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.
Ambaji Metal Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Pune - Ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-2010
The appellant filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No: PII/PAP/207/2008 dated 21/10/2008 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,93,182/- imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 by the adjudicating authority. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that proceedings were initiated against the appellant who has issued CENVATable invoices as a second stage dealer, without physically supplying the goods, in the month of October, 2004 so as to enable the beneficiary to avail inadmissible CENVAT credit. The appellant obtained 10 invoices from a Delhi based dealer without receiving the goods physically. Thereafter, the proceedings were initiated against the appellant as well as against the manufacturer who has availed the credit on the basis of the said invoices. The lower authority confirmed the proposal in the show-cause notice and confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,93,184/- along with interest against M/s. Varron Industries, the man...
Fayyaz Khayyum Qureshi, Age30 Years, Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-20-2010
1. By the present revision application, the applicant has assailed the order and judgment passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Cri.Appeal No.89/2006 which was dismissed for default on 02/08/2008.2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned APP for State.3. Rule.4. Rule made returnable forthwith.5. Considering the small issue involved in this revision application, i.e. whether the First Appellate Court can dismiss the criminal appeal for default, filed against the order of conviction, by consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.6. It appears that the revision applicant was tried for the offences punishable u/s. 457, 380 of The IPC by the 5th J.M.F.C.Aurangabad in RCC No.102/2006. It further appears that in connection with the said offence, revision applicant came to be arrested on 11/11/2005 and since then is in custody. After recording the statement of witnesses and after completing the requisite formalities, the 5th J.M.F.C. Court had ...
Pradeep Vishwasrao Gawande, Aged About 40 Yrs., Vs. Vishwasrao Ramchan ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-20-2010
1.Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. At the hearing of this appeal, my attention has been invited to specific case pleaded by the Original defendant that he had shared and participated in purchasing various properties and that all the properties including the house in dispute are the joint family property and thus, it is contended that the plaintiff is not exclusive owner of the property in dispute. Despite specific contention and case of the defendant, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that, the learned trial Judge, in para 17, while disposing of Special Civil Suit No. 43 of 2003, made observations as follows :" However, said contention of the defendant clearly appears to be after-thought, because pleading and evidence of the defendant does not disclose that he has paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff. "3. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, this was quite contrary to the contentions pleaded in para 9 of the Written Statement. Further...
Rajesh @ Raju S/O Bhaurao Jadhav, Age 36 Yrs, Vs. Shobhatai W/O Rajesh ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-20-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties matter is taken up for final hearing.3. By the present petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner (original non applicant) has prayed that impugned order dated 20.6.2009 at exhibit 'B' filing along with present petition and impugned order dated 26.6.2009 below Exhibit 11 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Kalamnuri, District Hingoli be quashed and set aside and say of the petitioner may be accepted.4. It is the contention of the petitioner that present respondents/original applicants filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 151/2008 before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Kalamnuri praying for maintenance from the petitioner under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. It is also contention of the petitioner that upon receipt of notice, he appeared in the said matter and engaged advocate and sought time to fi...
Laxmi Metal Pressing Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order wherein no finding was given by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the operative part of the order. 2. In fact both the Revenue and the appellant have filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the order-in-original. The Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of both the appeals altogether after giving an opportunity to present their case to the appellant also. Although the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant but in the impugned order nowhere he has considered the submissions made by the appellant in support of their defence. I find there is a violation of principle of natural justice as the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed a non-speaking order. Hence, the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine the submissions of the appellant and pass the order on merit. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand....
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Vs. Western Hivolts Equipment ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2010
Per: S.K. Gaule 1. Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) thereby the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand of interest and penalty. 2. Heard the Ld. SDR for the Revenue. None appeared for the respondents despite notice. No further adjournment can be given, therefore, I decided to proceed on the basis of the submissions made by the Ld. SDR. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents availed the benefit of exemption Notification No.108/95 dated 28/08/95 on the basis of certificate issued by the empowered officer (SBIC) and Technical Director, MSED, Mumbai, for the goods intended for MSEB for the project financed by Japan Bank of International Co-Operation (formerly known as Overseas Economic Co-Operation Fund). On coming to know that the Japan Bank of International Cooperation is not covered under the category of financial institution as mentioned in the Notification No.108/95. The respondents agreed to pay the duty involved in the case a...
