Mumbai Court January 2012 Judgments
Raghunath V. Kadam Vs. Dr. Parul B. Shah and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member 1. The consumer complaint pertains to deficiency in service on the part of opponent Nos.1and2-doctors and opponent No.3-Hospital for showing alleged medical negligence at the time of cataract surgery i.e. ophthalmic surgery of the complainant on 19/12/2001. Opponent No.1-Dr.Parul Shah (hereinafter referred to as opponent No.1) is an Ophthalmologist undertook to perform cataract operation on left eye of the complainant, opponent No.2-Dr.Swati Shah (hereinafter referred to as opponent No.2) had administered anesthesia before the cataract operation being performed to the complainant at the relevant time, and all these procedures of cataract operation were carried out at the Hospital managed and run by a charitable trust, namely, opponent No.3-Shri Borivali Gujarati Seva Mandal (hereinafter referred to as Hospital). 2. The facts which are not in dispute are as under:- Complainant-Mr.Raghunath V. Kadam (hereinafter referred to as complainant) is a re...
Tag this Judgment!ismail Mohd. and Sons and Another Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Gen), M ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellant namely Ismail Mohd and Sons, a CHA firm and ARM Faiyaz, the partner of the firm have filed these appeals against the impugned order imposing penalties under Customs Act, 1962. 2. By the impugned order penalties have been imposed on the appellant on the charge that they did not act as clearing house agent but facilitated imports of cordless telephone as they had a close relationship of the supplier of the goods and the goods have been found to be misdeclared in respect of description and value. 3. Shri Anil Balani, advocate for the appellant submitted that the allegation against the appellant are on the basis of the statement of Shri Sailesh Vagadia who has stated that the after arrival of the goods in India from Tabrez Electronics of Dubai, all the financial deals were carried out by the partner of the CHA. He would get toys, CHA firm themselves would sell the goods other than toys. This statement has not been corroborated by supporting doc...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai and Another Vs. P.N. Writer and Co ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) There are two appeals, one filed by the revenue and the other by the appellant, which are taken up for consideration. As the issue involved is common, both the appeals are taken together for consideration and disposal. 2. The facts arising for consideration in these appeals are as follows. The appellant, M/s. P.N. Writer and Co. Ltd., Mumbai is registered with the department for service tax purposes under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Service.’ They submitted an application for centralised registration for payment of service tax vide application dated 16.4.2004. During the pendency of the application for centralised registration, the anti evasion wing at Bangalore initiated investigation against the branch office of the appellant at Bangalore for evasion of service tax. It was noticed that the appellants were raising bills on their clients for a)segregation and packing charges (b) storage charges and (c) retrieval charges, on w...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Jalaram Appliances Polymers and Another Vs. Commissioner of Custo ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) The appeals, stay applications and the miscellaneous application for early hearing are directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 343 and 344/(EPCG) /2010(JNCH) EXP-25 and 26 dated 23.11.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai II, Nhava Sheva. As the consignment is a live one, we allow the application for early hearing and take up the appeals for final disposal. 2. The facts relevant for consideration in this case are as follows. The appellant M/s. Jalaram Appliances Polymers, Mumbai and its partner Shri Ashok D. Jain purchased thermo plastic injection moulding machine on ‘high seas sale basis’ from M/s. Jalaram Appliances Polymers, Mumbai and filed a bill of entry no. 768851 dated 18.11.2009 under EPCG scheme. The invoice packing list and certificate of origin showed that they had imported the injection moulding machine HXF-256 along with one set of hopper dryer and loader of Malaysian origin at a value of US $295...
Tag this Judgment!ishu Super Steel Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Exci ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
S.S. Kang The applicants filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.31,61,366/-, interest and penalties. The applicants are engaged in the manufacture of MS ingots and the demand is confirmed for the period September 2008 to January 2009 on the ground that the applicants suppressed production of excisable goods and short paid the duty. 2. The contention of the applicants is that the demand is on the basis of a report of Dr. Batra, IIT Professor. As per the report, the consumption of electricity for manufacture of 1 MT of MS ingots is 1046 unit. If this consumption is taken into consideration, the applicant has shown the consumption of 1149 units for the manufacture of 1 MT of MS ingots. The contention of the applicants is that in absence of any other evidence regarding procurement of raw material and clearance of goods without payment of duty, the demand cannot be sustained on the basis of electricity consumption. The applicant relied upon the decision of the Trib...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Ganpati Warehousing Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumb ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellant M/s. Ganpati Warehousing Ltd. a CHA firm has filed this appeal against the impugned order wherein their CHA licence no. 11/863 has been revoked vide order dated 11.8.2008. 2. The brief facts of the case are that one M/s. Prime Textiles filed Bill of Entry through M/s. Ganapati Warehousing Ltd. The goods were declared as ‘Polyester Fabrics’. The consignment consisted of 73 cartoons with gross weight 68,900 Kgs. and totally valued at Rs. 3,23,425/-. The goods were examined on first check basis and RSS was forwarded to Textile Committee for test. On the basis of information that the consignments of ‘Polyester Wovern Fabrics’ were being cleared as ‘Embroidery Fabrics’ at a lower grade of duty, NSPU intercepted the consignment and examined the same on 31-10-2007. The quantity of the goods was as declared whereas the pkgs. were found containing ‘Plain Polyester Dyed Woven Fabrics’ without any work o...
Tag this Judgment!Al HussaIn Frozen Foods and Another Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Exp), ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order along with stay application. Respondents have also filed an early hearing of the appeal. 2. After hearing both sides at length, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, after allowing the application of early hearing of appeal, we have taken up the appeal itself and stay application. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are exporter of buffalo meat. The goods were examined and found not fit for human consumption. Therefore goods were confiscated by the adjudicating authority and allowed to be taken back for home consumption on payment of redemption fine and penalty. The adjudicating authority also rejected their DEPB claim in respect of the said goods which were attempted to be exported. The revenue challenged the said adjudicating authority before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order in original and rejected the appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-ii Vs. Shreehari Fabrics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
S.S. Kang The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby a demand of Rs.4,38,209/- is confirmed and the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Act. The Revenue filed the appeal challenging the order whereby the penalty under Section 11AC of the Act is reduced. 2. The present respondent also filed cross objections challenging the demand on the ground of time bar. 3. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Shreehari Fabrics Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) are processors and getting grey fabric and thereafter processing the same and paying duty as per the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints vs. UOI 1988 (38) ELT 535 (SC). For paying duty, the assessee is coming to the assessable value of the goods after taking into consideration the cost of grey fabric supplied by the principal merchant manufacturers and the cost of fabric + job work c...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Vatan Textiles and Another Vs. Cce Aurangabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2012
Sahab Singh M/s. Vatan Textile Ltd. are engaged in manufacture of woven jacquard upholstery fabrics falling under Chapter 63 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and it had acquired the status of a 100% Export Oriented Unit in the year 1997. On the basis of scrutiny of records seized by the officers of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI in short), Regional Unit, Pune, it was observed that the clearance details, as per its annual balance sheet were much more than the clearance details appearing in it’s central excise records. Shri Shafeeq Ahmed, Director of the unit in his statement dated 10th July, 2003 admitted the said difference and stated that the sales details as per its annual report for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 include the sale of software designs and sale of fabrics shown by its job workers. In this connection, further investigations were taken up by the DGCEI with the customers of assessee on whose names commercial bills were raised for the sale o...
Tag this Judgment!Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2012
S.S.Kang Heard both sides. 2. The applicant filed that application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as time barred. 3. The contention of applicant is that the Commissioner (Appeals) is dismissed the appeal as time barred on the ground that the adjudication order was received by the applicant on 20.8.2010 and appeal was filed on 20.10.2010, which is beyond the period of 60 days as provided under Section 35 of Central Excise Act. The applicant relied upon the provisions of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, to submit that as per the provisions of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, the Appeal is to be filed within 60 days from the date of communication of the adjudication order, therefore, the limitation starts from 21.8.2010 hence the appeal is within the time prescribed under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. It is also submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) is also e...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »