Mumbai Court January 2012 Judgments
M/S. Hydroment (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import), Nhava Sh ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) The appeal and stay applications are directed against Order-in-Original No. 181/2009 CC (I), JNCH dated 22.2.10 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), JNCH, Nhava Sheva. 2. The appellant M/s. Hydroment (I) Ltd., Kanchipuram are importers of copper/brass products. An intelligence was received by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence that they are misdeclaring their products under importation, namely, copper/brass ingots as copper/brass dross. Therefore a watch was kept on their transactions. It was noticed that the appellant had filed two bills of entry bearing nos. 842292 dated 06.5.03 and 842280 dated 6.5.03 for clearance of the goods declared as brass dross and seven bills of entry bearing no. 841799, 841800, 841801, 841802, 842288, 842289 all dated 6.5.2003 and 842806 dated 7.5.03 for clearance of goods declared as copper dross classifying the products under heading no. 26203010 in respect of brass dross and heading no. 26203090 in...
Tag this Judgment!Lic of India Vs. Ranjana S. Koli and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2012
Narendra Kawde, Member (1) Both these appeals have been preferred by the respective appellant, LIC of India (A/00/1828) and Executive Engineer, Koyna Construction Division No.4, Koynanagar, Tal.Patan, Dist.Satara (A/00/1931) against the order dated 12/09/2000 in Consumer Complaint No.26/2000 (Smt.Ranjana Sadashiv Koli and anr. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, D.O. Satara and ors.) passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara (hereinafter referred to as District Forum). (2) District Forum by way of the said order has allowed the complaint of the complainant directing thereby opponent No.1 and 3 to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- along with accrued bonus and other benefits in respect of policy No.9040467363 with interest @15% p.a. from August, 1995 till realization and in addition directed to pay Rs.3,000/- by way of compensation and 2,000/- towards cost of proceedings. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the appellants have preferred Appeals No.1828/2000 and 193/2000 r...
Tag this Judgment!Veena Rosemarie Pinto Vs. the Oriental Insurance Co Ltd
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2012
NarendraKawde, Member 1. This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 30/11/2009, passed in consumer complaint no.145/2008, Ms.Veena Rosemarie Pinto v/s. The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. by South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (herein after referred as District Forum). District Forum has dismissed the complaint of the appellant by the said order. 2. Brief description of the mediclaim insurance coverage subscribed by the appellant/original complainant and issued by Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. (herein after referred as Insurance company) is necessary as the entire appeal revolves around renewal of insurance coverage i.e. continuity of mediclaim policy, application of exclusion clause and terms and conditions thereof. 3. Appellant/complainant while working with KPIT Cummins Infosystems Ltd. subscribed to Group Mediclaim Insurance Policy with sum insured of Rs.2 lakhs continued for the period of two years effective from 01/01/2005 to 31/12/2005 and 01/01/2006 to 31/12/...
Tag this Judgment!Tanuja S. Shetty and Another Vs. Anamika Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. and Oth ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2012
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member 1. This consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service on the part of the builder-opponent No.1-Anamika Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. and dealing person-Director-opponent No.2-Mr.Nitin Mehta (hereinafter opponent Nos.1and2 together are referred to as builder) for not handing over the flats agreed to be purchased by the complainants for consideration. Opponent No.3 is a co-operative Society of the flat purchasers of Benzer Tower in which the flats agreed to be purchased by the complainants are situated. 2. Undisputed facts are that complainants together agreed to purchase two flats bearing Nos.A-1102 and 1103 respectively having area of 450 sq.ft. and 590 sq.ft. situated in a building known as Benzer Tower at Village Magothane, Borivali (East), Mumbai. On settling the terms on 10/05/1994, they paid Rs.51,000/- and subsequently, on 01/03/1996 paid Rs.4 Lakhs (Rs.2 Lakhs for each one of the flat Nos.A-1102 and A-1103) as per demand of the bui...
Tag this Judgment!National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan: This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No: 296/2002-MCH dated 07/05/2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai 2. The facts arising for consideration in this case are as follows: 2.1. The appellant, M/s. Polyolefins Industries Ltd. (known as ‘NOCIL’) applied for registration of a project contract under purchase order No. IMP/36006 dated 29/04/1992 in respect of goods with the CIF value of DM 15,75,200/- under the Project Import Regulations, 1986. The said purchase order covered machinery worth DM 14,25,200/- (CIF) and drawings and designs worth DM 1,50,000/- (CIF) and the same was registered provisionally. The appellant imported the goods vide Bill of Entry No. 1391 dated 04/06/1993 and declared the goods as: (i) Twin Screw Compounder type ZSK 92/M 385; and (ii) Designs and Drawings. The item at serial No.(i) above was classified under Heading No. 9801.00 while the drawings and designs were classified under 4906.00. The machi...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
S.S.Kang Heard both sides. 2. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 23,72,642/- , interest and penalty. The demand is confirmed in view of the provisions of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules in respect of the goods supplied by the applicants to SEZ developer without payment of duty. The Revenue is of the opinion that as the goods were cleared without payment of duty, they are liable to pay duty 10% of the price of the goods. 3. We find that this issue is now settled by the decision in the case of Sujana Metal products Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad - 2011(273) E.L.T. 112 (Tri-Bang.) in favour of the assessee. In view of the above decision, pre-deposit of duty and interest is waived and recovery thereof is stayed during the pendency of the appeals. 4. Stay petition allowed. 5. Further we find that Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants for non compliance with the provisions of Sec.35F of the Central Excise Act as the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Nagpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan: There are three appeals directed against Orders-in-Original No: 22/2008/C/ST/2008 dated 30/12/2008; 08/2009/ST/C dated 29/12/2009 and 12/ST/2010/C dated 29/10/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Nagpur. Since all these orders pertain to a common issue, they are taken together for consideration and disposal. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- 2.1. Appeal No: ST/65/2009: The appellant, M/s. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. (BHEL), Nagpur are registered with the Central Excise department for the purpose of service tax, inter alia, under the category of ‘Commercial and Industrial Construction’. The appellant had entered into contracts with their various clients for setting up of power plants at various sites which involved supply of goods as well as supply of services. The appellant were availing abatement of 67% of the total contract value and paying service tax only on 33% of the contract value in terms of Notification No....
Tag this Judgment!Peri (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import) Mumbai - I
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
Ashok Jindal: The appellant are in appeal along with stay application. 2. On the last date of hearing, i.e., on 24/11/2011, when the stay application came up before us for disposal and after hearing for some time, it was felt that by this Bench that the stay application as well as the appeal should be heard together. Therefore, the matter was posted for hearing the stay application and appeal, both together for disposal, today. 3. The appellant have imported goods from Peri GmbH, Germany. As the appellant are related person of their foreign supplier, therefore, the goods imported by them were referred to special valuation cell for valuation of the goods. The adjudicating authority held that the transaction value is proper value and assessed the goods. The department was of the view that the appellant has received extra discount on the sale price of their foreign supplier which is not justified. Therefore, they challenged the order before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that th...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Prabha Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Savla Foods and Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member (1) This consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service on the part of the warehouse, viz. Opponent Savala Foods and Storage Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Warehouse) wherein the Complainant had stored its custom bonded goods of cloves in the cold storage chamber and which gutted into fire which broke out on 07.11.2006. According to Complainant he had lost 315 bags of imported cloves and suffered loss of Rs.32,89,731/-. Alleging an act of negligence on the part of the warehouse it is submitted that the warehouse allowed to keep goods in an unscientific manner; the goods were scattered all over resulting in blockage of passage within the warehouse; there was no proper maintenance of the warehouse and the storage was allowed beyond its original capacity and no proper precautions were taken for safety of the goods stored therein. (2) Undisputed facts are that Complainant in the course of its business imported two containers...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce and Service Tax (Ltu) Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. Common issue is involved in both these applications; therefore they are being taken up together. 3. The applicant filed these applications for waiver of total demand of duty, interest and penalties. 4. The demand is confirmed after denying credit on the ground that the appellant was availing benefit of exemption on inputs used in the production of LPG which also goes into the manufacture of Nitrogen and some parts of Nitrogen is used for degassing of wagons. The case of the Revenue is that as the appellant availed credit of duty paid on common inputs, therefore the appellant is liable to pay 10% of the price of the Nitrogen which goes into the process of degassing of wagons. Part of the demand is confirmed on the ground that the power generated in the captive power plant is used outside the factory of production i.e. in residential colony and the appellant is liable to pay 10% of the price of the electricity which is going outside the factory. The demand ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »