Mumbai Court August 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 Vir Alloys and Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Exc ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
Per: Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellants have filed this appeal against denial of input service credit on ‘Good Transport Agency (GTA) Service’. During the course of investigation, if was found that the appellant has availed CENVAT credit of service tax on outward freight upto the place of buyer, which is beyond the place of removal of the factory of the appellant. A show-cause notice was issued for denial of CENVAT credit along with interest and a proposal for penalty. Lower authority has confirmed the demand in show-cause notice. Aggrieved from the same, the appellants are before me. 2. The learned Advocate for the appellants submits that in this case the appellants were selling their finished goods at a price which is inclusive of transportation cost and the goods required to be delivered at the buyers end. Hence, the transportation cost forms a part of the assessable value. Hence, the appellant is entitled for input service credit on outward freight cha...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-iii Vs. M/S Bhima Ssk Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
Per: Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The Revenue has filed this appeal. 2. The facts of the case are that during the verification of the respondents Trail Balance, it was noticed that respondents have received a certain sum from the Bank on the account of recoveries made on their behalf from the farmers against the sugar cane supplied to them. The said amount received by the respondents from the Bank has been shown as an income under the head ‘Loan Recovery Commission’. It was alleged that the said activity covered under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued to demand the service tax along with interest and a proposal to penalty was also made against the respondents. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand with interest along with the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved from the same, the respondents filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who dropped the demand ...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs. M/S. Spadma Plastics an ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
Per : P. G. Chacko The appeal is by the Revenue, aggrieved by the decision of the lower appellate authority which set aside the Order-In-Original. The appellant is represented by the ld. JDR, but there is no representation for the respondent despite notice, nor any request for adjournment. The respondent’s counter to the Revenue’s appeal, styled as ‘cross-objections’, is available on record. We have examined the records. In the relevant show-cause notice, which was issued for the period 1995 - 96 to Feb.2000, the respondent was asked to pay duty of Rs. 34,427/- on the amortized value of dies/moulds, which were supplied by the customers and used for manufacture of final products on job work basis and another amount of duty ( Rs. 44,803/-) on 4762.11 kg of scrap which was generated in the course of the job work, totalling to Rs. 79,230/-. The show-cause notice invoked the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act for recovery of the above...
M/S Sarojini Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-iii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
Per: Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) This appeal is directed against the impugned order confirming the penalties on the appellant under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. During the course of preventive check conducted in the premises of the appellant, it was found that the appellant recovered cost of pattern development charges extra from some of their customers and in some cases the prices are inclusive of pattern development charges as per the purchase orders of their customers. The appellant did not include the cost of pattern development charges recovered extra from their customers in the assessable value of castings and duty was not paid on such amount collected extra as pattern development charges. It was alleged that the appellant had suppressed the above facts from the department with an intention to evade the payment of Central Excise duty. On pointing out, the appellant paid the duty amount on pattern develo...
Mohd. Iliyas Sk. Omar Kirmani, Age 45 Years, Vs. the State of Maharash ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing.2. The petitioner filed present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of the appropriate writ to quash the Judgment passed by respondent No.2 i.e. Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 in Appeal No. PSA/1010/PK/378/Div4 dated 17th April, 2010 and also to quash the order passed by respondent No.3 The Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad dated 27.5.2009 and further praying for direction to grant licence to the petitioner under the Private Securities Agency (Regulation) Act, 2005 (for the sake of brevity herein after referred to as 'the said Act') in view of the application dated 2 nd February, 2009.3. After filing the present petition, direction was issued by this Court on 5th May, 2010 and it was directed that respondents shall submit an affidavit in support of their case, if they want, and till the ...
Datta S/O Kisan Gaikwad Age 32 Years, Vs the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1 This appeal is filed challenging the final judgment and order dated 12.2.2007, passed by the Additonal Sessions Judge, Omerga in Sessions Case No. 23 of 2005. By the impugned judgment and order the appellant herein is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- i/d to suffer R.I. for six months. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. but no separate sentence is awarded. The accused is in jail since 13.9.2005. Therefore, the learned Judge of the Trial Court has given set off of the said period.2 The background facts of the case are as under:- On 29.8.2005, the appellant accused asked his wife deceased Rukminibai to give him amount from her wages. Deceased Rukminibai informed the appellant that she did not have any money. Upon which, the accused beat Rukminibai, she left house in a fit of anger. The appellant accused followed her and brought her back to...
Sanjay S/O Shivaji Dhapse, Age 39 Years, Vs. the State of MaharashtrA. ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Heard learned respective counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of parties, taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.3. By the present petition, filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of Constitution of India, pray that the impugned order dated 16.2.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal Revision Application No.162/2009 as well as impugned order dated 4.7.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Ahmendagar, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 213/2009 be quashed and set aside.4. The petitioner claims to be the Ahmednagar District Head of All India Human Rights and Citizen Option and also is a Corporator, had filed an application to the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Chikalthana (henceforth referred to as 'HPCL") for getting information under Right to Information Act, 2005 on 2.1.2009. The petitioner contends that, he was asked by HPCL to send demand draft of Rs.10/ on 1...
Bheemacharya Balacharya Varakhedakar. Vs. Executive Officer, Shree Vit ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Heard petitioner appearing in person and learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned AGP for respondent no.3 State.2. Rule.3. By consent Rule is made returnable forthwith. 4. By this petition, petitioner challenges three orders passed below Exhibit 216, Exhibit 217 and on the Day Application No.614 of 2009 dated 22 August 2009, 28 August 2009 and 18 November 2009 respectively. By exhibit 216, the petitioner prayed that the documents produced by the Charity Commissioner, being original public documents, they should be exhibited. He further prayed that he should be granted certified photo copies of the said documents. By the application at Exhibit 217, petitioner prayed that he should be allowed to make on his own photo copies of certain documents and for the purpose of making those photo copies, a court peon be appointed whose expensed he was willing to bear. By the Day Application no.614 of 2009, petitioner prayed that he may be granted certified copies of the corresponde...
Mahesh S/O Mahonsing Shribas Age 30 Years, Vs. State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1) This petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 28.1.2010, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shevgaon thereby granting permission of Narco Analysis Test of the petitioner in connection with crime No. I-166 of 2009, dated 30.12.2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 419, 409, 467, 468, 471 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. registered with Shevgaon Police station. 2) We heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3) The principal grievance raised in this petition is that the impugned order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Shevgaon allowing the respondent to conduct the Narco analysis test of the petitioner is passed though petitioner strongly opposed for conduting Narco Analysis Test on health ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that granting permission of Narco analysis test amounts to infringement of the...
Smt. Sumedha W/O Sunil Chitpur, Age 35 Years, Vs. State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Heard learned respective counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.3. By the present petition, filed by the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India prays that directions be issued to Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur to club three complaints bearing STCC Nos.2317/2009, 2256/2009 and 2003/2009 together with each and be tried together.4. The petitioner is the original accused and respondent No. 2 is the original complainant. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is practising as an Advocate at District and Sessions Court, Latur and respondent No.2 was having good relations with her and therefore the petitioner has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rs. One lac) from the respondent No.2 by way of hand loan by issuing five blank account payee cheques. The petitioner contends that her husband expired on 6.11.2008 and respondent ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »