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. Tulsi Extrusion Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. Common issue is involved in all these three applications for waiver of dues therefore they are being taken up together. 3. Applicant M/s. Tulsi Extrusion Ltd. filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.49,85,899/-, interest and penalty. Other applicant filed the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties only. 4. The demand is confirmed on the ground that M/s. Tulsi Extrusion Ltd. availed credit without receiving the inputs. The applicants filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) directed the applicant to pre-deposit the duty amount and Rs. 3,00,000/- each for penalties. 5. The applicants had not complied with the conditions of stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) hence the appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 6. During the argument applicant submitted that in respect of the earlier Appeal Nos. i.e. E/1418,1419/201...
Madhuri Praveen Malla Vs. Narendra Gupta
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member (1) This consumer pertains to a deficiency in service on the part of the opponent builder developer for not handing over the possession of the flat, on account of continuing delay in handing over possession etc. (2) Undisputed facts are that Madhuri Praveen Malla along with her spouse Dr.Praveen B. Malla bought an under construction property from Mr.Narendra Gupta, proprietor of Rockline Construction Company (hereinafter referred to as the opponent in short), bearing Flat No.302 situated in B Wing in a building known as NG Royal Park situated at Kanjurmarg, more particularly described in the introductory paragraph of the complaint. Said transaction is witnessed by registered agreement dated 11th July, 2005. The flat in question is of area 778.51 sq.ft. The agreed consideration was of Rs.28,44,000/- and the same was entirely paid at the time of agreement itself along with Rs.1,25,950/- towards stamp duty and Rs.30,000/- as registration charges et...
Valerian Antony Diago and Others Vs. Cordcon Builders Pvt Ltd. and Ano ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member 1. This consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in services on the part of builder/developer, namely, opponent No.1-Cordcon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as builder) of which opponent No.2-Mr.Tajdin M. Maredia is a Managing Director, for not handing over possession of the flat and also for compensation on account of delay in delivering the possession. 2. Undisputed facts are that complainants agreed as per Agreement dated 02/03/2006 to purchase a flat No.1404 having area of 626 sq.ft. (carpet) situated on the 14th floor of A Wing of Caribbean in the housing complex known as Sagar City at Gilbert Hill, Andheri (West) and more particularly, described in the complaint. Total agreed consideration is Rs.36,28,075/-. Out of said consideration, so far the complainant had paid and builder has received Rs.34,46,674/-. Only Rs.1,81,404/- remained to be paid towards consideration and as per the agreement, said amount was to be paid ...
ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
S.S. Kang 1. Heard both sides. 2. Appellant filed this appeal against a demand of Rs 20,12,814/- confirmed and penalty of equivalent under Section 11AC of the Act. The demand is confirmed after denying the credit in respect of : (i) Beams/Channels/M.S.rounds/CTD bars/Corrugated sheet and walk away stair case; (ii) Electrical Power Generator (11KVA); (iii) Thinner/Primer; (iv) Safety equipment; (v) Credit on GP 1 789 dt 16.6.94. 3. The contention of the appellant is that the demand is time-barred as the Show Cause Notice was issued on 29.6.1999 by invoking extended period of limitation for the period from 1994-95 on the ground that the appellant suppressed material facts with intent to evade payment of duty. The contention is that the appellant availed the credit on the items in dispute as capital goods and filed monthly return. Proceedings were also initiated by issuing a Show Cause Notice dated 18.8.1995 denying the credit on these items on the ground that credit has been availed with...
Bhagyashali Textile Mills Pvt Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Cent ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
S.S. Kang 1. Heard both sides. 2. Applicant M/s Bhagyashali Textile Mills Pvt Ltd filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs 2,53,69,110/-, interest and penalty. Other applicants filed applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties. 3. The applicants M/s Bhagyashali Textile Mills Pvt Ltd are engaged in the manufacture of texturised polyester yarn. The demand is confirmed on the ground that the applicants are suppressing the value and quantity of the goods manufactured to evade payment of duty. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal vide final order dated 28.1.2002 remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh after supplying the relevant documents as asked for by the appellant and appellant was directed to file reply within two months therefrom. In pursuance to the direction given by the Tribunal, the adjudicating authority on 23.3.2010 supplied copies of the documents except the document at serial No...
