarding prospective loanees and have been receiving commission for such service from the service receivers. Such service is taxable under 'Business Auxilliary Service'. The appellant did not pay service tax for the period from July 2003 to 09/09/2004. Proceedings were initiated against them. T...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »