Latest Cases

Cheif General Manager/thermal Power Station-i, Neyveli Lignite Corpora ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2007)1LLJ128Mad

.....the commissioner had erroneously concluded that the workman died due to stress and hard work given during the course of his employment, when the fact remains that he had gone to sleep during the tenure of employment and death occurred while he was asleep, and there is no evidence to indicate that he had performed any duty after 00.30 hrs. the learned counsel further submitted that the heart attack suffered by the deceased cannot be deemed to be an accident within the meaning of section 3 of the act, and that there must be a causal connection between the accidental injury and the employment. the expression 'employment' cannot be confined to the mere nature of the employment. he has further contended that in the case of death caused by accident, the burden of proof rests upon the workman to prove that the accident arose out of as well as in me course of employment.8. per contra, mr. n. dhamodaran, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 herein has contended that there is no error in the finding of the commissioner that the heart attack suffered by workman during the course of his employment on august 8, 1989 can be deemed to be an accident within the meaning of section 3 of.....

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. AllahdIn and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 2006(2)JKJ698

.....of war, civil war, riot or civil commotions, or (b) that the policy if void on the ground that it was obtained by the non-disclosure of a material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular.12. this provision of law prescribes that what are the defences available to the insurer. these defences are very limited. insurer cannot raise a plea or defence which is not provided and prescribed by the said provisions of law.13. if a breach is alleged, it is for the insurer to plead and prove the breach. further it is also to be proved that breach was the cause of accident. division bench of this court has observed in a case titled national insurance co. ltd. v. abdul gaffar pandith reported in 2004 (ii) slj 692 that a breach is to be pleaded and proved. mere breach is not enough and insurer cannot escape from the liability. it is profitable to reproduce para 7 herein;7. in the recent case of national insurance company ltd. v. swaran singh and ors. : air2004sc1531 , a three -judge bench of the apex court has held that breach of policy conditions, for example, disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver has to be proved to have.....

Hardware Trading Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2006)(105)ECC197

1. this application is made seeking invocation of powers under rule 41 of the cestat (procedure) rules.2. vide order dated 1.12.2005, the tribunal allowed an appeal of the importers, directing the clearance of the goods without fine and penalty. the appellants thereafter have approached the commissioner of customs and other senior officers in the custom house, seeking the clearance of the goods as per the directions of the tribunal. these letters are dated 25.2.2006, 28.2.2006, 17.3.2006, 23.3.2006 and 20.4.2006 all addressed to the commissioner of customs (gen), mulund cfs, where the goods were to be cleared, as bill of entry had been filed at the cfs. there is no response from the commissioner or the other officers who were endorsed these letters, as also, repeated requests made in person by the importers and their representatives elicited no response.3. if the tribunal's orders are not to be implemented and are to be flouted with impunity, there is no purpose in having the tribunal.government may consider closing down this institution. copy of this order is endorsed to the chairman of central board of excise and customs with a hope that a look into the matter may be called for.....

Southern Electronics Bangalore Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

.....additional and special duty of customs in respect of components imported for manufacture of parts of aircraft/gliders and later used in the manufacture of gliders/aircraft by m/s. hindustan aeronautics limited, a psu unit. the appellants could not produce the certificate at the initial stage. however, they produced the same at a later stage before the original authority and the commissioner (appeals). the authenticity of the certificate is not in challenge. the ground taken is that the late production of the document cannot be accepted as it would amount to re-assessment of the bill of entry. this ground is challenged by the appellants on the ground that there is no question of the re-assessment of the bill of entry. the issue pertains to grant of benefit of the notifications only. there was no violation of the notifications except that the required certificate was produced belatedly. (i) jindal vijayanagar steels ltd. v. cc, mangalore final order nos. 54 & 55/2006 dated 12.01.2006 of the bangalore bench of the cestat (ii) goa shipyard ltd. v. cc, acc, sahar 2006 (72) rlt 479(cestat-mum.) (iii) m/s. kaveri telecoms ltd. v. cc, bangalore final order no. 118/2006 dt......

Five Star Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2006)(111)ECC748

.....ultimate bonafide purchaser for value. if the collector failed to make proper enquires as to market value of the goods and released the same after a half- hearted adjudication, we fail to see why a subsequent purchaser be saddled with the liability of under valuation more so in the back grounds of the fact that the appellants had no role to play either in the import or earlier adjudication proceedings.following the same, findings it to cars this case on all forms, instead of jain shudh vanaspati case in this view, when original assessments on b/e are held to be appealable orders, by the lager bench of this tribunal & the apex court (see priya blue industries ltd. ), these proceedings have been initiated after an order of assessment has been arrived, after due enquiries, by the proper officer as envisaged under section 17 of the customs act 1962.therefore, the confiscation liability, arrived again in this case cannot be upheld. order of confiscation & fine are to be set aside and appeal allowed to that extent accordingly.

Control and Switchgear Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

.....up the appeal.2. the issue relates to the valuation of contactors overload relays, electrical timers and accessories thereof and motor starters manufactured by the appellant. the impugned order has held that valuation of these items was to be under section 4a of the central excise act, 1944, despite the fact that no mrp is written on the packages.3. the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that this issue had come up before the tribunal between the parties and the tribunal had held in that valuation is to be done under section 4. it is being pointed out that this order was followed by the tribunal in a subsequent order being final order no.354/05-nb(a) . the learned counsel also points out that these orders were placed before the commissioner but the commissioner has passed the impugned order without referring to them.4. we have perused the record and heard both sides. we have also perused our earlier orders. the issue remains covered in favour of the appellant by our earlier orders. accordingly, the impugned order which has taken a contrary view is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant.5. before parting.....

Eicher Motors Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

.....ltd. that demand has been made on the basis that assessable value adopted was low, while discharging duty on motor vehicles manufactured by it.3. facts of the case are that the applicant m/s bhagirath coach and metal fabricators pvt. ltd. receives duty paid chassis from m/s asha motors, builds body on the chassis and clears the same on payment of duty. the duty payment on the body built vehicle is on the basis of cost of production (assessable value). the appellant adopted the commercial cost of chassis for working out cost of production. but revenue seeks to adopt the excise assessable value of chassis in place of its commercial cost. revenue's contention is that rule 8 of central excise rules provides for adopting 110% of the cost of production as assessable value of captively consumed goods and the assessable value of chassis was so re-fixed while assessing the chassis.4. the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the method of input valuation canvassed by the revenue is contrary to settled law. he refers to the decision of this tribunal in the case of bhilwara process pvt. ltd. wherein an identical issue was answered by us.5. learned jcdr would contend.....

Rajkumar Dad and Alumayer India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

.....the issue involved herein is determination of the activity indulged in by the applicants, viz. obtaining duty paid sections from the aluminium manufacturers of such sections and thereafter cutting them to size, drilling holes etc. to make window frames, door frames etc. would amount to manufacture under the provisions of the central excise act, 1944 or not and if it amounts to manufacture whether duty is to be determined on the entire value of the window, i.e. with the frame level cost of plast and other materials also brought in and used or it should be only job charges and cost of aluminium sections. penalty liability and demands are raised.3. after considering the material and finding that the larger bench in the case of mahindra & mahindra 2005 (71) rlt 513 has been relied upon by the learned commissioner to come to his conclusions that the activity would amount to manufacturer in spite of the fact that that was a case of steel structures, indicating the similar activity at site and the issues in this case are aluminium sections which were drilled etc.. we find that the case of the supreme court in cce v. ajit india pvt. ltd. 2000 (119) elt 274 (sc) was relied upon by.....

Shri Ajit Jayantilal Sheth Vs. Shriram Transport Finance

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Reported in : (2006)133CompCas604

.....counsel. the short issue before me is whether the petitioner is entitled for issue of duplicate certificates in respect of the impugned shares under section 113 of the act. while according to the company, the impugned shares, after effecting the transfer in the name of the petitioner, have been delivered to his authorised representative, it is vehemently contended that the petitioner never authorised any one to collect the certificates from the company, of which this bench is unconcerned in the present proceedings. however, the impugned shares got into the custody of the third respondent, legality of which is seriously under dispute. the civil suit filed by the third respondent before the high court of, bombay claiming rights over the impugned shares stands now dismissed for default. the third respondent neither appeared nor opposed the petition, inspite of the opportunities afforded to him and publication of the hearing date in the local news paper in terms of the order of this bench. this sequence of events would indicate that the third respondent has abandoned his interest over the impugned shares. in this context, provisions, of section 113 invoked by the petitioner assumes.....

Kjmc Capital Market Services Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of ...

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

.....1992 provides that no stock broker shall buy, sell or deal in securities unless he holds a certificate granted by the board under the regulations. rule 4 of these rules provides the conditions for grant of certificate to a stock broker and one of the conditions contained in clause (d) is that he shall pay the amount of fees for registration in the manner provided under the regulations. regulation 10 of the securities and exchange board of india (stock brokers and sub brokers) regulations, 1992 (for short the regulations) mandates that every applicant eligible for grant of certificate of registration shall pay such fees and in such manner as specified in schedule iii. when we look at schedule iii of the regulations we find that every stock broker is required to pay registration fee on the basis of his annual turn over. if the turn over does not exceed rs.1 crore during any financial year a sum of rs.5,000/- has to be paid as fee for each financial year.where the annual turn over of the broker exceeds rs.1 crore during any financial year, then a sum of rs.5,000/- plus one hundredth of one per cent of the turn over in excess of rs.1 crore for each financial year has to be paid......