//
archives

appellate tribunal

This tag is associated with 27 posts

Excise duty=for claiming exemption from excise duty under notification , one has to make an application=Admittedly, no such application was made by Indo Gulf Corporation Limited in the form at Annexure-1 to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. As the procedure set out in the 2001 Rules has not been followed, the appellant was not entitled to exemption on the Naphtha cleared from its factory for supply to Indo Gulf Corporation Limited for manufacture of fertilizer.

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 4530-4532 OF 2005 M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. … Appellant   Versus   Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara … Respondent   WITH   CIVIL APPEAL NO.8048 OF 2004 M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. … Appellant   Versus   Commissioner of Central … Continue reading

excise duty -the mechanical mixing of polymer with heated bitumen does not amount to manufacture of a new commercially identifiable product and therefore, is not exigible to Excise duty under the Act. =We therefore, hold that PMB or CRMB cannot be treated as bituminous mixtures falling under CSH 27150090 and shall continue to be classified under CSH 27132000 pertaining to tariff for petroleum bitumen.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4055-4056 OF 2009   COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, — APPELLANT BANGALORE-II     VERSUS   M/S OSNAR CHEMICAL PVT. LTD. — RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5633 OF 2009 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7142 OF 2010   JUDGMENT   D.K. JAIN, J.: … Continue reading

entitled for the benefit of Modvat credit -the process of testing the customised machines is integrally connected with the ultimate production of the final product viz. the F&S machines and therefore, that process is one in relation to the manufacture, falling within the sweep of Rule 57A of the Rules= The assessee filed declarations and availed of the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the Flexible Laminated Plastic Film in roll form & Poly Paper used for testing the F&S machine. On 4th March, 1993, a notice was issued to the assessee to show cause as to why the benefit of Modvat credit 4

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7152 OF 2004   M/S FLEX ENGINEERING LIMITED — APPELLANT   VERSUS   COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, — RESPONDENT U.P. WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.429 OF 2012 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 875 of 2008), CIVIL APPEAL NO.430 OF 2012 … Continue reading

CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL=some defamatory, derogatory, humiliative, abusive and obnoxious e-mails from Aruna Kashinath and Avinash Agnihotry from the e-mail IDs kashinath.aruna@gmail.com and avinash.agnihotry@gmail.com respectively. It is pertinent to point out that both Aruna Kashnath and Avinash Agnihotry are part of the top management team of the appellant company. It is further submitted that the appellant has made enquiries from both Aruna Kashinath and Avinash Agnihotry 4 who had flatly refused and denied connection with the aforesaid email accounts or their creation maintenance or with the sending of the aforementioned emails and that list of the e-mails sent through both the aforesaid email addresses as per information received from the investor Greater Pacific Capital, as per details given below:- “EMAILS SENT FROM THE E-MAIL: kashinath.aruna@gmail.com a. Email sent on Saturday, November 22, 2008 at 4.50 AM to Christian Hansmeyer, Ketan patel, Joe Searly, Francis Crispino, with subject entitled “MGL (Mascon) “Gentlemen: I am sending this mail to you in great confidence. I have inside info-mation and personal news on the company’s CEO that I would like to share w=th you if you want. I am doing this because almost 100% of the company’s e=ployees strongly believe that the current ceo and chairman must go immediately if you want to save the compa=y or see anything left behind after his siphoning hundreds of millions and=cooking the books. The board is dummy and dead and you are the only =ope. Please respond to this mail so that we can point you in the right direction in confidence.

CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (Ministry of Communications & Information Technology) Jeevan Bharti (LIC) Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi APPEAL NO. 7/2009 Date of decision May 28,2010 Mascon Global Limited ……Appellant Through Mr.Pavan Duggal,Advo. With Mrs.Renu Narula,Advocate Versus Controller of Certifying Authorities & Others ……. Respondents Through Mr.Vakul Sharma,Advo.with Ms.Seema Sharma,Advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr.Sajan Poovaya,Adv. … Continue reading

the appellant was shocked to receive print outs being copies of the various e-mails apparently sent by the email ID kashinath.aruna@gmail.com. It is stated that the email identity kashinath.aruna@gmail.com is a email account that does not belong to the appellant but has been created in the name of the appellant at the popular email service www.gmail.com.

CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (Ministry of Communications & Information Technology) Jeevan Bharti (LIC) Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi APPEAL NO. 5/2009 Date of decision May 28,2010 Ms.Aruna Kashinath ……Appellant Through Mr.Pavan Duggal,Advo. With Mrs.Renu Narula,Advocate Versus Controller of Certifying Authorities & Others ……. Respondents Through Mr.Vakul Sharma,Advo.with Ms.Seema Sharma,Advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr.Sajan Poovaya,Adv. with … Continue reading

CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL= prayed for a direction to respondent No.1, Controller of Certifying Authority to investigate the various contraventions of the provisions of the Information Technology Act,2000 as detailed in the complaint of the applicant to the Controller of Certifying Authority dated 23.9.2009 and further direction to respondents 2 and 3 to assist the respondent No.1 in its investigations of the various contraventions of the provisions of the Information Technology Act,2000, as detailed in the complaint dated 23.9.2009. Briefly stated the facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellant is a member of IPAG, the Planning Group of Electronics Commission under the Ministry of Information Technology, Government of India and he has claimed to have contributed to planning of the Indian Electronics Industry. At present he is working at Mascon Global Limited as Senior Vice President. According to the submissions of the appellant, he has received various emails through his employer Mascon Global Limited apparently sent by email ID avinash.agnihotry @ gmail.com. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that some unknown persons have falsely, dishonestly and fraudulently fabricated and created the e-mail ID avinash.agnihotry@gmail.com registered in the name of the appellant by submitting false and 4 mischievous information

CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (Ministry of Communications & Information Technology) Jeevan Bharti (LIC) Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi APPEAL NO. 4/2009 Date of decision May 28,2010 Dr.Avinash Agnihotry ……Appellant Through Mr.Pavan Duggal,Advo. With Mrs.Renu Narula,Advocate Versus Controller of Certifying Authorities & Others ……. Respondents Through Mr.Vakul Sharma,Advo.with Ms.Seema Sharma,Advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr.Sajan Poovaya,Adv. with … Continue reading

CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL=praying following directions to respondents to 3 (a) disable access to all content including disabling the said email account kashinath.aruna@gmail.com. (b) Further deliver by return email, the identity details of the sender (s) of the aforesaid defamatory and insinuating emails from the email account kashinath.aruna@gmail.com including the contact number (cell number and email identity), address, telephone number, fax number and other identification details, if any. (c) Provide the complete details pertaining to the technicalities, headers and footers information and comprehensive identification parameters as also the complete computer logs of the entire electronic records and emails generated, sent, received and handled by or on behalf of the actual owner(s)/user(s) of the email account kashinath.aruna@gmail.com in connection with the subject matter in the present application from the email account kashinath.aruna@gmail.com, including all electronic records and emails and other electronic communications generated, processed, sent or received therein; (d) Further disclose all the details concerning the true identity and comprehensive identification of the actual owner(s)/user(s) of the email account kashinath.aruna@gmail.com and all relevant registration information connected therewith and further furnish all traffic data connected with the email account kashinath.aruna@gmail.com. Apart from preserving the same, without any tampering or alteration of any kind whatsoever.Etc.,

CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (Ministry of Communications & Information Technology) Jeevan Bharti (LIC) Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi APPEAL NO. 3/2009 Date of decision May 28,2010 Ms.Aruna Kashinath ……Appellant Through Mr.Pavan Duggal,Advo. With Mrs.Renu Narula,Advocate Versus GMAIL.COM & anr. Respondents Through Mr.Sajan Poovaya,Advo. With Mr.Parveen Sherawat,Advo. & Mr.Akhil Anand,Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH TANDON, CHAIRPERSON … Continue reading

CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL=on 18th January,2008 Online Demat Account was opened by India Infoline Ltd. A/C No.1204470001776230 and POA ID was given as VAHARISH. It is stated that ownership of Online Trader Terminal Software was given i.e. access to Online Trader Terminal Software for the said POA ID (Client ID- VAHARISH). On 22nd February,2008, an application was made by the appellant for the Initial Public Offer of Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. (REC Ltd.) in the name of Harishkumar Chandrakant Vakharia (HUF). Cheque Number was 163127, cheque amount was Rs.94,500/-, Bank name was ICICI Bank, S.G.Road branch and the Bank A/C number was 029501001050 of HUF saving account. Appellant has submitted that on 7th March,2008, Karvy.com displayed allotment of 121 (amount Rs.12,705/-) shares of REC Ltd. and remaining amount of Rs.81,795/- came to be credited into the above mentioned bank account. It is further submitted that the said shares were not credited in the appellant’s Online Demat Account after they were allotted. A message was alleged to have been displayed that Online Demat Account is closed.

CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (Ministry of Communications & Information Technology) Jeevan Bharti (LIC) Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi APPEAL NO. 1/2009 Date of decision May 26,2010 SH. Harish Kumar C.Vakaria …..APPELLANT Through Mr.Manan S.Thakker, Advocate and Mr.Hardik Gupta,Advo Vs M/s India Infoline Ltd.. …..RESPONDENT Through Mr.Y.H.Motiramani,Advo. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH TANDON, CHAIRPERSON CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL … Continue reading

SERVICE MATTER = As has been held by this Court in Director, SCTI for Medical Science & Technology and Another v. M. Pushkaran (supra) each case must be considered on its own merits and where the Court does not find any reason for the authorities not to offer any appointment to the candidate placed in the selection panel the Court can direct appointment. In the facts of the present case, the Madras High Court did not see any justification on the part of the Central Government in not giving effect to the select panel when there was a very large pendency of cases in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal resulting in hardship to the litigant public as well as loss to the exchequer, but after the Appointments Committee approved appointments of 16 selected candidates found suitable for appointment as members of the Income Tax

1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6567-6569 OF 2010 Union of India & Anr. … Appellants Versus Pradip Kumar Kedia Etc. … Respondents J U D G M E N T A. K. PATNAIK, J. These are the appeals against the common judgment dated 20.03.2009 of the … Continue reading

condonation of delay=Though Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is always open to be construed liberally and even a feeble explanation showing a shadow of a sufficient cause may be acceptable in view of the need for a decision on any dispute on merits but not on technicalities, the total absence of any allegation of existence of any sufficient cause cannot be condoned even if the person requesting for such condonation is the State itself.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD   FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.R.P.M.P.No.5642 of 2011 and C.R.P.(SR).No.23470 of 2011 Between: Government of Andhra Pradesh .. Petitioner AND L. Krishnavardhan Reddy & 5 others .. Respondents The Court made the … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,883,996 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com