Oriental Aromatics Ltd., Vs. the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumba ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2010
1. Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal No.AH/12/M-II/2009 dated 29/01/2009 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the lower adjudicating authority s order confirming the demand of Rs.2,26,935/- along with interest and imposition of penalty of equal amount under Rule 15 and read with Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. The brief facts of the case that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable products, viz., Flavors and Fragrances falling under Chapter 33 of the CETA, 1985. On scrutiny of records and returns filed by the appellants for the month of 2007, it was found that the appellant cleared the capital goods as such and reversed the credit on depreciated value instead of reversing the credit availed accordingly the differential duty was demanded and penalty was proposed. Both the lower adjudicating authority have given concurrent findings regarding the confirmation of demand and imposition of penalty. Agg...
Tirupati Pipe and Allied Industries Pvt Ltd., Vs. the Commissioner of ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2010
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order No. IPL/22/NSK/2009 dated 30/01/2009. 2. Heard the Ld. JDR for the respondent. The appellants are not present. However, vide their letter dated nil received on 12/07/2010 they informed to decide the matter on merits and on the basis of memorandum of appeal and the case laws. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants vide their letter dated 05/06/2008 applied for interest of Rs.1,96,194/- on delayed payment of interest of Rs.7,99,938/- for the period from 01/04/2006 to 16/04/2008. Both the lower authorities have given concurrent findings that there is no provisions under Section 11AB or any other provisions of Central Excise Act 1994 to grant any interest on interest and accordingly rejected the application for interest of Rs.1,96,194/-. Hence the appeal. 4. The contention of the appellant is that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd., Vs. CIT Pune, (200...
Vasudev Pyarelal Valecha ( Since Deceased Through Legal Heirs) and Oth ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2010
Per Mr.P.N.Kashalkar,Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1) This is a complaint filed by the complainant Shri Vasudev Valecha against M/s. National Building Corporation, a partnership firm along with partners Shri Devinder Ghai and Padmavati Ghai/O.P.No.2 and 3. According to the complainant in the month of July-1986 opponents agreed to sell him a Flat No.701 on the 7th Floor in the building known as Devaarti being constructed by opponents on F.P.No.397, C.T.S.764, T.P.S.Scheme No.III, Sitladevi Temple Road, Mahim, Mumbai. The said flat was to have two bedroom, hall and kitchen admeasuring about 1000 Sq.Ft. (herein after referred to as suit flat) The complainant pleaded that the said suit flat was agreed to be sold orally by the opponents to him for total consideration of Rs.5,76,375/-. The payment schedule agreed between the parties orally was as under :- (i) Earnest Money Deposit to be paid by the complainant to the opponents Rs.20,000/- (ii) Rs.25,625/- to be paid by the complainant t...
The State of Maharashtra at the Instance of A.T.S. Police Station. Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2010
1. In MCOC Special Case No. 1 of 2009, 11 accused are facing trail. Accused Nos. 6, 7 and 9 filed bail applications i.e. Bail Application Nos. 40, 41 and 42 of 2008 respectively, for being released on bail and while deciding these applications, the learned Special Judge by his order dated 31/7/2009 was pleased to discharge all the accused under the provisions of Section 227 of Cr. P. C. from the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) and 3(5) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (for short the MCOC Act) and consequently the case came to be transferred in exercise of the powers under Section 11 of the said Act to the regular court having jurisdiction under Cr. P. C. for trial of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 153A, 120B of IPC read with Sections 25(1) and 25 (3) of the Arms Act read with Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of Explosive Substance Act read with Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 23 of Unlawful Activities (Preventi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »