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



Real Image Media Technologies P. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II


Company & Directors' Information:- REAL IMAGE PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U92490TN1992PTC022702

Company & Directors' Information:- IN TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2010PTC210298

Company & Directors' Information:- MEDIA 6 (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22211TG2010PTC069036

Company & Directors' Information:- N MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U92100TN2008PTC067723

Company & Directors' Information:- E TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC106075

Company & Directors' Information:- K-TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900KL2006PTC019422

Company & Directors' Information:- REAL-T PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109MH2007PTC172681

Company & Directors' Information:- AT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900PN2007PTC130827

Company & Directors' Information:- M & T TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TG2010PTC071594

Company & Directors' Information:- K MEDIA PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U01222WB1991PTC053599

Company & Directors' Information:- G TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29299GJ2001PTC039300

    Appeal No. E/801/2010 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 21/2010 dt. 20.09.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II) and Final Order No. 40082/2018

    Decided On, 12 January 2018

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

    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: SULEKHA BEEVI C.S.
    By, MEMBER AND THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR
    By, MEMBER

    For Petitioner: C. Saravanan, Advocate And For Respondents: K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR)



Judgment Text


1. The facts of the case are that M/s. Real Image Media Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the appellants herein, are manufacturers of Servers falling under the category of Automatic Data Processing (ADP) machine These servers are commercially known as QUBE XP D servers and QUBE XP E servers. It appeared that appellant had sold some servers directly to the cinema theatres/halls under normal transaction value and in respect of remaining servers the appellant had raised stock transfer invoices. In some cases, in the name of their Head office from where they were dispatched and in other cases invoices though addressed to Head office but servers were shipped to the customers directly. To determine the assessable value of stock-transferred servers, appellant adopted cost construction method based on CAS-4 value as envisaged under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 for the purpose of payment of Central Excise duty. Department took the view that the procedure followed by the appellant was not in order for the following reasons:

(1) Discharge of excise duty based on 110% of cost of production under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules arises only when excisable goods are not sold by the assessee but are used for consumption by him or on his behalf in the production or manufacture of other articles.

(2) The stock transferred servers were neither consumed captively nor used on their behalf in the production or manufacture of other articles.

(3) The servers cleared on stock transfer basis form part of a package let on lease by the appellant to customers based on lease agreement, for deferred payment/consideration.

(4) Hence the removals of the said servers is nothing but sale.

Accordingly, show cause notice dt. 12.10.2009 was issued to appellant, inter alia proposing demand of alleged short paid Central Excise duty of Rs. 18,57,892/- for the period 3/2008 to 3/2009 with interest thereon and imposition of penalty. In adjudication, the Commissioner vide impugned order dt. 20.09.2010 confirmed the proposals for duty demand with interest and also imposed equal penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. Hence this appeal.

2. On 29.11.2017 when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant, Ld. Advocate Shri C. Saravanan made various submissions which can be broadly summarised as under:-

(i) Any removal from the factory directly to the concerned client/customer itself constitutes a separate class of sale within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and is to be independently valued and assessed. Rule 4 does not mean that the transaction value as defined in Section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 should be the basis of valuation.

(ii) Rule 4 will not apply for removal of servers from the factory for transfer of right to use. As they were not sale within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, value under Rule 8 read with Rule 11 will apply as such removal are akin to captive consumption, there being no price and ownership being retained by the Appellant. Expression value of such goods in Rule 4 does not mean only the transaction value albeit the price of the goods adopted for our regular sale merely because it may a fetch higher duty to the department.

(iii) Rule 4 of the valuation Rules will apply only on the same specie or category of sale. Therefore, value adopted for regular sale cannot be the basis of value for removal of goods on transfer of right to use.

(iv) If transfer of right to use of servers amounts to 'sale' within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, then the valuation ought to have been resolved under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 and not under Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules.

(v) Stock transfer of the goods from the factory to the depot cannot come within the definition of sale in Section 2(h) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as it contemplates:

1. Transfer of possession;

2. Between two persons;

3. in the ordinary course of trade or business;

4. for cash or deferred payment or for other valuation consideration

(vi) Rule 4 will apply only when sale for delivery takes place after removal from the factory and where there is otherwise no break in chain of event. Rule 8 was adopted applying Rule 11 as it was akin to the value of stock transferred servers removed to cinema halls and auditoriums under transfer of right to use basis.

(vii) Sometimes there is a direct removal from the factory to the client's premises for "transfer of right to use" or "deemed sale". Under 'deemed sale" clients like the theatre owners and corporate bodies, procure servers for use in their theatres/office, auditorium for screening movies/documentaries in digital format and enter into agreement. However, the assessee continues to be an owner of the server whereas there is a transfer of possession for right to use.

(viii) Appellant entertained a bona fide belief that the clearances were akin to captive consumption. There is no question of mis-statement or suppression of facts. There was no intention of evading payment of duty appellants were under bona fide belief that servers stock-transferred for right to use are to be valued under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules as there is no sale for price at the time of removal.

3. On the other hand, on behalf of the department, Ld. A.R. Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy supports the impugned order. He further submitted that goods are stock-transferred by appellant to their Head office but are not further consumed in the manufacture of any further production nor do they undergo any process. Thus there is no captive consumption of the impugned goods. It is emerged that there is transfer of the possession of the goods by the appellant to their customers for deferred payment and other valuation considerations like non-refundable deposit, advertisement charges from sponsors of advisement etc. Hence goods dispatched in the guise of stock transfer to customers are to be construed as sale only. Hence the demand of differential duty liability is fully justified.

4. Heard both sides and have gone through facts.

5. The impugned goods are in the nature of servers used by cinema theatres/halls where digital cinema equipments are installed, for playback of feature film/commercial advertisements in digital format. What is not disputed is that around 10% of such servers were sold directly to cinema theatres under transaction values on which there is no controversy. Dispute has emerged only in respect of servers which have been shown as stock transfer to the Head office of the appellants from where they were dispatched to the customers and in some cases, servers were shown as stock-transferred to Head office but sent directly to the customers.

6. The core issue that comes up for decision is whether the impugned clearances are to be treated as stock-transfer meriting valuation under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules or otherwise, whether they require to be construed as sale as per Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules.

7. Ld. Advocate has been at pains to emphasize that there is no sale for price at the time of removal and that the servers are only stock transferred for right to use. Appellant also argued that there is no justification for department's contention to adopt the transaction value nearest to the time of removal of the servers under assessment. It has also been contended that any removal from the factory directly to the concerned client/customers itself constitutes a separate class of sale within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

8.1 For better understanding the issue at hand, it would be useful to reproduce the relevant definitions and legal provisions concerning valuation under the Central Excise Act. For the purpose of Central Excise, sale is defined in Rule 2(h) of the Act as follows:

(h) "sale" and "purchase", with their grammatical variations and cognate expressions, mean any transfer of the possession of goods by one person to another in the ordinary course of trade or business for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration;
The Rules 4, 8 and 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 read as follows:

Rule 4. The value of the excisable goods shall be based on the value of such goods sold by the assessee for delivery at any other time nearest to the time of the removal of goods under assessment, subject, if necessary, to such adjustment on account of the difference in the dates of delivery of such goods and of the excisable goods under assessment, as may appear reasonable.

Rule 8. Where the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee but are used for consumption by him or on his behalf in the production or manufacture of other articles, the value shall be one hundred and ten percent of the cost of production or manufacture of such goods.

Rule 11. If the value of any excisable goods cannot be determined under the foregoing rules, the value shall be determined using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of these rules and sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act.

8.2 The details of the lease agreement entered into by the appellant with their customers, have been summarized in para 11.5 of the impugned order which is also worthy of reproduction:

"11.5 The assessee entered into an lease Agreement with the Customer for a maximum period of 8 years after obtaining advances (both refundable and non refundable) from them. The salient features of the lease Agreement are as follow:

(i) the theatre owner shall pay a Non refundable right to use fee of Rs. 1 lakh per theatre and provide/vest the assessee with the exclusive right of screening of film shorts and slides including advertisements at the theatre for a total maximum period of 8 years (in come case the lease period may vary);

(ii) the assessee shall have exclusive rights for screening advertisements including slides, film shorts and advertising commercials in the theatre and this right conferred on the assessee supersedes any other rights which the theatre owner may have granted to any third party; and also take steps to forthwith terminate the contract for on-screen advertising rights the theatre owner entered with any third party prior to signing of this LOU;

(iii) the theatre owner permits the assessee to exclusively screen the advertisements/commercials through the OCP/Projector, for 20 minutes per show per theatre, before start of each show and from the announcement of the interval of each show;

(iv) the theatre owner agreed to grant the assessee the right to utilize not more than 100 sq.ft of space in the theatre or other mutually agreed space within the theatre premises to facilitate off screen promotional activity to be carried out by the assessee or their agents;

(v) after completion of the period of the agreement, the theatre owner shall have the option to purchase the projector and Anarmorphic Lens by paying an amount of Rs. 1000/- plus taxes prevailing, towards consideration for transfer/sale; continuing the advertisement rights vests with the assessee; and upon complying the above two conditions, the QCP (Servers) and V-Sat will continue with the theatre but continue to be the property of the assessee unless otherwise agreed to between the parties;

(vi) the theatre owner shall ensure play back of QUBE logo/trade mark with the words in English This Theatre is equipped with, and the feature film is being screened through Qube Digital Cinema Player and a translation thereof in the regional language, at the beginning of the show.

Beside the above conditions, the theatre owner also pays to the assessee, charges for screening per show, called Pay Per Show.

8.3 As also noted by the adjudicating authority in the same para 11.5 of the impugned order appellant had been collecting (a) Refundable/non-refundable deposit of Rs. One lakh; (b) Advertisement charges from the sponsors of advertisement and (c) "Pay per show' amount apart from free Advertisement space for QUBE products at the theatre premises.

8.4 From a combined reading of the above discussions, legal provisions and facts on record, we are of the considered opinion that there is definitely transfer of possession of the impugned goods from the appellant to their customers partly by cash (refundable and non-refundable deposits) and partly by other valuable considerations (right to collect advertisement charges from sponsors of advertisements and receipt of pay per show amount for the QUBE products at the theatre premises. The contours of the transaction between the appellant and their customers in respect of the impugned servers therefore satisfy the definition for sale under Section 2(h) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This being so, the valuation of such sale of the sold goods for the purposes of levy of Central Excise duty will have to be within the parameters of Section 4 of the Act read with Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.

8.5 The adjudicating authority has concluded that the value of goods in question is governed by Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules namely "the value of such goods sold by the assessee for delivery at any other time nearest to the time of removal of goods under assessment subject to adjustments as may appear reasonable". Hence adjudicating authority has held that in respect of the impugned stock-transferred servers, appellants should have determined the assessable value on the basis of Rule 4 ibid and adopted the value available at the nearest point of time of removals of servers on stock transfer basis. We are unable to find any infirmity with such a conclusion. It is not the case the impugned servers were not sold by appellant but were used for consumption by them or on their behalf in the production or manufacture of other articles. In such a scenario, adoption of assessable value based on 110% of cost of production would certainly have been in order. However, it is nobody's case that the servers stock-transferred to the Head office underwent further production or manufacture. On the other hand, notwithstanding the clearances being shown as stock-transfer to Head office, this was only a routing on paper only, however in actuality the impugned servers were delivered in the same condition as they were removed, to the theatre owners. Possibly, appellant had followed such a tedious billing route for accounting reasons. Nonetheless, for discharge of Central Excise duty, the removals will in no way be recognizable as stock transfer and will necessarily take on the colour of sale attracting the manner of valuation as laid down in Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules.

9. During the arguments Ld. Advocate has made a contention that since the goods are not sold, Section 4(1)(a) will not apply; that except Rule 8 all other Rules cover contingencies where sale is involved in some form or the other; therefore residuary Rule 11 will have to be adopted along with spirit of Rule 8; that in other words, assessable value should be worked out accordingly. Towards this end, had drawn our attention to clarification at para 13 issued by the CBEC vide circular dt. 1.7.2002, on Points of Doubt under the New Valuation Provisions, in respect of valuation of samples. However, the said clarification concerns a situation where no sale was involved, but in the instant case, there is very much a sale for the purposes of the Central Excise Act.

10. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the arguments and contentions of the appellant against the decision of the adjudicating authority concerning method of valuation of impugned goods, demanding different

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ial duty liability of Rs. 1,18,57,892/- with interest thereon and also appropriating the amount of Rs. 1,18,57,892/- and Rs. 10,16,278/- paid by the appellant during investigation towards duty and interest liability respectively, hence we do not interfere with that part of the impugned order. 11. However, coming to the matter of penalty, it is not the case that appellants were had removed the goods clandestinely without discharge of any amount of Central Excise duty whatsoever. The Annexure-II to the SCN concedes that appellant had discharged duty liability on stock transfer price, however, as the valuation was required to be worked out on transaction value basis as per Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules, the impugned differential duty liability has emerged. Even before the issue of SCN, in response to certain queries raised by Range Superintendent, appellant in their letter dt. 23.01.2009 had justified the practice followed by them and have even in the course of adjudication they had maintained that there is no suppression of facts as there is no transfer of ownership of servers and that value thereof is capitalized in the books as proof of ownership of these assets. It is also noticed that even before issue of SCN they had paid up the differential duty liability, albeit under protest. From all accounts, the issue boils down to mis-interpretation of the valuation provisions by the appellant. Taking all these factors into account, we hold that ingredients for imposition of equal penalty under Section 11AC are not attracted. Hence the imposition of equal penalty under that Section by the adjudicating authority cannot be sustained and is therefore set aside. Appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. (Pronounced in court on 12.01.2018)
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

