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



C.C-Cochin-CUS, Custom House, Cochin v/s Kingsway Travel Agencies Pvt. LTD. Bangalore


Company & Directors' Information:- C V AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1987PTC027178

Company & Directors' Information:- THE TRAVEL COMPANY (BANGALORE ) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63040KA1997PTC021641

Company & Directors' Information:- COCHIN CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999KL1963PTC002029

Company & Directors' Information:- P L AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50100HR1990PTC030793

Company & Directors' Information:- ON THE HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101WB2000PTC091842

Company & Directors' Information:- TRAVEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090MH2012PTC230882

Company & Directors' Information:- TRAVEL HOUSE PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U63040WB1983PTC036687

Company & Directors' Information:- HOUSE OF TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63000DL2011PTC225807

Company & Directors' Information:- KINGSWAY TRAVEL AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090KA2002PTC031031

Company & Directors' Information:- AGENCIES PVT LTD [Dissolved] CIN = U74900KL1943PTC000048

    C/683 of 2008 in-Appeal No. 208 of 2008 & C/2331 of 2012 in-Appeal No. 124 of 2012 & Final Order No. 20966-20967 of 2018

    Decided On, 18 July 2018

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. S.S GARG
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR
    By, TECHNICAL MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Chandramohan, AR. For the Respondent: Abraham, Joseph, Kuriyan, Advocates.



Judgment Text

P. Anjani Kumar, Technical Member.

1. The respondents, M/s. Kingsway Travel Agency Pvt. Ltd., have filed a Bill for Entry No. 150 dated 11.04.2007 for clearance of an Excursion boat of Model 'Bayliner 325 SB' and sought to classify it under CTH 89011030 attracting nil rate of duty. During the Custom’s examination, it was found that the boat was not one designed for ferrying/transporting passengers on scheduled trips but was the one designed for leisure or pleasure boating and the importers did not dispute the same. Accordingly, the Department has classified the boat under CTH 89039990.

2. The respondents have filed an appeal before Commissioner (A) stating that Department has not spelt out any reason to reject the commercial invoice, the Bill of Lading and the appellant’s claim; the respondent is registered, recognized and accredited travel agency and the import in question was for the purpose of undertaking excursions for the tourists; CTH 8903 is a general heading covering yachts for personal pleasure or sports whereas CTH 8901 has a specific entry covering specific 'excursion Boats'. The existing authority has failed to appreciate the decisions in the following cases:

(i) Bharat Shipyard (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Pune1998 (101) ELT 33.

(ii) Vipul Shipyard, Bombay Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay- 1998 (19) ELT 122.

(iii) Dredging Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay- 1991 (179) ELT 262.

3. The Commissioner (A) has decided the issue in favour of the respondents and classified the boat as an 'excursion Boat' under 89011030 and held that the exemption under Notification No. 21/2002 dated 01.03.2002 S.No. 352 was applicable. Aggrieved by the above said order, the Department is in appeal. The Department has enumerated the following grounds of appeal'.

(i) on examination of the boat, it was found that the boat is a well-furnished with accessories like carpets, tables, cots with mattresses, refrigerators, heater, micro wave oven, ice boxes, CD players and power generators and hence it was clear that the vessel was not designed for ferrying/transporting passengers on scheduled trips; it was designed for leisure or pleasure boating; the explanatory notes to heading CTH 8901 clearly indicated that the heading covers all vessels for the transport of persons or goods other than vessels of heading 8903, Heading 8903 covers 'Yachts and other vessels for pleasure or sports; rowing boats and canoes'.

3.1 It is not the case of importer that they were going to use the boat for transport of persons or goods; it was meant for transport of persons or goods from one point to another point. By their own admission, the boat is used for conducting excursions in the back waters; therefore, the purpose of having luxurious fittings was to make the excursion trip, actually, a luxury or pleasure trip.

3.2 The Bombay Bench of Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of M/s. Urmila & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay- 1998 (104) ELT 97 (Tribunal) held that 'it is the basic design of the vessel that determines its classification' and that 'a pleasure boat will not cease to be a pleasure boat when it is used for survey purposes'.

3.3 Excursion boats are used for sight-seeing purposes and the trip lasts only for a short duration; such boats do not have luxury items which were found in the impugned boat; a mere terming of the boat as 'excursion boat' does not render any right for classification under CTH 8901; the catalogue described the boat as 'Bayliner’s flagships for fun'; the catalogue reveals that the boat imported is not an ordinary 'excursion boat' intended for transport of persons for a shortwhile but a luxury boat for high end pleasure travel.

3.4 The Commissioner (A) has placed reliance on the facts that the importer is the travel agency and the boat is registered as 'Tourist boat'; however, he has failed to appreciate the relevant facts and the judgment of Bombay Bench of the Tribunal cited supra.

4. The learned Commissioner, AR, appearing on behalf of the Department submitted that the Commissioner (A) has allowed the appeal of the respondents on the following grounds which are countered as follows:

4.1 The Commissioner (A) has opined that the classification was changed with assigning any reason whereas the invoice and Bill of Lading described the items as 'excursion Boats'; it is submitted that the classification was changed only after due examination and only after the importer has agreed with the change of classification; the importer has not filed any contest letter and the duty has not been paid under protest; the importer did not ask for professional assessment and has also not requested for any special order; under the circumstances, it is relevant to state that the assessment and approval of assessment has been completely accepted by the importer; the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. 1998 (97) ELT 211 (SC) held that the Act does not prescribe any particular form in which the order or assessment is to be made; no formal order of assessment can be expected when there is no dispute to the classification, it is more like „across-the-counter’affair; in the case of Midland Plastics Ltd. 2002 (14) ELT 235 (Tri. Del), it was held that when assesse did not contest the assessment under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 and paid duty without even lodging a protest, there could be no question of passing a Speaking Order; it is to win the notice that only on 08.04.2011, it was mandated that the assessing officer should issue a Speaking Order in terms of Section 17 (5) of the Customs Act, 1962; in view of this, the Commissioner’s (A) findings are not legal.

4.2 The Commissioner (A) has taken a plea that the boat is registered with Cochin Port Trust as Tourist Port' and the Kerala Irrigation Department has also registered the same and the Chief Inspector of Boats has certified that that is a boat. It is submitted that Customs Tariff Act is independent of other acts and rules ISI classification exemption Notification FTP etc., are not binding of customs; the classification is to be done in terms of Customs Tariff Act, 1985.

4.3 The Commissioner (A) has opined that the dimension and capacity of the boat were not big and length being 10.7 and breadth 3.3 and the passenger capacity being 15 cannot be considered as a Yacht. It is submitted that the difference between boat and Yacht is not made on the base of size, dimension and capacity etc; the particular boat refers to any floating vessel; any Yacht can also be called a boat; the particular Yacht refers to a pleasure vessel; therefore, Yacht is defined by the purpose and amenities rather than the size; as per the Brochure and literature pertaining to 'Bayliner Crusier 325 SB', the impugned boat, is equipped with modern amenities as indicated in the examination report and includes the Swiveling helm seat, Stove, Stainless steel sink, microwave, fridge, coffeemaker and solid surface counter tops; the photographs of the instant model Yacht confirmed the luxury and modern comforts; therefore, as per the ratio of the following judgments, the impugned boat needs to be classify under CTH 89.03:

(i) Urmila & Co. 1998 (104) ELT 97 (Tri. Delhi).

(ii) Commissioner of C. Ex Goa Vs. Waterways Shipyard Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (297) ELT 77 (T-Mum).

(iii) Drishti Adventures Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (357) ELT 877 (T-Mumbai). 4.4 The Commissioner (A) erred in holding that 89 CTH, 89.03 is applicable to Yacht and vessels for pleasure and sports which is private in nature whereas the impugned boat is an allpurpose luxury 'Tourist Boat'. It is submitted that in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa Vs. Waterways Shipyard Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (297) ELT 77 (T-Mum) wherein it was held that international definitions of 'pleasure vessel' prevalent in U.K., Australia and Canada pertaining to privately owned vessels for personal use, not applicable in instant case as such definition not incorporated in Indian Merchant Shipping Act.

4.5 The learned AR has further submitted that in terms of Rules for interpretation and the Classification Rule 3 when by application of sub-rule (b) or Rule 2 or for any other reason, goods are, prima facie, classifiable under tow or more Headings, classification shall be effected as follows:

(a) The Heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to Headings providing a more general description. However, when two or more Headings each refer to part only of the materials or substances contained in mixed or composite goods or to part only of the items in as set, those Headings are to be regarded as equally specific in relation to those goods, even if one of them gives a more complete or precise description of the goods.

(b) Mixtures, composite goods consisting of different materials or made up of different components, and goods put up in sets, which cannot be classified by reference to (a), shall be classified as if any consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character, in so far as this criterion is applicable.