Kilitch Drugs (India) Ltd. and Another Vs. Commissioner of Central Exc ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
S.S. Kang 1. Heard both sides. 2. Both the appeals are filed against the common impugned order. Therefore, they are being taken up together. 3. Appellant M/s Kilitch Company (Pharma) Ltd is manufacturing PandP medicament falling under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff on job work basis for M/s Kilitch Drugs (I) Ltd and paying duty as per the principles laiddown by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujjagar Prints reported in 1988 (38) ELT 535 (SC). The Show Cause Notice was issued to both the appellants demanding differential duty of Rs 2,71,540/- by rejecting the valuation arrived at by appellant M/s Kilitch Company (Pharma) Ltd. Both the appellants filed replies to the Show Cause Notice and the adjudicating authority vide Order dated 24.9.2003 confirmed the demand of duty of Rs 2,71,540/- and held that the amount is recoverable from M/s Kilitch Drugs (I) Ltd alongwith interest and also imposed a penalty on M/s Kilitch Company (Pharma) Ltd. Both the appellants prefer...
P.K. Das and Associates Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order confirming the demand of service tax along with interest and penalty under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the activity of Industrial Construction Service. The appellant claimed abatement as per Notification 1/06 which specifies that if the assessee does not take CENVAT credit of input/input service, the assessee is entitled abatement of 67% from their gross taxable service for payment of service tax. From the ST-3 returns, it was found that in the month of March 2006, the appellant has availed CENVAT credit and abatement also as per Notification 1/2006. A show-cause notice was issued and demand was confirmed along with interest and various penalties were imposed. The first appellate authority dropped the penalty under Section 78 and confirmed the adjudication order. Against that order, appellant is before us. 3. Shri T.C. Na...
Green Lawns Apartments Chs Ltd. Vs. Green Developers Pvt Ltd. and Othe ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member (1) This consumer complaint refers to alleged deficiency in services on the part of Green Developers Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as the builder) in respect of Wings B, C, D in which flat purchasers who are members of the complainant - Green Lawns Apartments CHS Ltd. (hereinafter referred as the Society), have purchased their respective flats from the builder in a complex known as Green Lawn Apartments situated at Goregaon (East), Mumbai 400 063. It is alleged on behalf of the society that possessions of the flats were given to the respective purchasers from these Wings B, C, D during the period July 2003 to April 2005. Their society was registered on 16/10/2007. Occupation certificate in respect of Wing C and D is already obtained. However, Occupation certificate in respect of Wing B is yet to be obtained by the builder. In absence of such Occupation certificate, no water connection on regular basis could be obtained, and the society is requ...
Shivneri Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. Vs. Vasant Dada Shetkari Sha ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member [1] The Complainant, namely Shivaneri Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Kolhapur is a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. On 26/6/2009, the Complainant has filed present complaint as against the Opponent, namely - Vasant Dada Shetkari Sahakari Bank Ltd., through its Liquidator (hereinafter referred to as the Bank for the sake of brevity), which is also registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Facts giving rise to this complaint can be summarized as under:- [2] According to the Complainant, it is a primary credit society having prime objects such as accepting deposits from the members and other persons, to make advances to the members for their financial upliftment and to maintain liquidity of money by investing the same in other financial institutions. The Complainant has further stated that it is having overdraft secured account bearing No.28 and the amount lying therein is Rs. 4,...
Madhavi Anant Gaikwad Vs. Prakash Deepak Gaikwad and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2012
Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member 1. This consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service on the part of builder and developer for not handing over the possession of shop premises and further deficiency in service is also alleged for delay in handing over the possession of the flat and for compensation. 2. Undisputed facts are that the complainant-Smt.Madhavi Anant Gaikwad who had proprietary interest in the part of the premises known as Gaikwad House was residing in part thereof as per terms of the settlement recorded between the parties while compromising Civil Suit No.2898/1989. Said settlement is witnessed by a document dated 09/07/2000. Subsequent to it, property of Gaikwad House was decided to be developed by opponent No.1-Prakas alias Deepak Dattaram Gaikwad (hereinafter referred to as owner for convenience). An agreement was reached between owner, the complainant-Smt.Madhavi Gaikwad (hereinafter referred to as complainant), and developer-builder, namely, opponent...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »