Mumbai Court February 2012 Judgments
Bindiya Ajay Chawla Vs. Citifinancial Consumer Finance.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The Petitioner, who was also one of the signatories to the Loan Transaction/document signed and executed along with Respondents 2 and 3 with Respondent No.1, has challenged the impugned Award solely on the ground that there was no opportunity given by the Arbitrator before passing the Award, for want of service/delivery of the notices/communication as contemplated under Section 3 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act). 2. The relevant paragraph of the Award is as under : "I entered upon the reference vide my letter dated 28.01.2008 directing the parties to appear before me on 29.02.2008. The counsel for the Claimant Company appeared before me and filed its Statement of Claim alongwith documents. As none appeared on behalf of the Respondents, another Notice dated 07.04.2008, was issued to the Respondents vide Registered A.D. Post. However, despite the service of the said notices, none appeared on behalf of the Respondents. It was...
Tag this Judgment!Aurangabad Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2012
2. Mohammad Sidiqque Mohd. Isaq, Age 38 yrs., Occu. Service Aurangabad, R/o. 83-B, Aref Colony, New Faizan Masjid, Aurangabad.3. Uttam s/o. Govindrao Jadhav, Age 45 years, Occu. Service As Senior Lecturer, JNEC College, Aurangabad, R/o. 83, New S.T.4. Vijaya d/o. Sitaram Pradhan, Age 38 years, Occu. Service, As Senior Lecturer, JNEC College, Aurangabad, R/o. 4-A, Ekta Colony, Nandanwan Parisar, Cannotonment, Aurangabad. Lecturer, JNEC College, Aurangabad. R/o. 29, Nutan Housing Society, N-8, Cidco, Aurangabad. Lecturer, JNEC College, Aurangabad, R/o. 31, Anudha, Railway Station Road, Binsilal Nagar, Aurangabad.7. Dilip s/o. Shripat Khedkar Age 40 years, Occu. Service, Asstt. Professor and Head, JNEC College, Aurangabd, R/o. H-13, Chhatrapati Colony, Beed Bye Pass Road, Aurangabad.8. Ravindra s/o. Raosaheb Deshmukh, Age 36 years, Occu. Service, Aurangabad, R/o. Sukhdev, Plot No. J-43, Shri. Durga Co-operative Society, N-5, CIDCO, Aurangabad.9. Dhanjay s/o. Raosaheb Dolas, Age 39 years, ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Pushpa Wo Prakash Patil, and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra, a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2012
JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent. 2. The applicants in Criminal Application Nos. 475 of 2012 and 208 of 2012 have prayed for leave to assist the learned Special Public Prosecutor. In view of nature of contest, both the applications are allowed. 3. Criminal Application No. 52 of 2012 is for anticipatory bail. Applicants are three in number. They have been named as accused along with many other in Crime No. 13 of 2006, registered with Jalgaon City Police Station, under Sections 409, 468, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Heard learned Senior Advocate Shri P.M. Shah, learned Special Public Prosecutor and both learned Advocates, who have appeared to assist the prosecution. 4. Learned Senior Advocate Shri P.M. Shah appearing for the applicants addressed following submissions in support of the prayer :- (a) The F.I.R. lodged by Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation Jalgaon, it is...
Tag this Judgment!Vidyut Metallics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce Mumbai Iii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2012
Ashok Jindal A demand of interest of Rs.92,791/- has been confirmed against the appellant on delayed payment. As the issue involved is in a narrow compass, therefore, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of interest, the appeal is taken up for disposal. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are clearing goods to their sister concern. On scrutiny of records, it was found that the appellant has paid duty on these clearances. As the said clearances do not relate to transactions amounting to sale those were clearance for captive consumption, the assessable value declared was purportedly worked out on the basis of costing as per provisions of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, a show-cause notice was issued demanding differential duty along with interest. The period involved is April 2003-04 and the show-cause notice issued on 29.04.2008. 3. The contention of the appellant is that whatever the duty they paid, they are entitled for the credit, therefore the ...
Tag this Judgment!indo Amines Ltd. Vs. Cce Belapur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2012
Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeal along with a stay application. 2. After hearing both sides I find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, after granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. 3. The facts of the case are that during the course of audit of records, it was revealed from the Balance sheet and Accounts statement for the year 2006-07 that the appellant has received an amount of Rs.8,33,704/- as an insurance claim as a compensation towards exploded reactor as per the provisions of Rule 35A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants are required to pay duty of Rs.1, 36,060/- on such amount received by them. It was also found that there was a demand of Rs.5,08,599/- on the insurance claim of Rs.31,16,219/- against the loss of goods due to flood. However, they have not reversed the credit amounting to Rs.5,08,599/- on the said goods. It was also noticed that the appellant has not s...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Alpha Techno Systems P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, M ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order confirming the penalty on the appellant under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 equivalent to the duty and a penalty of Rs.27000/- under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a small scale unit availing value based exemption which was allowed to them up to 100 lakhs. On 17.10.2005, the appellant crossed the limit of 100 lakhs and on 24.10.2005 they realised that they have crossed the exemption limit on 17.10.2005, thereafter they themselves has applied for Central Excise registration which was granted on the very next day. On obtaining the registration, the appellant were required to pay Central Excise duty by 15th of next month but they themselves paid on 16th of next month along with interest on delayed payment of duty. The appellant also filed their quarterly return within time. On scrutiny of their returns, it was found that the appellant has not taken registration i...
Tag this Judgment!Pepsico India Holding P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumb ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
The appellants are in appeals against the impugned orders wherein input credit taken by them on duty paid invoice was denied only on basis that the invoice number was handwritten or rubber stamped but not printed. A show-cause notice was issued, demands were confirmed by both the lower authorities. Aggrieved from the said orders, appellants are before me. 2. Ms. Anjali Hirawat, Advocate, ld. counsel for the appellant appeared before me and submitted that there is no requirement in the CENVAT Credit Rules that the invoice should be printed. The only requirement is that the invoice should be serially numbered. Therefore, the impugned orders are to be set aside as per the CENVAT Credit Rules. 3. Heard the ld. counsel and found that the appeals can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, appeals are taken up for final disposal. 4. I have gone through the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules deals with t...
Tag this Judgment!Kamat Hotels and Another Vs. Pralhad N Padalikar and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member 1. Both these appeals filed by each one of the opponents in original consumer complaint arising out of order dated 08/05/2009 passed in consumer complaint No.19/2009, Shri Pralhad Narhar Padalikar V/s. M/s.Kamat Hotels through its Director Shri Vitthal Govind Kamat and Anr., by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigad (the Forum in short). Since, they involve identical facts and common question of law, are disposed of by this common order. 2. We heard both the parties named above. Perused the record. Undisputed facts are that the appellant/org. opponent No.1-M/s.Kamat Hotels (hereinafter referred to as Hotel for brevity) runs a hotel on Mumbai-Goa Highway at Karnala Bird Sanctuary situated near village Chinchvan, Post-Shirdhon, Taluka-Panvel, District-Raigad. As submitted at the Bar, it caters need of the travellers at the Highway to provide them snacks, tea, etc. At that place along with snacks, packed drinking water of brand Oxyrich ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs. Madhavi Cement Industri ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
S.S. Kang Heard the learned AR. None appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of notice. On the last date of hearing also, the respondent was unrepresented. In these circumstances, the appeal is taken up in absence of the respondent. 2. The Revenue’s appeal is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act to Rs.10,000/-. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs.63,298/- and imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. 3. On appeal by the respondent, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the cum duty benefit and directed the adjudicating authority to recalculate the quantum of demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) also reduced the penalty to Rs.10,000/- only. 4. The contention of the Revenue is that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors reported in 2008...
Tag this Judgment!M.S.Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (imports) Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
Ashok Jindal 1. The appellants have filed this appeal along with stay application and application for early hearing of their appeal as it is a case of live consignment. 2. Heard both sides at length and thereafter it was observed that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage, therefore, the application of early hearing is allowed and the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty is also waived, the appeal is taken up for disposal today itself. 3. The appellant had imported one consignment of ‘Diclazuril’ and filed a bill of entry for clearance of the said goods. The goods were examined and a doubt was raised, the goods imported are drugs and are prohibited under Drug and Cosmetic Act. Therefore, samples were drawn and the opinion of Assistant Drug Controller (ADC) was obtained, who opined that imported goods are drugs. Therefore, the goods were confiscated and directed to re-export the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs.50,000/- and penalty of Rs.15,000/-. The ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »