Mumbai Court September 2010 Judgments
Rochem Separation Systems (i) Pvt Ltd., Vs. the Commissioner of Centra ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2010
Per: Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President 1. Heard both sides. 2. A common issue is involved in these appeals, therefore, are being taken up together. 3. In the impugned order, the benefit of Notification No.3/2004-CE dated 08/01/2004 is denied to the DTRO plant manufactured and cleared by the appellants on the ground that the benefit of Notification is available to machinery including instruments, apparatus and appliances auxiliary equipment and their components/parts required for setting up of water supply plants and not for the plant itself. As the appellants cleared the plant itself, therefore, the benefit of notification is not available. 4. The contention of the appellant is that in appellant’s own case in respect of earlier Notification No.06/02 whereby the benefit of notification was denied on the same ground that the Tribunal allowed the benefit of notification in the case of Rochem Separation Systems (I) Pvt Ltd., Vs. CCE, Thane-II, reported in 2009 (240) ELT 474 (Tri-Mumbai...
Tag this Judgment!John Deere Equipment Pvt Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2010
Per: Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President 1. These appeals are filed against the impugned order passed in respect of duty draw back by the Commissioner (Appeals). We find that as per the provisions of Section 129A of the Customs Act that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal in respect of any order relates to payment of draw back as provided in Chapter 10 and Rules made thereunder. 2. In view of the above, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide these appeals. The appellants are at liberty to file these appeals in accordance with the law....
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Adinath Trading Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import), Mumbai Ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal These appeals are listed today for final hearing. Despite notice none appeared for the appellants nor there is any request for adjournment. Earlier also the matter has been adjourned several times such as on 10.06.09, 2.7.09, 07.8.09, 18.09.09, 15.10.09, 24.11.09, 17.12.09, 05.05.10, 20.07.10 and finally on today. Except on 15.10.09 and 17.12.09, none appeared for the appellants and sometime request for adjournment have been received. In these circumstances, it appears that the appellants are not interested in pursuing the appeal. Appeals are accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution....
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Deekay Shipping Services and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs ( ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal One of the appellants namely M/s Calyx Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (the Exporter) filed appeal against the confiscation and penalty of the impugned goods and M/s Deekay Shipping Services (the CHA), Shri Ketan Adhia, Jitendra Shah and Shri Shailesh Sawant have filed appeals against the imposition of penalties. 2. The facts of the case are that the exporter filed two shipping bills through their CHA for export of the goods viz. ZOLEDRONATE and it was alleged against the appellants that to export the said goods they require a No Objection Certificate issued by the Asst. Drug Controller of India permitting clearance for export. The goods were brought to the export shed. On scrutiny of the documents of export submitted by the appellants, it was observed that there was difference in the signature of the Asst. Drug Controller and it was found that the signature on the No Objection Certificate was forged. Accordingly, the goods were seized and confiscated. Redemptio...
Tag this Judgment!Emerald Alchymicus P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Raigad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant has filed this appeal against the confiscation of their imported goods which were allowed to redeem on payment of redemption fine and penalty. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant filed a Bill of Entry on 23.05.2008 for clearance of their goods imported. Thereafter, the appellant got a letter from their foreign supplier that there is some discrepancy in the Bill of Lading. Hence, the appellant has informed the Customs department on 12.06.08 to first check examination of the goods. On the request of the appellant, the goods were examined and found that the foreign supplier had stuffed excess quantity by mistake. Thereafter, the Bill of Entry was assessed and it was held that the appellant has mis-declared the quantity of goods and confiscated the same and allowed to redeem on payment of fine and penalty. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who held that the request of the appellant for first check examination ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc., Vs. Commissioner of Customs(i ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant had imported oil well equipment in the year 2005. At the time of import, in terms of para 2.21 of the EXIM Policy 2002 07, the importer executed a re-export bond to re-export the goods within six months of completion of contract but the appellant has failed to re-export the impugned equipments. Redemption fine and penalty were imposed. Aggrieved from the said imposition of redemption fine and penalty, the appellant is before me. 2. The learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the re-export equipments in question were second hand capital goods which is not disputed by the adjudicating authority and the same covered under para 2.17 of the Exim Policy 2002-07 wherein the equipments in question are freely importable without executing any bond. He further submitted that the appellant has cleared these equipments on payment of full duty and no exemption under any Notification has been availed. He further submitted that the bond has not to be execute...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Son of Kisanlal Katare, Aged About 24 Years, Vs. the State of Mah ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-28-2010
1. Present criminal appeal is preferred by sole accused against the judgment and order of conviction dated 4th January 2005 delivered by 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Case No. 187 of 2003. By the said impugned judgment and order, present appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.2. Rival arguments were heard. Also perused the documentary as well as oral evidence which was led before the trial Court. Also perused the reasoning given by the trial Court while convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Prior to appreciating the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant, certain factual position and admitted circumstances can be narrated in order to ascertain the perspective of the present case.4. Prese...
Tag this Judgment!Mr.Aklak Ahmed FakruddIn Patel. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2010
1. The Applicant-accused has challenged the order of the Sessions Court in Case Nos.484 of 1998 and 1328 of 1996 directing that both the cases should be merged and a common charge was framed on 16th April 2010.2. The Applicant along with his parents came to be charged with offences under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) upon an FIR being filed in that behalf. The Applicant also came to be charged under Section 302 read with Section 304-B of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act under a private complaint filed against him. Both the complaints related to the same transaction of he having abetted the suicide of his wife and he having ultimately murdered her.3. The parents of the Applicant have been discharged in the criminal case filed upon the FIR lodged with the Police. The Applicant, therefore, alone faces trial. He faces trial under the aforesaid two sections for the aforesaid two offences but within the course of the same ...
Tag this Judgment!Mr.Noel Dominic PereirA. Vs. Mrs.Pamela Ethel Kuhn and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2010
1.This Notice of Motion is taken out for dismissal of the Caveat filed by Defendant No.3. The Caveat of Defendant Nos.1 and 2, as the heirs of the deceased, is already filed. Defendant No.3 has sought to file the Caveat on the ground that he is the step-son of the brother of the deceased. The Plaintiff claims that he is not an heir of the deceased who is required to be served with the citation. The deceased is one Merlyn Loretta Patton. Her pre-deceased brother was Derrick Patton. Defendant No.2 in the suit is the son of Derrick Patton through his first wife. Derrick Patton had remarried. Defendant No.3 is the son of the second wife of Derrick Patton through her first husband.2.To claim to be the heir of the deceased, Defendant No.3 must be shown to be having a blood relationship with the deceased. Under Section 27(b) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (the Act), such blood relationship may be by full blood or half blood. Such half blood relationship must also be shown to be with the d...
Tag this Judgment!M and H Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Court Receiver, High Court, Bomb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2010
1.This suit is filed for recovery of certain amounts from the Defendants as shown in prayers (a) to (d) of the Plaint. The suit, though filed against the seven Defendants, has, in fact, been prosecuted only against Defendant No.3, the Commissioner of Customs. The Plaintiffs claim is essentially for refund of the amount paid to the Court Receiver for goods agreed to be sold and delivered to the Plaintiffs by the Court Receiver which could not be delivered though sold, because the goods were not found, as Defendant No.3 had sold them wrongfully.2.One W.G. Forge and Allied Industries Ltd. (the Company) had imported various goods in 1982-83 being steel parts, bars and scrap material under various Bills of Entry. The Company had not made payment of custom duty thereon. The custom duty was demanded by Defendant No.3. The goods were not released. The Company has been ordered to be wound up by an order of this Court. The Company had taken a loan from the Industrial Finance Corporation of India...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »