LAWANDE MEMBER PRESENT: Mr. S.B. Solat, learned advocate for the appellant. ......for the Appellant Mr. Mishrikotkar, learned advocate for the respondent. ......for the Respondent ... present appeal.
5. We have heard Mr. S.B. Solat, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Mishrikotkar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent
YENGAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR.N. ARUMUGAM MEMBER
PRESENT:
Adv. Mr. Solat
......for the Appellant
Adv. Mr. Pounikar
......for the Respondent
ORDER
(Delivered ... written version and other documents produced
along with appeal memo.
8. Mr. Solat, Ld.
Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that since, undisputedly,
the respondent
August, 1980 for the manufacture of Solubilised Vats or "Solatic Blue 4 BC". On 6-3-1979 the appellants made a debit entry ... Indigo Pure referred to above, they manufactured 5172 of Solubilised Vats (Solatic Blue 4 BC). They cleared 5140 solubilised vats without payment of duty during
Arumugam Member
PRESENT: Adv. Mr S
B Solat ......for the
Appellant
None ......for
the Respondents
JUDGEMENT
(Passed on 29.11.2012)
Per Mr S M Shembole, Honble ... complainant has preferred this
appeal.
5. We
heard Mr S B Solat, Ld. Counsel for the appellant and perused the Written Notes
of Argument submitted
YENGAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR.N. ARUMUGAM
MEMBER
PRESENT: Adv. Mr. Solat
for the appellants
Adv. Mr. Vaidya for the
respondent
ORDER
(Delivered ... complainants and also alleged the
balance amount, etc.
8. Mr. Solat, Ld. Counsel appearing for the
appellant/opponent-Developer submitted that though the opponent-Developer
Arumugam, Member
PRESENT: Adv. Mr S B Solat ..for
the Appellant
None .....for
the Respondent No.1
Adv.
Mr MS Mendhe .....for the Respondent ... preferred this appeal.
5. Adv. Mr S B Solat appeared for the appellant and argued that the
complainant sold above tractor to some other person
YENGAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR.N. ARUMUGAM MEMBER
PRESENT:
Adv. Mr. Solat
......for the Appellant
Adv. Mr. Pugliya
......for the Respondent
Judgment
(Delivered ... claim
of complainant about refund of amount are not disputed. Mr. Solat, Ld.
Counsel for the opponents submitted that since there was tri party agreement
JAYSHREE YENGAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR.N. ARUMUGAM MEMBER
PRESENT: Adv.Solat for the appellants
Rerspondent
Dilipkumar in person
ORDER
(DELIVERED ... same judgments, the Opponent has preferred these separate
appeals.
7. Heard Shri.
Solat, Ld. counsel for the appellant and Respondent/Complainant Dilipkumar
in person
JAYSHREE YENGAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR.N. ARUMUGAM MEMBER
PRESENT: Adv.Solat for the appellants
Rerspondent
Dilipkumar in person
ORDER
(DELIVERED ... same judgments, the Opponent has preferred these separate
appeals.
7. Heard Shri.
Solat, Ld. counsel for the appellant and Respondent/Complainant Dilipkumar
in person
Arumugam, Member
PRESENT: Adv. Mr S B Solat ..for
the Appellant
None .....for
Respondent No.1
Adv.
Mr MS Mendhe .....for Respondent ... preferred this appeal.
5. Adv. Mr S B Solat appeared for the appellant and argued that
the complainant sold above tractor to some other person
