w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Ambika Steel Industries V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Hyderabad-III


Company & Directors' Information:- K STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27104JH1973PTC000998

Company & Directors' Information:- A M INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = U21012WB1977PLC030854

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17117DL1995PTC064137

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090DL1987PTC027835

Company & Directors' Information:- A S STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27209WB1983PTC035796

Company & Directors' Information:- AMBIKA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15549TN2012PTC088846

Company & Directors' Information:- K STEEL & COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1991PTC053960

Company & Directors' Information:- SERVICE CORPORATION LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U93090KL1946PLC001075

Company & Directors' Information:- K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1946PTC000938

Company & Directors' Information:- INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00349KA1947PTC000501

Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00349KA1958PTC001309

Company & Directors' Information:- J INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101OR1960PTC000388

Company & Directors' Information:- THE CENTRAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1949PLC010460

    Appeal No. E/30754/2016 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-CEX-003-APP-002-16-17 dated 11.04.2016 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad) and Final Order No. 30010/2018

    Decided On, 22 January 2018

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Hyderabad

    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: M.V. RAVINDRAN
    By, MEMBER

    For Petitioner: Sudharshan Wellington, Advocate And For Respondents: Arun Kumar, Deputy Commissioner (AR)



Judgment Text


1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-CEX-003-APP-002-16-17 dt. 11.04.2016 passed by Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The relevant fact that arises for consideration are the appellant herein are engaged in manufacturer of MS Angles, MS Flats, MS Sq. Bars and MS Channels falling under chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff. They were issued show cause notice dt. 22.04.2013 alleging that during search at the factory premises on 18.01.2012 the officers recovered blank unnumbered invoice book signed by the authorized signatory alongwith numbering machine and two private notebooks showing day wise details of production and clearance from room of Supervisor Shri Kuldeep Saini. During physical verification a shortage of 29.775 Mts. was also found. The proprietor of the Unit accepted maintenance of note books and second set of invoice. Shri Kuldeep Saini in his statement dated 18.01.2012 stated that the note books recovered from them were maintained as per instructions of Shri Shiv Narayan Sharma, Proprietor, to enter daily production and details and it reflects actual production and clearances of finished goods and the details recorded in RG-1 register are not correct; un-numbered invoice book is being used for clearing unaccounted goods to evade payment of excise duty. Statement of Shri Bhomi Vasuna, proprietor of M/s. Bharat Dharam Kanta was recorded on 28.8.2012, who stated that they weigh the material of the appellant on credit basis, which is received in their own lorry bearing Regn. No. AP 22B-2324 or in any other lorries. In case of other lorries, the security personal of the appellant were accompanied the lorries and they maintain a long note book for the weighments made. On verification of the notebooks, it was found that the details of production and clearances are in excess of the entries made in RG-1 register.

2.1 That on examination of the electrical power consumption for the period from 5.8.2011 to 18.1.2012, it was found that there is huge gap in the electric power consumption and case of production per metric ton (PMT) ranging from Rs. 1972/- per M.T. during December 2011 to January 2012 to Rs. 2171/- per MT during August 2011. The cost of such power consumption is higher than the difference between the cost price of raw materials and selling price of finished goods, which means that the unit is selling goods consistently at loss during the year 2011-12. However, the financial statements are showing a gross profit of Rs. 5.88 lakh in corresponding period, which substantiates the clandestine activity of the appellant. The details entered in the two private note books are tallying with the entries made in the books of Dharam Kanta for both raw materials as well as finished goods. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice dtd. 22.4.2012 was issued to the appellant unit proposing demand of Rs. 4180498/- for the period November 2011 to January 2012. Further Rs. 106020/- was sought to be to be demanded on excisable goods found short during stock taking. Penalty u/s. 22AC was also proposed to be imposed.

3. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, as proposed in the Show Cause Notice, and also imposed penalty u/s. 11AC for equivalent amount.

4. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide impugned order confirmed the demand to the extent of Rs. 41,84,918/-. He, however, set-aside the demand of Rs. 1,06,020/- on shortage holding that as the entries in the private note books are upto 17.01.2012, therefore, raising separate demand on shortages of stocks is not sustainable. Hence, the present appeal.

5. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the proprietor has retracted from the statement before the Adjudicating authority. There is no evidence of any clandestine removal of any goods by the Appellant. That no directions were given by the proprietor to Shri Kuldeep Saini, Supervisor for maintenance of private notebooks or second set of invoices which were seized from the room where Shri Kuldeep Saini was residing and therefore the statement of Shri Kulkeep Saini cannot be relied upon to fasten the duty liability against the Appellant. There is no evidence on record to show that the alleged short found goods were cleared to any party. He submitted that no investigation was conducted at the end of the alleged buyers who have been purchased alleged clandestinely cleared goods. The officers relied upon the entries made in the note books but did not investigate the matter further to establish whether there was procurement of raw material and sale/dispatch of finished goods by the Appellant. The main raw material of the Appellant is MS Ingots & Billets, which are procured from big Ingots & Billet factories and transportation has to be done through lorries. During the course of travel, the lorries pass through a number of state operated check-posts. The Department has not shown any procurement of excess raw material by the Appellant except relying upon the entries in the note books and statement of employees of the appellant company. He relied upon the judgment in case of CCE, Haldia v/s. Lords Chemicals Ltd. : 2010 (278) E.L.T. 48 (Cal) in support of his statement to support his contention. He submits that the four invoices of the second set were prepared with fake information by the employee without any knowledge on part of Appellant. The investigation did not bring-out or establish any removal/transportation of the goods nor receipt of any sale proceeds in these transactions. He relies upon the case of CCE, Chennai Vs. Dhanvilas (Madras) Snuff Co. : 2003 (153) ELT 437 that mere entries in private note books are not sufficient to hold the charge of clandestine removal without cogent, sufficient and corroborative evidence. As regard the contention of the Department regarding excess consumption of electricity, he submits that there factory was new set up and during the initial production in the factory, there were unscheduled power cuts and also agitation for separate Telangana State were going on and the agitators used to demand closure/shut down of the production. Due to which power supply had to be shut-down, which resulted into losses of heat and subsequently more power was used to schedule the production again. He submits that the demand based on electricity is not tenable in the light of orders in case of CCE V/s. R.A. Casting reported at : 2011 (269) E.L.T. 337 (All.- HC) as upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner V/s. RA Casting - 2011 (269) E.L.T. A 108 (SC). He submits that though the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the demand on shortage of demands but the same has been set aside on the ground that the same is covered by the demand made out on the basis of clearances found in note books. He submits that the demand is not sustainable on merits. The shortages arrived on the basis of physical verification of stocks is not correct as no physical weighment of the stock was carried-out by the visiting officers. The officers randomly selected angles and weighed, thus arrived at the total weight of the finished goods. This method way of weighing is not correct and cannot be basis to allege clandestine removal against the Appellant. The Department did not undertake actual weighment of the angles lying in the factory. In the absence of any corroborate evidence, the shortage cannot be termed as clearance without payment of duty. He also relied upon the Tribunals order in case of Fact Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner 2014 (314) ELT 449 (TRI) and Vishwa Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Comm. : 2012 (278) ELT 362 (TRI). He also submits that though the weighment notebooks has been relied upon to allege that the details of the same were matching with the quantity mentioned in Notebook found from room of Shri Kuldeep Saini but the facts remains that no investigation were conducted from any of the alleged buyer to ascertain as to whether the Appellant has cleared any goods to them nor the details of raw material allege to have been received by the Appellant was verified from the alleged supplier of raw material. That even though the scan has stated numbers of vehicles used for transportation but no statement of transporter or their records has been relied upon. That in absence of any records/statement of any raw material supplier or finished goods buyer and corroborative evidences in the form of transporter, payment of freight, amount alleged to have been received towards clandestine removal of goods. Hence the demand is not sustainable.

6. Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand reiterates the allegation made in show cause notice and relies upon the findings of the impugned order.

