Mumbai Court January 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Christine Hoden (i) Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT271Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Representative of the respondent seeks adjournment to produce documents. He is not able to say why, despite sufficient notice, these documents have not been produced.3. The appeal by Christine Hoden (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Primella Sanitary Products Pvt. Ltd. was against the order of the Assistant Commissioner holding that the refund of duty paid by these assessees is in excess and not being shown to have been passed on to the buyer as required in terms of the proviso under Sub-section (2) of Section 11B rejecting the claim for refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the submission before him that the price of sanitary napkins that the respondent manufactured during the period from 29-11-1995 to 8-8-1996 when the duty was not payable, was the same and therefore the incidence of duty had not been passed on. He therefore ordered the refund to be paid to the claimants. This order is being challenged by the Commissioner.4. Various elements form part of a price. In the ordinary course, su...

Vijaysingh Krishnarao Parbat Vs. Returning Officer, Janata Sahakari Ba ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR523; 2003(5)BomCR330; 2003(2)MhLj485

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnableforthwith.2. The petitioner challenges the orders passed bythe Returning Officer and the Appellate Authorityrejected his nomination paper for election to themanaging committing of the Janata Sahakari Bank Limited,Kurduwadi, hereinafter referred to as 'the said Society'.The challenge is on the ground that inspite of thedefault having been cured prior to the disposal of theappeal under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Co-operativeSocieties Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the saidAct', the petitioner is being illegally denied the rightto contest the said election in violation of theprovisions of Section 73FF(1) of the said Act.3. The programme for election of the managingcommittee of the said Society was declared in November,2002. Accordingly the last date for filing of thenomination paper was 16-12-2002. The scrutiny was totake place on 17-12-2002. The last date of with...

Dhondi Vellappa Patil Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 6 and a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR558; 2003(4)BomCR648; 2003(2)MhLj494

D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard Mr. More for the petitioner and Smt. Mulekar, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent. By consent, taken up for final hearing.2. The land of the petitioner bearing Gat No. 543 admeasuring 0 Hectares 18 R. situated at village Malatwadi in Kolhapur District was acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and an award was passed on 25th April 2000. Notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was received by the petitioner on 20th July 2000. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded the petitioner made an application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for reference. In the meanwhile, the petitioner accepted the amount of compensation after lodging an oral protest. The respondent No. 1 however, by an order dated 11th October 2000, declined to make the reference on the ground that the petitioner had accepted the amount without any protest and therefore, the request reference could not be entertained. Being aggrieved by ...

Anna Tatoba Todkar of Herle Vs. Bhau Balu Makane Since Deceased Throug ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR806; 2003(3)BomCR41; 2003(2)MhLj300

S.A. Bobde, J.1. This is a petition by a person who had obtained possession of the lands in question under an agreement to sale from a landlord who had resumed possession of the land under Section 33B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, for short 'the Bombay Tenancy Act', for bonafide personal cultivation.2. The lands in question are situated at Village Herale, Taluka Hatkangale, District Kolhapur. They were owned by one Narhar Narayan Kulkarni, and were in possession of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as tenants. Narhar Narayan Kulkarni died on 1st November, 1971 leaving behind the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as heirs, 'Kulkarnis' for short. The said Kulkarnis initiated proceedings under Section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy Act against respondent No. 1 and obtained an exemption certificate. On 20th June, 1970 they obtained possession of the land under Section 33B of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Kulkarnis) executed agreement for sale in favour of the petitioner fo...

Bapurao S/O Kisanrao Jamgade and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)49; 2003BomCR(Cri)823; 2003CriLJ2181; 2003(4)MhLj943

R.S. Mohite, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants for quashing and setting aside a judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 1997 whereby the appellants have been held guilty and convicted for an offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of the accused has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment of six months.2. The brief facts of the case as have emerged from the record are as under :(A) That the deceased Prakash Dadarao Patil was the police patil of village Waltur. He was residing in village Waltur along with his wife, P.W.-l Vrushali and three children. He had two brothers by name Sudarshan and Ashok. Ashok was a Police Inspector and was also known as Nanasaheb.(B) On 30-8-1996 the deceased Prakash and his wife Vrushali had been to village Savana. On the s...

State of Goa and ors. Vs. Gurudas Timblo and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)BomCR598

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 125/81 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao, vide judgment dated 30th April, 1994.2. The plaintiffs/respondents herein filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are exclusive owners in possession of the immovable property known as 'ORNACODIL NOCODBAB' or 'ORNICODIL NOCODBAB TICAN', situated at Netorlim of Sanguem Taluka. The plaintiffs claimed ownership on the basis of two sale deed dated 11th May, 1970 and 11th July, 1970 and a deed of ratification dated 18th July, 1974, all of which were duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, quepem. They also relied upon the description of the property given in the said deeds. According to them, the property consisted of forest produce, including coconut groves, cashew groves, jackfruit and other fruit-bearing trees. Further, according to the plaintiffs, the property was surveyed by the Government in 1971, but t...

Rameshkumar Bhandari and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)67; 2003BomCR(Cri)1669; (2003)105BOMLR503

S.T. Kharche, J.1. This application has been filed for quashing the Criminal Complaint No. 267 of 1993 instituted by respondent No. 2 against the applicants pending on the file of learnedJ.M.F.C. Nagpur. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties,2. Mr. Anjan De, learned Counsel for the applicants, contended that the applicants are the Directors of M/s. Sigma Search Lights Ltd. a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. This company is engaged in manufacture of electrical equipments, i.e. search lights. Respondent No. 2 is a company situated at Nagpur. It. is contended that respondent No. 2 approached the applicants for manufacture of 150 Nos. of 450 mm. search lights with 400 watts, tube lights or lamps and its control gear as it had received an order for the same. It was orally agreed between these two companies that the applicants-company would act as an agent for respondent No. 2 and would deliver the goods directly to the Inspector General of Prisons, Government of U.P., L...

Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]267ITR768(Bom)

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised a question as framed in the appeal memo and tried to contend that even if the vehicle was not actually used but since it was ready for use, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit of depreciation on such assets. He sought to place reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Whittle Anderson Ltd. v. CIT : [1971]79ITR613(Bom) . In the above judgment, this court was concerned with the interpretation of the expression 'use' or 'used', whereas we are concerned with the interpretation of the word 'used'. It appears that after the above judgment, there was an amendment to Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, The word 'used' denotes actually used and not merely ready for use. The expression 'used' means actually used for the purposes of the business. The view is taken by the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law is involve...

Dipak Hari Kivkalwar Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)480; 2003CriLJ2241

ORDERR.S. Mohite, J.1. Rule. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith.2. This is a writ petition impugning an order dated 1-4-2002 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Prison (Eastern Region), Nagpur rejecting the furlough sought by the present petitioner. The petitioner is undergoing sentence since 16-10-1998 for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He had applied for grant of furlough leave on 27-9-2001. Initially one Ashabai Sundarsingh Thakur was cited by the petitioner as his surety but the said Ashabai refused to stand surety. The authorities gave the prisoner another chance and the prisoner named one Prakash Natthuji Nakhore as his surety. The said Prakash Nakhore however informed the police that he did not know the petitioner, and therefore, he could not be accepted as surety. In the present petition, the petitioner has stated that his wife's sister Koushlyabai Mahadeo Gaikwad is willing to stand as surety for him. However, the return filed on behalf ...

Shri Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In these matters, two applications have been files seeking, condonation of the delay in filing these appeals beyond the time provided under Section 35B of Central Excise Act.2. The facts of the case are that by Orders-in-Original dated 19.5.2000 and 9.6.2000, the Commissioner confirmed duties, imposed penalties and levied interest which are described as follows.1) 85-31-2000 dt.19.5.2000 Rs.7,12,69,029.84 Rs.7 crores 2) 48252-2000 dt.9.6.2000 Rs.1,91,89,329.18 Rs.2 crores 3. Certain other relevant factors have also to be mentioned now. In respect of Appeal No. E/1080/01-Mum, seven show cause notices were issued, seeking to demand duty, as mentioned above, on the clearances made covering the period October 1995 to July 1999, and for imposition of penalties on the ground that the appellants were not entitled to seek the benefit of Notn.No. 88/88-CE dated 1-3-1988 as village "Mira", where their factories are situated, is not a rural area within the meaning of the said notification. Re...