Mumbai Court April 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M/S. Simex India Private Limited (Formerly Known as M/S. Simex Marketi ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2012
P.N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member 1. This is a consumer complaint filed by M/s.Simex India Private Limited (formerly known as M/s.Simex Marketing Services Pvt.Ltd.) having registered office at 71, Mittal Towers, B wing, 7th floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. This complaint is filed against M/s.New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and M/s.Shree Hari Shipping Private Ltd. According to complainant, opponent is the Insurance Company carrying on business of insurance who has registered office at 87, M.G.Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 023 and one of its Divisional / Unit office at Mani Mahal, 3rd floor, 11/21, Mathew Road, Opera House, Mumbai 400 004. 2. Opponent no.2 are the Shipping Company registered under Companies Act having management, control and possession of Country Craft, M.S.V. Shreemathi CLR 131 and they are carrying on business of Carriers of goods by Sea for consideration and they are accepting the goods and freight charges in Mumbai through their Agents M/s.Sirius Shipping Co.Ltd. ...
Gupta Coalfields and Washeries Ltd. Vs. Cce Nagpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2012
Ashok Jindal This is an appeal filed by the appellant M/s. Gupta Coalfields and Washeries Ltd. against the demand of service tax of Rs.16,86,683/- along with interest and imposition of various penalties under the Finance Act, 1994 . 2. The facts of the case are that during the scrutiny of the records, it was noticed that the appellant had an agreement with M/s. Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd., (KPCL). As per the said agreement, the appellant shall obtain raw coal from M/s. Western Coal Field Ltd. (WCL) for M/s KPCL. Linkage on payment of necessary coal cost to M/s W.C.L. After receiving raw coal from WCL for washing, the appellant shall carry out necessary process of washing and supply washed coal to M/s. KPCL. In their agreement with KPCL, the liability for the payment of supervision, sampling and analysis charges lies with the appellant. As the appellant has not included the amount of deduction such as amount of supervision, sampling and analysis charges in their gross value, on whi...
Bilcare Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2012
Ashok Jindal The appellant filed this application for early hearing of their appeal on the ground that after filing the appeal they have obtained EODCs from DGFT which was the main issue involved in the matter. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the demand has been raised against the appellant for not discharging their export obligation and at this stage the appellant is in a position to produce EODC issued by the DGFT. 3. After hearing the learned Advocate, we find that the appellant has made out a ground for early hearing of the appeal. Accordingly, after allowing the application for early hearing, we take up the appeal itself for disposal. 4. At this stage the learned Counsel has produced EODCs issued by DGFT which were not considered by the lower authorities. Considering the fact that it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the original adjudicating authority to verify the EODCs produced before us by the appellant whether they have discharged their e...
M/S. Ganage Pressings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pu ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2012
Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal along with a stay application against the impugned order which confirmed the demand duty along with interest and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant are the manufacturer of automobile components. During the course of scrutiny of the records, it is noticed by the audit that the applicant has availed Cenvat Credit on the goods received in their factory and thereafter they issued various debit Notes to the material suppliers on which they were required reverse the CENVAT credit taken by them. Therefore, show-cause notice was issued demanding payment of duty on the amount of reversal by way of debit notes along with interest and proposing imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. The show-cause notice was adjudicated and demand was confirmed. The matter was appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals). During the course of hearing befo...
Vastu Shrusti Co. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs. the Proprietor / Chairman Lodha E ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2012
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member 1. This consumer complaint is filed by the Vastu-shrusti Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., the complainant (hereinafter referred to as complainant) against the opponents for alleged deficiency in service as spelled out in Para 12 of the complaint and which inter alia include the one relating to not providing certain amenities by the opponent-builder/developer; for not executing civil work, as promised, and also for non-execution of the conveyance. 2. It is the case of complainant that it is a Co-operative Housing Society of the flat purchasers from Wings - C to H of the buildings constructed on CST No.238, H-2 Para in a complex known as Lodha Heritage, Village Bhopar, Dombivali (East), Tal. Kalyan, Dist. Thane. The Society is registered in the month of November 2005. As per their respective agreements with the builder/developer, namely, M/s.Lodha Estate Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Builder-Company) each member had received possession o...
M/S Siddhi Construction Co Through Its Proprietor Pradeep Dalichand Sh ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2012
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member 1. This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 16/01/2010 passed in consumer complaint No.117/2009, Shri Sanjay Putalaji Darekar and Ors. V/s. M/s.Siddhi Construction Co. through its partner and Ors.,by Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane (the Forum in short). 2. It is a consumer complaint filed by the flat purchasers in a building constructed by M/s.Siddhi Construction Company (in fact it is a proprietary concern of Mr.Pradeep Dalichand Shah, hereinafter referred to as builder) known as Siddhivinayak Park situated at Airoli, Navi Mumbai. The consumer complaint against the builder came to be allowed and it was directed that the builder shall complete the incomplete construction work, provide all the amenities as mentioned in para 1 of the body of the impugned order and shall obtain an Occupation Certificate from opponent No.3/Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation. It was further directed to the builder to execute the conveya...
Chate Coaching Classes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, A ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2012
Ashok Jindal By this appeal, the appellant is challenging the order of confirmation of a demand of service tax of Rs.2,82,46,874/- along with interest and penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in providing the service of commercial training and coaching. On the basis of intelligence that the appellant is providing study material to students and the value of the said material has not been included in the assessable value of the services, therefore investigation was conducted and it was found that the appellant is availing the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003. As per para 2.9.1 of the Board circular No.59/8/2003 dated 20.6.2003, the appellant is not entitled for exemption under Notification 12/2003 dated 20.6.2003 and exemption is available only in case the commercial coaching and training classes available to the standard textbooks as this study material is provided by the institute a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›