26-08-2020 Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd. & Another Versus Unwired Planet International Ltd. & Another United Kingdom Supreme Court
25-08-2020 Evergrwoing Investments & Consultants Private Limited Versus Tomorrowland Technologies Exports Limited & Another High Court of Delhi
20-08-2020 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Versus M/s. Sankhya Technologies Pvt Ltd., Chennai. High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-07-2020 Three C Universal Developers Private Limited & Others Versus Horizon Crest India Real Estate & Others High Court of Delhi
24-07-2020 Nirmal Singh Versus Horizon Crest India Real Estate & Others High Court of Delhi
20-07-2020 M/s. Luminous Power Technologies (P) Ltd. & Another Versus Kanwar Sain & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-07-2020 M/s. Sai Srinivasa Properties & Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Represent by its Director N. Vivekananda Reddy Versus Krishnappa & Others High Court of Karnataka
26-06-2020 Uber Technologies Inc. Versus Heller Supreme Court of Canada
18-06-2020 M/s. CSK Technologies, Hydrabad (Telangana) Versus South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
10-06-2020 Director of Income-Tax, International Taxation Versus M/s. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. High Court of Karnataka
05-06-2020 Quick Heal Technologies Limited Versus NCS Computech Private Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-06-2020 Entertainment City Ltd. Versus Aspek Media Private Ltd. High Court of Delhi
01-06-2020 Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. & Another Versus Sobhagya Media Pvt. Ltd. (Apn Live) & Others High Court of Delhi
20-05-2020 Anil Chamadia Versus The Chairman Media Advisory Committee Rajya Sabha & Others High Court of Delhi
15-05-2020 Microvision Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 M/s. Comstar Automative Technologies Private Ltd., (Formerly known as Visteon Powertrain Control Systems India Private Limited) Keelakaranai Village, Malrosapuram Post, Maraimalai Nagar, Chengalpattu District V/S The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle - I (3), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-03-2020 Syrma Technology Private Limited, Chennai Versus Powerwave Technologies Sweden AD (in bankruptcy), Rep., by the Bankruptcy Administrator, Niklas Korling & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-03-2020 Joshi Technologies International, Inc-India Projects Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
09-03-2020 Narendra Hirawat & Co. Versus Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Picturehouse Media Ltd., Chennai Versus Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. & Another SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
04-03-2020 Active Media Versus Divisional Commercial Manager, Northern Railway High Court of Delhi
27-02-2020 Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Edream 11 Skill Power Private Limited High Court of Delhi
18-02-2020 Principal Commissioner Goods & Service Tax Delhi South Versus Premium Real Estate Developers High Court of Delhi
17-02-2020 HT Media Limited & Another Versus WWW.THEWORLDNEWS.NET & Others High Court of Delhi
14-02-2020 SKF Technologies (India) Private Limited, Bangalore & Another National Company Law Tribunal Bengaluru
03-02-2020 Lakshmi Rauschenbach, Rep. by Power of Attorney Anand Sasidharan Versus Valuesource Technologies (P) Ltd, Rep. by its Director Christian Lippens & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 Real Pro Assets Limited Through Its Authorized Signatory/Managing Director Chandigarh Versus Pankaj Mittal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-01-2020 Sarine Technologies Ltd. Through Authorised Signatory Prachi Bhardwaj Versus Diyora & Bhanderi Corporation Through Partner Dhaval Dahyabhai Diyora High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
31-01-2020 In Phase Power Technologies Private Limited V/S ABB India Limited Competition Commission of India
09-01-2020 M/s. Grant Thornton India LLP., New Delhi Versus 63 Moons Technologies Limited, Formerly Known as Financial Technologies (India) Ltd., Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 M/s.Magic Frames, Chennai & Others Versus M/s. Radiance Media P. Ltd., Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 Quick Heal Technologies Limited V/S Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
08-01-2020 Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata - I (TDS) Versus Media World Wide Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-12-2019 Eden Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Seema Mukherjee National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-12-2019 M/s. Shine Medias, a partnership firm Represented by its Partner R. Mahesh Versus M/s. Trac Media Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its CEO, Ekkattuthangal High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-12-2019 M/s. Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Supreme Court of India
16-12-2019 M/s. Taranga Technologies, Andhra Pradesh Versus M/s. Neels Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-12-2019 Sterlite Technologies Limited Rep by Chief Manager K. Sundar & Another Versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Rep by Managing Director, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-12-2019 The Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai – V Commissionerate Versus M/s. Reliance Media Works Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s. Adlabs Films Ltd.) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-12-2019 Bhavik Bhimjiyani & Others Vs. Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-12-2019 Starlight Real Estate (Ascot) Mauritius Limited & Another Versus Jagrati Trade Services Private Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-11-2019 Rajdeep Energies Pvt.Ltd., Represented by its Director Versus Res Q Technologies Pvt Ltd., Represented by its Director Magesh High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-11-2019 Smartchem Technologies Limited & Another Versus The Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
30-09-2019 Nirmal Versus Alankar Real Estate (Pvt) Ltd. & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
27-09-2019 Indusind Media & Communications Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Supreme Court of India
17-09-2019 Municipal Council Neemuch Versus Mahadeo Real Estate & Others Supreme Court of India
13-09-2019 M/s. Contentra Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Nikhil Pal High Court of Delhi
30-08-2019 Siemens Enterprise Communications Ptv Ltd Now Known As Progility Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Central Bureau of Investigation High Court of Himachal Pradesh
30-08-2019 S. Varadan, Editor-cum-Publisher, Kalaikadir Newspaper, Mahalakshmi Media Private Limited, Salem Versus Vasu Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
27-08-2019 Ani Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dinesh D. Shelar High Court of Delhi
20-08-2019 HT Media Limited Versus Government of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
07-08-2019 The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department & Others Versus Bihar State non formal cum special education Instructor Union through its Member-cum-Media In-charge, Bhagalpur & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
07-08-2019 Associate High Pressure Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Union Bank of India Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Mumbai
23-07-2019 M/s. N.L. Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Ernakulam South, Represented by C.V. Varghese, Director, Irinjalakuda Versus Commissioner of Customs, Cochin High Court of Kerala
22-07-2019 Life Care Real Developers Limited & Others Versus Ld. Adjudicating Officer Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
19-07-2019 Sidharth Chauhan Versus Aditya Birla Real Estate Fund Through its investment Manger & Lawful attorney, Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-07-2019 M/s. Mega Media Solutions Versus Commissioner Trade & Taxes & Another High Court of Delhi
17-07-2019 S/s Bright Technologies Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
16-07-2019 Jatin Keshruwala Sole Proprietor, Janvi Production through its Power of Attorney Holder Pankaj Keshruwala Versus M/s. DAG Creative Media Pvt. Ltd. through its Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-07-2019 Gopalacharya Gautam Versus Chief Editor Himachal Dastak Media House & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
02-07-2019 Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Versus Traffic Media India Pvt. Ltd High Court of Delhi
24-06-2019 Mahavir Multi Media, Chennai, Represented by Prakash Chand Chordia, Proprietor Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Chintadripet Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2019 M/s. Magic Frames, Partnership Firm, Reg. by its Partner R. Sarath Kumar & Others Versus M/s. Radiance Media P. Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Signatory N. Srinivasan High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-05-2019 Prakash Chand Abhani Versus Eden Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
24-05-2019 Arjun Technologies (India) Ltd Versus Karur K.C.P. Packagings Ltd National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
02-05-2019 Indian Potash Ltd. & Others Versus Media Contents & Communication Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
30-04-2019 Vijay Mohan, Sole Proprietor M/s. Agri Tech Versus M/s. Real Blue International Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director Manoj Soman & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-04-2019 M/s. Serve & Volley Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. Times Innovative Media Ltd., Mumbai, Represented by its Assistant Vice President B. Chinnamallikarjun High Court of Karnataka
25-04-2019 Exelan Networking Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Premdoss Samson, Adyar & Others Versus M/s. Cadensworth India Limited, Merged with M/s. Redington India Ltd., Rep. by K. Shanmugam, Senior Manager Accounts, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-04-2019 Living Media India Limited & Another Versus Vijayan Madhavan Praveen & Another High Court of Delhi
10-04-2019 M/s. Gameskraft Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Directors & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, By the Inspector of Police, Mumbai & Another High Court of Karnataka
08-04-2019 G.K. Mani, President & Others Versus New Generation Media Corporation (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-04-2019 Selvel Media Services Pvt Ltd. Versus Municipal Corporation, Union Territory, Chandigarh & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
28-03-2019 Atria Convergence Technologies Ltd. Versus Union of India Through Joint Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
26-03-2019 Seema Mukherjee Versus The Director, Eden Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
26-03-2019 Milestone Real Estate Fund through its trustee Rubi Arya Versus The Assistant Commission of Income Tax, Circle 25(3) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-03-2019 NEC Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Shivamogga Smart City Limited A Public Limited & Another High Court of Karnataka
19-03-2019 Mohd. Rafat Khan Versus SRS Real Estate Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-03-2019 Times Innovative Media Ltd. Versus Serve & Volley Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
15-03-2019 M/s. Siddhi Real Estate Developers through its partner Versus The State of Maharashtra Represented by the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-03-2019 In the Matter of: M/s. Real Alloy Extruders Private Limited & Others National Company Law Tribunal Chennai
05-03-2019 Mohinder Partap Monga Versus Emerging India Real Assets (P) Ltd. & Others Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
27-02-2019 Living Media India Limited Versus Lallantop Media & Another High Court of Delhi
18-02-2019 M/s. DVB Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST & Excise, Siliguri Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Regional Bench Kolkata
14-02-2019 XS Real Properties Pvt. Ltd., Chennai & Another Versus Anaithu Vivasaya Sagupadi Payirkal Urpath Vivasayigal Sangam, Kanchipuram, Rep. By General Secretary & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-01-2019 Vitthal Laxman Patil Versus Kores (India) Ltd. Real Estate Division Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
25-01-2019 M/s. Twenty First Century Media Private Limited Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. Supreme Court of India
24-01-2019 S. Thiagarajan & Others Versus M/s. Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director V.S. Suresh, Ambojini, Teynampet High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2019 B. Shekar & Another Versus Stanpower Technologies Hyderabad, Rep. by its Partner Timothy Prakash & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
21-01-2019 P. Murali Versus M/s. Airmedia Technologies Chennai Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Nirmala Devi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2019 Poornima Devi & Another Versus Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Teynampet Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai
07-01-2019 Gigeo Real Estate Versus Prakash Kisanji Kapse Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
04-01-2019 Tamil Nadu Real Estates through its Director S.A. Ispahani, Chennai Versus K. Muthukrishna Raja (Died) & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-01-2019 Anand Versus Reward Real Estate Company Limited & Others Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
18-12-2018 Endurance Technologies Ltd. Versus State of Haryana & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
07-12-2018 Ariizona Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Union of India National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
30-11-2018 Lokmat Media Private Limited Versus Vijay & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
22-11-2018 Om Sakthi Real Estate by Partners & Others Versus Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kancheepuram Electricity Division Circle & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-11-2018 ACC Real Estate & Developers Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-11-2018 Atul Kanti Tripathi Versus Kuber Media Ltd. High Court of Delhi