7. I have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records.

8. I find that the demand is based upon the private note book and invoice books recovered from the room of Shri Kuldeep Saini, the Supervisor of the Appellant Company. Further that the Proprietor of the Appellant Unit in his statement alleged to have accepted the clearances of goods mentioned in note book and four invoice copies. The register of weighbridge of M/s. Bharath Dharam Kanta is allegedly containing details of goods which match with some of the consignments alleged to have been cleared by the Appellant and raw material received. I find that though the visiting officers has recorded statement of Proprietor of the Appellant Unit who accepted the clearance of goods shown in private note book but no further investigation has been made by the revenue. The officers has not been able to find single buyer of the said goods shown to have received the goods from the Appellant. There is no corroboration with goods having been received by any single person. Even not a single statement of transporter or driver of vehicle has been recorded to show that the goods allegedly were removed from the Appellant factory without payment of duty. No investigation has been undertaken from the raw material supplier as whether any goods were received by the Appellant in clandestine manner. Though the show cause notice has relied upon the statement of weighbridge owner to allege that the clandestinely cleared goods by the Appellant were weighed at the said weighbridge, however even the vehicle owner or drivers were not questioned whose vehicle numbers were mentioned in the weighbridge register. I also find that no evidence in the form of receipt of amount towards consideration of such alleged clandestine clearance has been brought on record. The Tribunal in case of CCE, Chennai Vs. Dhanvilas (Madras) Snuff Co. : 2003 (153) ELT 437 wherein the Tribunal in identical circumstances held as under:

5. On the other hand, ld. Counsel points out that the despatches were made to 65 customers. The department had examined only 5 customers. Only two of them had turned up for cross examination and had clearly stated that they had received the goods under invoices. Likewise, two of the customers, who had initially stated that they had received the goods, later resiled and also pleaded that those receipt of goods were against invoices. The other customers also had clearly stated that they received the goods under invoices. He submits that the representative dealers, who were examined, have all stated that the goods were received under invoices and as the department has not corroborated the charge, the revenues appeal cannot be allowed. He relied on large number of judgments to say that entries made in the private note book cannot be considered as conclusive proof of manufacture and clearance of goods clandestinely. He referred to the judgment of this Bench rendered in the case of Krishna Bottler - 1999 (32) RLT 845. He submits that this judgment has clearly laid down that private note books cannot be relied unless it is fully corroborated. He submits that this judgment is based on large number of judgments including the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Triveni Plastics : 1994 (73) E.L.T. 7 (S.C.); Oudh Sugar Mills v. UOI, 1978 (2) E.L.T. J (172). He has also filed copies of large number of citations to prove the point in support of the judgments given by the Commissioner.

6. I have carefully? considered the submissions made. As has been held in large number of judgments of the Tribunal based on the Apex Court judgment that the Revenue is required to prove the charge of clandestine removal with cogent and sufficient, corroborative evidence. It has also been now well laid down that mere entries made in the private note book are not sufficient to hold the charge of clandestine removal. In the present case, the Commissioner has scrutinized the entries made in the note book and found that in the note book there are entries made with regard to goods cleared under the invoices and also with regard to amounts received from them. He has also noted that there is no deletion made in the note book in respect of goods despatched under proper invoices. He also noted that there is no clandestine removal to prove that entries in the parcel note book show the actual quantities of goods manufactured. In the grounds of appeal, revenue is relying on the statement of the accountant and the entries. Revenue has only examined 5 customers out of 65 customers to whom the goods were supplied. Out of these 5 customers, two of them had given statements initially in favour of the Revenue. However, same has been resiled and they have clearly stated that they had received the goods under invoices. Likewise two other witnesses did not appear for cross examination and the one who appeared clearly stated that he had received the goods under invoices and against full payment. In a circumstance like this, it is not possible to hold that Revenue has produced sufficient evidence with regard to manufacture and clearance of goods clandestinely. Revenue ought to have produced the evidence of purchase of raw material, manufacture and clearance of goods clandestinely by examining the workers and also those who have received the goods without payment of duty. In view of lack of evidence, the Commissioner has rightly dropped the proceedings with regard to the charge pertaining to clandestine removal. However, he has upheld the charge pertaining to certain other charges and has confirmed duty and penalties. The partys appeals have already come up before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has upheld that charge and the findings recorded by the Commissioner except for giving benefit of reduction in penalties. On a total examination of facts and circumstances and in the light of the judgments cited before me, I am satisfied that the order passed by the Commissioner was just and proper and it does not require any interference. For lack of evidence, the Commissioner has dropped the proceedings as before him there was no concrete evidence shown which has escaped the notice of the Commissioner while recording the order. As there is no merit in the appeal, the same is rejected. Also in case of T.G.L. Poshak Corporation : 2002 (140) E.L.T. 187, the Tribunal held as under.

6. We have carefully considered the submission and perused the impugned order. Insofar as the assessees appeal is concerned, we notice from the extracted portion of the Commissioners order that Revenue is solely relying on the exercise note books mainly balance sheets. The Tribunal in large number of cases which have already been noted above in the tabulated list of citations furnished by the Counsel has held that unless there is clinching evidence on the nature of purchase of raw materials, use of electricity, sale, clandestine removals, the mode and flow back of funds, demands cannot be confirmed solely on the basis of note books maintained by some workers. The facts in the case of Aswin Vanaspati Industries would be identical to the facts herein as in that case also the allegation was with regard to removal of Vanaspati based on the inputs maintained. The Tribunal went in great detail and have clearly laid down that unless department produces evidence, which

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

should be clinching, in the nature of purchase of inputs and sale of the final product demands cannot be confirmed based on some note books. A similar view was expressed by the Tribunal in the other judgments noted supra. The citations placed would directly apply to the facts of this case. Hence, following the ratio of the cited Judgments, the assessees appeal is allowed. In the above cases the Tribunal held that the charge of clandestine manufacture and removal has to be proved beyond doubt. However in the present case in absence of any evidence of removal of goods and absence of corroborative evidence such as production, absence of buyers, transportation and receipt of consideration the charges of clandestinely removal of goods are not sustainable against the Appellant. 9. Further the revenue has alleged that the looking to the power consumption it shows that the Appellant had manufactured and cleared the goods without payment of duty. I find that only on the basis of electricity consumption without showing commensurate quantity of raw material consumed, source of procurement of excess raw material, payment made to raw material supplier, excess labour involved, clearance of finished goods its transportation and receipt of consideration of finished goods, the demand cannot be made. In the case of RA Castings case supra the Hon'ble High Court was of the same view and the orders was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I find that the ratio of said judgment is absolutely applicable to the present case and demands are not sustainable. 10. In view of the foregoing on merits, I find that the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. I therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

31-07-2020 M/s. The Ramco Cements Ltd., Cement Grinding Unit, Kancheepuram Versus Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (South Zonal Bench), Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-07-2020 The Karassery Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kozhikode, Represented by Its General Manager Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Department of Co-Operative Societies, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
28-07-2020 NSL Sugars Limited, Rep. by its Assistant General Manager (Liason) H.V. Amarnath Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary (Sugar) Commerce & Industries Department, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
27-07-2020 M/s. Sainath Security Force & Man Power Service, Represented by its Proprietor B.S. Mannur Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Under Secretary, Bangaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
23-07-2020 Aqua Pump Industries, Rep by its Managing Partner Ramaswamy Kumaravelu & Another Versus N. Raju, Trading as S.M.Agriculture & Electronics, Bangalore High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2020 Director of Income Tax-II (International Taxation) New Delhi & Another Versus M/s. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
20-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through National Legal Vertical, New Delhi Versus M/s. Krishna Spico Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-07-2020 N.M. Chandrashekar Versus The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
16-07-2020 Cheriyan Mathew, Member, The Kanakkary Service Cooperative Bank Limited & Others Versus The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General), Kottayam & Another High Court of Kerala
14-07-2020 M/s. Terracon Projects, Represented by its Proprietor S.V. Babu Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 M/s. Sanwaliya Tractor Sales & Service, Rajasthan & Others Versus Bhagwati Devi Bhatt & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-07-2020 Prabhat Ranjan Deo Versus Union Public Service Commission & Others High Court of Delhi
09-07-2020 M/s. Durga Fabrication Works, Represented by its Proprietor, Prakash Ramu Rathod Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented By Its Secretary, Department of Industries & Commerce, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
19-06-2020 Sri Bhagavathy Dyes & Chemicals, Kochi, Represented by Its Proprietor, B. Ravindranath Versus Alleppey Parcel Service, Alappuzha, Represented by T.T. Kuruvila, Proprietor & Others High Court of Kerala
19-06-2020 M/s. Integrated Finance Company Limited rep. by its Legal Officer and duly constituted Attorney A. Hema Jothi Versus Garware Marine Industries Limited Registered Office at Chander Mukhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-06-2020 M/s. Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director Reethamma Joseph & Another Versus M/s. Venturetech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director N. Mal Reddy High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-06-2020 D.D. Industries Ltd., New Delhi Versus Jasmeet Walia & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-06-2020 Prakash Industries Limited. Versus Bengal Energy Limited. & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
11-06-2020 Hanumanthappa Pathrera Lakshmana Versus State by Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Goods & Service Tax Intelligence, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
09-06-2020 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Versus Steel Authority of India, Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
04-06-2020 The Karnataka Public Service Commission, Represented by its Secretary Versus Dr. S.S. Madhukeshwara & Another High Court of Karnataka
04-06-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Versus State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
02-06-2020 The Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata & Another Versus Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
02-06-2020 Pappu Ram Jat Versus Rajasthan Subordinate & Ministerial Service Selection Board High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
01-06-2020 Khaleed Pasha & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries (MSME, Mines & Textile), Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
26-05-2020 Tips Industries Ltd. Versus Entertainment Network (Kindia) Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-05-2020 Guru Nanak Industries, Faridabad & Another Versus Amar Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. Supreme Court of India
22-05-2020 M/s Gauri Shankar Indane Service, Patna Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
22-05-2020 Dhiraj Milind Dhurve Versus Union Public Service Commission & Another High Court of Delhi
20-05-2020 M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Nilesh Mahendra Kumar Gandhi & Another Versus The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Check of Accounts) & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
20-05-2020 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Ernakulam Versus M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Kochi Refinery, Ambalamugal, Represented by The Chief Finance Manager High Court of Kerala
12-05-2020 Spentex Industries Ltd Versus Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 Natural Sugar and Allied Industries Limited & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary for Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
29-04-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Limited Versus State Tradings Corporation Of India Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
27-04-2020 Bihar State Electricity Board & Others Versus M/s. Iceberg Industries Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
24-04-2020 Union of India & Others Versus Exide Industries Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
23-03-2020 Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Others Versus Megha Sharma & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
20-03-2020 M/s. CJP Industries, Represented by its Managing Partner S. Julius Versus Amitha Bishnoi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-03-2020 Jagdish Kumar Choudhary & Others Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
18-03-2020 West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. Sona Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
17-03-2020 A Marine Industries Munambam, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Proprietor, P.T. Francis & Others Versus UCO Bank, Represented by The Chief Manager, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 S. Vaikundarajan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Industries (MMD.2) Department, Chennai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
17-03-2020 P.B. Biju Versus The Managing Committee of The Vayyattupuzha Service Co-Operative Bank, Ltd No. Q 354, Represented by Its President, Pathanamthitta District & Others High Court of Kerala
16-03-2020 Peps Industries Private Limited Versus Kurlon Limited High Court of Delhi
12-03-2020 Sai Electromech Industries, A Sole Proprietary Concern rep.by Its Proprietor Umangkumar Joshi Versus Sicagen India Limited, Rep.by its Authorised Signatory S. Mahadevan High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2020 Agrocel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-03-2020 M/s Nandan Biomatrix Ltd. Versus S. Ambika Devi & Others Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 Ballarpur Industries Limited & Another V/S The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Forests, Mantralaya In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
06-03-2020 M/s. Connectwell Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India Through Ministry of Finance & Others Supreme Court of India
05-03-2020 Electrosteel Steels Limited, Bokaro & Others Versus The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
04-03-2020 Ambika Singh (since deceased) represented by legal representatives & Others Versus Mosomat Sohagi Devi (since deceased) represented by her legal heirs & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
04-03-2020 M/s. Commercial Steel Co. Versus ASC Sales Tax High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-03-2020 M/s. Ramco Industries Ltd., Rajapalaym Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 Md. Waheed V/S The Telangana State Public Service Commission In The High Court Of State Of Telangana
28-02-2020 Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd Versus Prime Cable Network & Another High Court of Delhi
28-02-2020 Bank of India V/S M/s. Brindavan Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd Supreme Court of India
28-02-2020 M/s. Padmavathi Hospitality & Facilities Management Services, Rep. by its Partner & Authorized Representative Pradeep Kanumuri & Another V/S The Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation (A Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking) Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 Trans Asian Industries Exposition Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd & Another High Court of Delhi
26-02-2020 J. Anbazhagan Versus The Chairman The Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2020 The State of Kerala, Represented by The Additional Chief Secretary To The Government, Department For Home Affairs, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus Ambika High Court of Kerala
26-02-2020 N.A. Eswaramurthi Versus Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Rep.by its Member Secretary, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2020 Eurotex Industries and Exports Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner of Labour-cum-Specified Authority & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
25-02-2020 Kamal Encon Industries Limited Through its Authorized Representative Versus Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary World Trade Centre, Mumbai & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
25-02-2020 Kerala Public Service Commission, Represented by Its Secretary, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram V/S P. Priya And Others High Court of Kerala
24-02-2020 Panch Tatva Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Versus GPT Steel Industries Ltd. (Through Resolution Professional) & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
24-02-2020 P.H. Thajudeen Versus Secretary, Pathanamthitta Service Co-op: Bank Ltd., Near Govt. Hospital, Pathanamthitta & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
24-02-2020 S. Suresh Versus The Management Exide Industries Ltd., Madurai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
21-02-2020 CP Cell, Directorate General Ordnance Service, Informant Master General of Ordnance Service, CP Cell/OS Dte, New Delhi V/S M/s AVR Enterprises, Kanpur & Another Competition Commission of India
20-02-2020 Asian Food Industries Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
20-02-2020 M/s Century Rayon (A division of Century Textile & Industries Ltd.), Maharashtra V/S Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Through its, Chief Engineer (Commercial), Maharashtra And Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
19-02-2020 M/s. Millions Fashion, Chennai Versus The Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 Vidya Devarajan & Another Versus The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 ITC Limited, Chennai, Rep. by its Constituted Attorney, V.M. Rajasekharan Versus Shree Devi Match Industries, Gudiyattam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 Clay Craft (India) Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director, Rajasthan & Others Versus Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Limited (Institution of Rajasthan Government) Through Managing Director, Ugyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-02-2020 Reliance Industries Ltd. Versus Gail (India) Ltd. High Court of Delhi
14-02-2020 The Superintending Engineer, General Construction, TANTRANSCO Ltd., Tatabad, Coimbatore & Another Versus Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Director of Industries and Commerce, Represented by its Chairman, Guindy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhavnagar Versus M/s. Pipavav Shipyard Limited (100 Percent Eou) High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
14-02-2020 A. Babu Prasanth V/S The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, TNPSC Toad, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 The Commissioner of Central Excise, O/o. The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Salem Versus M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., M/s. JSW Power Ltd., Pottaneri, Mecheri High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 The Kerala Public Service Commission, Represented by The Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram & Another Versus P.K. Leelamani & Others High Court of Kerala
12-02-2020 M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd., Salem Steel Plant, Represented by its Deputy General Manager, Finance & Accounts, K. Sivaguru, Versus The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2020 M/s. Tanfac Industries Limited, Rep. by its Secretary G. Balasubramanian Versus M/s. Orichem Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2020 Ambalal V. Patel Versus Central Medical Service Society Vishwa Yuva Kendra & Others Competition Commission of India
07-02-2020 M/s. S.K.J. Coke Industries Ltd. & Another Versus Coal India Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
07-02-2020 Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited V/S Laxmi Balaji Industries and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
06-02-2020 HDFC Bank Ltd. V/S JNK Electrical Industries Private Limited and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
06-02-2020 Andhra Bank V/S Suguna Industries Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
06-02-2020 K. Arumugham, Prop. Seetha Industries, Arakandanalu, Villupuram V/S The Secretary to Government, Department of Commercial Taxes & Religious Endowments, Chennai And Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 N.V. Usha Versus Njarakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. High Court of Kerala
05-02-2020 M/s. Texcel International Pvt. Ltd., Sengundram Industrial Area (Near Ford India Ltd.,), Chengalpattu Versus M/s. Chennai Steel Tubes, Rep.by one of its Partner, G. Bhavanishankar High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 Sheo Shakti Cement Industries, Hazaribagh Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
05-02-2020 The Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin Versus Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 D. Vasantha Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary Commerce & Industries Department (MSME & Mines), Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
05-02-2020 P. Krishnan Versus The Deputy Director of Industries and Commerce (Industrial Co-operatives)/(District Registrar of Industrial Co-op), Guindy, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 B.H. Srinivasa Murthy Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Commerce & Industries, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
05-02-2020 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-2 Versus M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. (Successor on amalgamation of JSW Ispat Steel Ltd.) High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-02-2020 M/s. K.T.V. Health Food Private Limited Versus The Principal Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu Industries Department Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. & Another Versus Punjab National Bank & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
03-02-2020 M/s. Bright Marketing Company, Tirupur Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-02-2020 Ishwar Oil Industries and Others. V/S The Authorized Officer, Dena Bank and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Ahmedabad