(c) When goods cannot be classified to (a) or (b), they shall be classified under the Heading which occurs last in the numerical order among those which equally merit consideration. Since the Rule 1,2 & 3- (a) or (b) are not applicable in the present situation, we find that under Rule 3 (c) when the goods cannot be classified by reference to Rule 3(a) & (b) they shal be classified under Heading which occurs last in the numerical order among those which equally merit consideration. Therefore, following this Rule of Interpretation the vessel in question is more appropriately classifiable under Heading 8903 of the Central Excise Tariff. We hold accordingly.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents has reiterated the submissions made before Commissioner (A) has stated that the invoice with Bill of lading and the Brochure described the boat to an 'excursion boat' therefore it should be classified under CTH 89.01. The Rule of Interpretation is not warranted as the Heading 89.01 specifically covers the 'boats for excursion'.

6. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case.

7. We find that the impugned boat imported by the respondents is equipped with modern amenities like Swiveling helm seat, Stove, Stainless steel sink, microwave, fridge, coffeemaker and solid surface counter tops; it also contains arrangement for shower, sleep and relaxation; it is no important as to the manner in which the impugned boat is used, it is rather important as to how the boat is built which should be a guideline for determining the classification of boat; in fact, we find that the catalogue describes the impugned boat as 'Bayliner 325 Cruiser' and the Bayliner have claimed themselves to be manufacturers and marketers of recreation boats and Cruisers; there is a prima facie evidence that the boat is intended for the luxury uses; we find that the case of Urmila & Company Pvt. Ltd cited Supra is similar to the impugned case; we find that Heading 8901 covers the vessels for transport of persons or goods that vessels design primarily for the conveyance of persons or goods are covered by this Heading; it is not the case of the respondents that it was for the conveyance of persons or goods and looking into the fittings available in the boat and the amenities it offers, there is no doubt to believe that the boat is intended to a 'pleasure boat'. Therefore, whatever be the actual use of the said boat, it is required to classify as per the making of the vessel; it is seen that the impugned boat is not principally designed and manufactured for the purpo

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

se of transport of persons and goods, it cannot be classify under Heading 8901; we find considerable force in the argument of the learned AR and find relevance in the ratio of the cases cited by them. 7.1 Regarding the refund application, the learned advocate for the respondents has claimed that the refund claim filed by their CHA is valid as per the ratio of Jayant B.Shah Vs. Collector of Customs Bombay- 1996 (81) ELT 669; the learned AR submitted that as per the ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs, Cochin Vs. Trivandrum Rubber Works Limited 1999 (106) ELT 9 (SC) clearing agent’s dues under Customs Act ordinarily come to an end with the clearance of imported goods and delivery to the importer/owner and therefore, we find claim filed by M/s. National Trading Agency, Cochin; the CHA for M/s. Kingsway Travel Agency is not a proper refund claim. 7.2 We find that we have decided the classification of the impugned boat under heading 8903 of CTH, the refund claim does not sustain on merits. Therefore, there is no need to go into the other aspects of the refund claim. 8. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in upholding the classification of the impugned boat under CTH 8903. Accordingly, we allow the appeals filed by the Department.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

27-08-2020 M/s. Green India Enterprises, Andhra Pradesh Represented by its authorized signatory Shri K. Jagadeesh, Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Custom House,Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-08-2020 B. Sunil Kumar & Another Versus Cochin University of Science & Technology, Rep. by Its Registrar & Others High Court of Kerala
28-07-2020 Amit Satpal Vijan Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Station House Officer, Central Police Station, Ernakulam District, Through The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
01-07-2020 Jana Samparka Samithy, Ernakulam District Committee, Represented by Its Secretary, Cochin & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Chief Secretary To Government, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
25-06-2020 Continental & Eastern Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Through its Director Krishan Verma Versus The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through its concerned Director Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
23-06-2020 M/s. Acme Trade And Agencies, ASSAM Versus Union of India Rep. By The Secy. to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-06-2020 Commissioner of Customs, Cochin Versus Konkan Storage Systems Kochi Pvt. Ltd., South End Reclamation, Mastyapuri, Willingdon Island High Court of Kerala
15-06-2020 K.R. Ramesh & Others Versus The Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Cochin, Represented by The Superintendent of Police & Another High Court of Kerala
12-06-2020 Monika Sales Agencies & Another Versus Mahesh Nagari Sah. Patsanstha Ltd. In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
10-06-2020 C.C. Baby & Another Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Anticorruption Bureau (ACB), Cochin High Court of Kerala
03-06-2020 PUEBLO HOLDINGS LIMITED, Rep. by its authorised signatory Siddhesh Sham Kshirsagar Versus EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY LLC, A company incorporated under the appropriate laws of the United Arab Emirates having its registered office and/or business address at ETA Star House, United Arab Emirates & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-05-2020 M/s. Mulberry Silks Limited (formerly M/s. Shakashambana Silks Exports (P) Ltd.), 'Mulberry House', Rep.by its Director R.K. Bothra Versus Settlement Commission (IT & WT), Additional Bench, Ministry of Finance, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-05-2020 Manjunath @ Bonda Manjunath Versus State of Karnataka, Through Station House Officer, Represented by the State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka
20-05-2020 P.S. Shamon Versus The Station House Officer, Kondotty Police Station, Malappuram & Others High Court of Kerala
19-05-2020 Raj Shipping Agencies & Others V/s. Barge Madhwa & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-05-2020 Sri Venkateshwara Agencies, represented by its proprietor K. Somasundar Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Check Post Officer, Thoppur Inward, Kurinji Nagar & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-05-2020 Ifran @ Badan Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by the Station House Officer High Court of Karnataka
13-05-2020 Anil Kumar @ Anil Versus State by Kodigehalli Police Station, Rep. by its Station House Officer High Court of Karnataka
28-04-2020 Flemingo Travel Retail Limited, Having Registered Office at Turbhe, Navi Mumbai, Represented by Its Authorised Signatory Nixon Varghese Versus Kannur International Airport Limited, Mattannur, Represented by Its Managing Director & Another High Court of Kerala
21-04-2020 Creative Travel Pvt. Ltd. Versus Creative Tours And Travels (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
07-04-2020 Nilanjan Bhattacharya Versus The Station House Officer & Others High Court of Karnataka
16-03-2020 Jayakumar Assistant Professor-Cum-Assistant Director, Centre For Social Exclusion & Inclusion, Cochin University of Science & Technology, Kochi & Others Versus Dr. Jyothi S. Nair & Others High Court of Kerala
13-03-2020 Gurmukh Singh Lehal Versus Ajanta Coop. House Building (1st) Society Ltd., Chandigarh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-03-2020 South Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through its Commissioner, Delhi Versus M/s. Sawhney Export House Pvt. Ltd. Through its Managing Director, New Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-03-2020 K.P. Rahul & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Cochin & Others High Court of Kerala
11-03-2020 Kasim Versus State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, D3 Ice House Police Station, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 Bhanot House Flat Owners/Occupants Association Versus Bhanot Construction & Housing Limited Through Its Directors Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
03-03-2020 In The Matter of: Liberty House Group Pte. Ltd. V/S State Bank of India And Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
28-02-2020 Pragalathan & Another Versus State rep. by the Station House Officer, Karaikal High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd Having its Registered office at NDPL House, Hudson Lines, New Delhi V/S Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary, New Delhi Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
27-02-2020 Dhariwal Infrastructure Limited Mr. Subhransu Gupta, Chief Financial Officer CESE House Chowringhe Square Kolkata Versus Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
26-02-2020 Tata Marine Agencies, New Delhi & Another Versus L.W.S. Knitwear Ltd., Punjab & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-02-2020 Harish Chandra Singh Versus State of M.P. Through State House Officer, Police Station Ratlam & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
19-02-2020 V. Jayakumar (Formerly Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pathanamthitta), Thiruvananthapuram Versus The High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary) Cochin & Another High Court of Kerala
19-02-2020 N. Sowri Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai II Commissionerate, Custom House, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-02-2020 M/s. Veejay Facility Management Private Limited & Another Versus The Zonal Manager, Bank of India, A & S Department, “Star House” & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
07-02-2020 Anilkumar & Other Versus The Station House Officer, Valancherry Police Station, Malappuram & Another High Court of Kerala
07-02-2020 In Re. Makarand Anant Mhaskar (Sole Proprietor of M/s Welcome Agencies), Maharashtra Versus USV Private Limited, Arvind Vithal Ghandi Chowk, BSD Marg, Govandi, Mumbai & Others Competition Commission of India
06-02-2020 Muhammed Navas Mahamood & Another Versus The Station House Officer, Chokli Police Station, Kannur & Another High Court of Kerala
05-02-2020 M/s. Natesan Agencies (Plantations) Versus State Rep. By The Secretary to Govt. Environment & Forest Department Supreme Court of India
03-02-2020 Sutherland Mortgage Services INC, Cochin, Represented by Achutarama Gupta Nesthala Vizupu, Authorized Signatory, V.K. Gupta Versus The Principal Commissioner, Office of The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Central GST & Central Excise, Kochi Commissionerate & Others High Court of Kerala
28-01-2020 The Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Marmagoa, Goa & Others Versus Shree Balaji Automobiles & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
27-01-2020 Muhammed Ameen & Another Versus The Narcotic Control Bureau, Cochin, Represented by Its Intelligence Officer, Through Its Special Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
21-01-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Its Divisional Manager, Hathua Lahurabeer, Varanasi, U.P. & Others Versus M/s. Rizwan Export House & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-01-2020 N.K. Mohanachandran Versus CBI/SPE, Cochin Rep. by Its Standing Counsel, High Court of Kerala High Court of Kerala
10-01-2020 T.V. Vishwanath Gupta & Others Versus Amara Jyothi House Building Co- Operative Society Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-01-2020 Shyamlal Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer High Court of Chhattisgarh
10-01-2020 Veeradurai Versus State Rep. by Station House Officer High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 M/s. Mahalakshmi Agencies, Nagpur Versus M/s. General Surgical Co. (India) Pvt Ltd., Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-01-2020 Rafi Ahmed & Others Versus The Deputy Superintendent of Police, National Investigation Agency Cochin (Camp at Chennai) High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-01-2020 Shaik Atheek Versus Station House Officer, Anchal Police Station, Kollam & Others High Court of Kerala
07-01-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Gopal Agencies National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-01-2020 Cochin Port Trust, Represented by Its Chairman & Others Versus Sea Consortium Pvt. Ltd., Duxton Hill, Singapore, Represented By Their Local Agents, Forbes Gokak Ltd., Patvolk Division, Cochin & Another High Court of Kerala
03-01-2020 Balakrishna Sales Corporation V/S Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise, Cochin Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench, Bangalore
20-12-2019 Dr. Penumala Viswa Shanti Versus The Station House Officer High Court of for the State of Telangana
20-12-2019 K. Krishna Murthy & Another Versus State of Karnataka Represented by Lokayuktha Police Represented by Station House Officer, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
19-12-2019 Cochin Port Trust, Willingdon Island, Kochi, Represented by Its Chairman, Jacob Thomas & Others Versus Parisons Roller Flour Mills Private Limited, Calicut & Others High Court of Kerala
19-12-2019 Noorjahan Versus Kalamassery Municipal Council, Represented by Secretary, Cochin High Court of Kerala
18-12-2019 The Gavipuram Extension House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd., Bengaluru Versus The State of Karnataka & Others High Court of Karnataka
11-12-2019 M/s. Murali Manpower Agencies Versus Survey of India High Court of for the State of Telangana
11-12-2019 V.U. Sidhique Versus State of Kerala Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Cochin High Court of Kerala
05-12-2019 Station House Officer, CBI/ACB/Bangalore Versus B.A. Srinivasan & Another Supreme Court of India
21-11-2019 Shailesh Jariwala & Others Versus Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Export), Customs House, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-11-2019 S. Rema Versus The Kochi Municipal Corporation Cochin Municipal Corporation Head Office, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Secretary & Another High Court of Kerala
19-11-2019 Nasarudheen & Others Versus State of Kerala, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, (Station House Officer, Nemom Police Station) Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
18-11-2019 Anup Kiran Versus Punjab State Federation Of Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-11-2019 P. Laxmi Versus Station House Officer, Adhur Police Station High Court of Kerala
15-11-2019 Chandranagar Co-Operative House Building Society Ltd., Palakkad, Represented by Its Secretary, S. Sumisha Versus K.K. Ali High Court of Kerala
13-11-2019 Shaji B. John, Kings International Ltd., Quilon & Others Versus The Marine Products Exports Development Authority, Cochin, Represented by Its Secretary, Dr. G. Santhanakrishnan High Court of Kerala
13-11-2019 FCI OEN Connectors Limited, Kochi, Represented by Its Director, G. Rajamani Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Cochin & Another High Court of Kerala
13-11-2019 Anu Cashews, Kollam, Represented by Its Parnter, Anu Pillai Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Cochin & Others High Court of Kerala
13-11-2019 The Management, Palace Nagar Co-Operative House Building Society Limited, Rep., by its President, Salem Versus P. Raja Gounder, Vellalapatti, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-11-2019 M. Yousuf Versus The Station House Officer, Thalassery & Another High Court of Kerala
11-11-2019 O.P. Achuthankutty & Others Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by Station House Officer, Thrissur East Police Station Through The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala & Another High Court of Kerala
11-11-2019 Shanmugham & Others Versus State by the Station House Officer, Nellikuppam Police Station, Cuddalore High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-11-2019 S. Jayakumar Versus Kothari Mill No.1, Employees Co-operative House, Rep. by its Special Officer, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-11-2019 Inspector of Police, CBI/SCB, Cochin, Represented by the Standing Counsel for C.B.I., High Court of Kerala Versus Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement (Pmla), Cochin Zone & Another High Court of Kerala
07-11-2019 Tree House Education & Accessories Limited, Mumbai Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
07-11-2019 Manager, Al-Abir Hospital, Kuzhimana P.O, Malappuram District Versus Alavikutty, Naduvathu Chalil House, Malappuram District Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
07-11-2019 M.G. Venugopalan, Member (Retd), Central Board of Excise & Customs, Cochin & Another Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Department of Revenue Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
05-11-2019 M/s. GCDA Employees Pension Fund Trust, Greater Cochin Development Authority, Kadavanthra, Represented by Trustee, the Secretary, Greater Cochin Development Authority Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Cochin High Court of Kerala
04-11-2019 M/s. Sivamathi Animation Softwares & Electronics Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, R.S. Sivaprakasam, Chennai & Another Versus M/s. Kumar Agencies, Represented by its Proprietor, P.V. Rathinakumar, Vellore High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-11-2019 Mohsin Versus State of Kerala Represented by Excise Inspector, Cochin High Court of Kerala
04-11-2019 V.P. Iswardas Versus Labour Enforcement Office (Central), Cochin High Court of Kerala
25-10-2019 Superintending Engineer/ Dehar Power House Circle Bhakra Beas Management Board (Pw) Slapper & Another Versus Excise & Taxation Officer, Sunder Nagar/Assessing Authority Supreme Court of India
24-10-2019 Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. NDPL House Versus Manoj Misra & Others Supreme Court of India
22-10-2019 M/s. Coramandal Agencies, Rep. by its Managing Partner R. Veeramani & Others Versus The State rep by the Inspector of Police, Othakadai Police Station, Madurai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-10-2019 Make My Trip (India) Private Limited Versus Make my Travel (India) Private Limited High Court of Delhi
18-10-2019 C.P. Ajithkumar, Proprietor, Suburban Travels, Mamangalam (President, Travel, Operators Association of Kerala) & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, (Roads), Govt. Secretariat, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
15-10-2019 Global United Shipping India (P) Ltd., Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR) Mettukuppam Versus Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund), Chennai Customs House, Rajaji Salai, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-10-2019 Union of India, Represented by The Secretary, Central Board of Excise & Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others Versus Antony Cleetus, Deputy Office Superintendent, Retired From Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax Deptt, Cochin High Court of Kerala
04-10-2019 Renjith Rajan & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Station House Officer, Chengamandad Police Station, Ernakulam District Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala & Others High Court of Kerala
01-10-2019 C.J. Antony Versus The State of Karnataka, The Station House Officer Gonikoppa Police Station, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
26-09-2019 Ajit Ravi Versus Cochin International Airport Ltd. High Court of Kerala
24-09-2019 M/s. MKV Agencies Versus M/s. TVS Motors Company Ltd, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2019 Chennai Ananda Bhavan Kinfra P.O. Muringoor Koratti, Cochin-Thrissur Highway NH-47 Thrissur Versus M/s. Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets & Snacks Rep.by its Partner K.T.Venkatesan Muthulakshmi Bhavan, Shastrinagar, Adyar, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-09-2019 P.G. Joshy Versus Jose Varghese, Proprietor, Nice Agencies, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
18-09-2019 The Management of M/s. International Travel House Limited, Chennai Versus The Presiding Officer, First Additional Labour Court, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-08-2019 The Travel & Tourism Association of Goa & Others Versus Union of India (through the Standing Counsel for the Union of India) & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
30-08-2019 A.M.R. Veeraiah & Another Versus The Central Bureau of Investigation by the Station House Officer, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka