Mumbai Court February 2012 Judgments
Adil Chaus Son of Hamad Chaus. Vs. the Commissioner of Police.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-2012
(Per Naresh H Patil, J.) 1) Heard. 2) Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 3) The petitioner challenges order of detention passed on 30-8-2011 by the Commissioner of Police Aurangabad under section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short, "MPDA Act, 1981"). 4) By an order dated 30-8-2011 the petitioner was detained under the MPDA Act 1981 in exercise of powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act. In pursuance of Section 8 of the MPDA Act, 1981 the Commissioner of Police Aurangabad communicated the grounds on which the detention order was passed. The grounds of detention order are mentioned in para 4 and 5 of the Grounds of Detention (Exhibit B). In ground No.4 instances are mentioned which are reproduced as under : i) On 2-8-2010 at about 16.00 hours, you were found in Aurangabad City by disobeying the directions given in externment order t...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Swati Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-2012
Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellant are in appeal along with stay application against the impugned order and challenging the quantum of penalty. 2. Heard both sides and found that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty and we have taken up the appeal itself for disposal. 3. The short question involved in this case is quantum of penalty. The grievance of the appellant that they were not given the option to pay 25% of duty as penalty as they have paid the service tax along with interest before adjudication except a sum of Rs.61,339/-. After adjudication, the amount of Rs.61,339/- was paid within 30 days of the adjudication. Therefore, the appellant want to modify the order to the extent penalty be reduced to 25% of the duty of the service tax payable by them. 4. We have observed that in the adjudication order, the adjudication authority held that the appellant are entitled to CENVAT credit of Rs.7,10,423...
Tag this Judgment!Manilal Patel Clearing Forwarding P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-2012
Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellant who is a custom house agent has challenged the order of revocation of CHA licence no. 11/90 dated 29.6.2011. 2. The facts of the case are that the information was received by Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, on 8.6.2010 along with DRI letter dated 18.5.2010, that the DRI Chennai has investigated a case of 12.590MT of Red Sander Logs attempted to be smuggled by exportation under Shipping Bill no. 2247750 dated 9.4.2010 filed in the name of M/s. Peacock Granite Agencies, Madurai by the appellant. In the investigation, it was revealed that the IEC code of the original exporter was misused for this fraudulent export. As per intelligence, the Red Sander Logs were being smuggled to Dubai by misdeclaring as ‘Kashmir White Granite Tiles Polished’ under the above shipping bill. The said cargo was stuffed in 20 feet container which were to sail to Dubai on 13.4.2010. The said container was brought back on 24.3.2010 and examined wherein...
Tag this Judgment!Ku. Manda Jayaprada Doughter of John Vs. the Collector and President.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
(Per P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the advertisement issued by the Department dated 23.11.1994 for the purpose of appointing untrained Primary Teachers in the Education Department of Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. The petitioner has also challenged the appointment of selected candidates on the basis of such an advertisement. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that initially an advertisement was published by the Department inviting applications for the posts of Assistant Teacher and Primary Teacher to be selected by the District Selection Board. The said advertisement which may be described as 'first advertisement' was published on 6th October, 1993. In the said advertisement, qualification for the said post was mentioned as SSC, D.Ed. So far as the qualification is concerned, a person who is possessing D.Ed. can be appointed as a trained teacher in a primary school. Though the said first advertisement was clearly stipulated the qualificatio...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Suzlon Infrastructure Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune.ii ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
Sahab Singh This appeal has come up before this Bench for hearing and disposal pursuant to CESTAT Misc. Order No. M/434/CSTB/WZB/ 2009/C.II dated 7.10.2009. This appeal arises out of the Order-in-Original No.18/P-III/STC/COMMR/2007 dtd. 22/11/2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune.III. 2. Background of the case. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant, M/s. Suzlon Infrastructure Limited (in short M/s. SIL) formerly known as M/s. Suzlon Developers Limited is an associate company of M/s. Suzlon Energy Limited (in short M/s. SEL). It is engaged, interalia, in erection, commissioning or installation of windmills or wind turbine generators for its customers on contract basis. The Wind Turbine Generators (in short WTG) are manufactured and supplied by M/s. SEL. It had taken Service Tax Registration for installation and commissioning services on 18.7.2003 which was subsequently amended to endorse other services also. 2.1 Based on intelligence ...
Tag this Judgment!Suryatech Solar Systems and Others Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax Pun ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
Ashok Jindal: The appellants are in appeal along with stay applications. 2. After hearing both the sides, we find that the appeals themselves can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, we take up the appeals for disposal. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of solar water heater system and they are selling it to their customers at site and installing the same. For the activity of installation, they are not charging any separate amount. As the activity of installation, erection and commissioning falls under the service category of ‘Installation, Erection and Commissioning Service’ therefore, the department was of the view that the appellants are required to pay service tax by claiming abatement as per Notification No. 15/2004 on the total value received i.e. on balance 33% they have to pay service tax. Accordingly, show cause notices were issued and the matter was adjudicated confirming the demand...
Tag this Judgment!Neeta Prakash Modi Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
Ashok Jindal: Heard as per the directions of the honble High Court of Bombay in Customs Appeal No. 86 of 2010 dated 06/01/2011. 2. The hon’ble High Court has observed as under: “3. In the present case, the Tribunal has set aside the confiscation order passed by the Commissioner, by recording a finding in paragraph 6 to the effect that the assessee had produced purchase vouchers in relation to the diamonds in question, but the Commissioner has failed to verify the genuineness of those vouchers. However, perusal of paragraph Nos.36 and 37 of the order in original clearly shows that the Commissioner had in fact considered the materials placed before him and also recorded a finding on those materials. Since the order of the Tribunal is contrary to the facts on record, the order of the CESTAT is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for denovo consideration.” 3. The facts of the case are as under: 3.1. Neeta Prakash Modi - the appellant has ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish V. Gursahani Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
Ashok Jindal: This is the second round of litigation. In the earlier round of litigation, this Tribunal has observed as under: “13. In the course of the arguments, the appellant has categorically contended that the toilet was not visible from outside the building, and it was not possible for the panchas and the officers to see the appellant running towards it from outside. From the impugned order, it is seen that the statement of the appellant is recorded in the presence of the panchas as per the discussion about the panchnama and its contents. The material witness in support of the case of the department is evidence of JA Saldana, who has recorded the statement, and seen the drawing of the panchnama, and the main person incharge of the investigation. NT More, the security guard in the aircraft is also a material witness in this case regarding the presence of the appellant after his duty hours for the purpose of entering aircraft and bringing, the gold from the aircraft. These wi...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Yutaka Autocomp Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import) Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
Ashok Jindal: The appellant has challenged the confirmation of the adjudication order wherein it was ordered that the transaction value declared in the invoice be loaded by 3% under Rule 3A read with Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. 2. The issue pertains to the determination of assessable value of the goods imported by the appellant, M/s. Tata Yutaka Autocomp Ltd., Pune under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. The appellant imported automobile parts and filed Bill of Entry along with declaration form. On enquiry made by the Dy. Commissioner of Customs, GATT Valuation Cell, Mumbai and on filing of the questionnaire the adjudicating authority passed the adjudication order wherein he ordered that the declared invoice value be loaded by 3% under the said Rules. The said order was confirmed by the first appellate authority in the impugned order...
Tag this Judgment!Suri Rajendra Tower S.R.A. Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd Dinesh V. Shah (Chairm ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member 1. The consumer complaint is filed by the complainant/Society against the builder/developer, namely, Prithvi Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as builder) and against its partners opponent Nos.2to5 for recovery of monetary claim (of complainants) and to get executed the conveyance after obtaining full occupancy certificate, etc. The complainant is the society of flat occupants/flat purchasers in all consisting 30 members (hereinafter referred to as the Society). 2. Undisputed facts are that in the year 1995 as per the registered Sale Deed dated 29/07/1995 the builder purchased a part and partial of the land. Said land consists of some scattered tenements in which various tenants were occupying the premises. Under the Slum Rehabilitation Programme, the builder reached independent agreements with the tenants occupying those premises, obtained permission of Slum Rehabilitation Authority (hereinafter referred to as SRA) for development of the pro...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »