Mumbai Court February 2012 Judgments
Psc Pole Factory Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2012
S.S. Kang The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.15,46,969/-, interest and penalty. The demand is confirmed after denying the benefit of Notification No.74/93-CE dated 28.2.1993 which grants exemption from payment of excise duty on the goods manufactured in a factory belonging to State Government and the goods were intended for use by the department of that Government. 2. This issue is now settled in favour of the Revenue by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Asst. Engineer (Civil) vs. CCE, Raipur reported in 2008 (232) ELT 628 (Tri.-LB). The only contention of the applicant is that the major portion of the demand is time-barred as the show cause notice was issued on 25.8.2010 for the period October 2007 to March 2010 by invoking extended period of limitation on the ground of suppression with intent to evade payment of duty. The contention is that the applicant was filing necessary declarations claiming the benefit of the Notification ...
Tag this Judgment!ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2012
Ashok Jindal 1. The appellants have challenged the impugned order before us. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant, M/s.Ispat Industries Ltd. imported a consignment of ‘Quakerol 1027 A1 and Quakerol 29 C A1’ and filed bill of entry classifying the said goods under heading No.2710.99. For the assessment, the samples were drawn and test report was obtained. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellants asking that why not the goods to be classified under heading 2712.10 instead of 2710.99 as claimed by the appellants. The adjudicating authority on the basis of test report held that the goods are classifiable under heading No.2710.00. The said order was challenged by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals), who hold that the goods are classifiable under heading No.3403.00. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before us. 3. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that the show-cause notice has been issued to them for proposing to cla...
Tag this Judgment!Vaishali Zatakia Vs. Dr. Ajay Shah and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2012
P.N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member 1. This is a consumer complaint filed by one Vaishali Zatakia of Mumbai against Dr.Ajay Shah and Dr.L.M. Shah, both of Jeevan Jyot Hospital, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai alleging medical negligence on their part. According to the complainant, she had approached Jeevan Jyot Hospital at Ghatkopar where she had delivered a baby girl on 27/11/1996. Delivery was done by vacuum forceps operation and she was discharged from the hospital on 01/12/1996. Immediately after discharge, she had complained that faecal matter was coming out from her vagina. Therefore, she was examined by both the doctors on 03/12/1996 in their hospital and it was noticed that rectovaginal fistula had developed. On 05/12/1996 complainant was operated for rectovaginal fistula by both doctors and also by Dr.Parag Shah. However, said operation did not give any relief to her. Then she was taken to Dr.Pramod Jhawer at Bombay Hospital on 09/12/1996. She was hospitalized in the Bombay Hos...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›