Mumbai Court December 2004 Judgments

icici Bank Limited, a Company Incorporated Under the Companies Act, 19 ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2005(105)FLR570]; (2005)IILLJ700Bom

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 4th September, 2004 passed by the Industrial Court at Thane in Complaint (ULP) No. 139 of 2004. By the impugned order, the Industrial Court has allowed the application filed by the Respondent No. 1 and has directed the petitioner either to deposit in the Court or to hand over to the respondent No. 2-company the share certificates in relation to 470,000/- equity shares of VIP Industries Limited and 189,300 equity shares of Blow Plast Limited within 15 days from the said order and further has directed the respondent No. 2 company and its General Manager (HRD) and the Managing Director to take immediate steps for sale of the said shares and to settle the claim of the workers in full and final out of sale proceeds of the said shares as per the agreement between the company and the respondent No. 1 un...

Madanlal Taparia and anr. Vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)39; III(2005)BC214

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Mr. Kamaldeep waives notice for respondent No. 1. Mr. Saste, A.P.P., waives for respondent No. 2. As short question is involved, petition is taken up forthwith for final disposal by consent.2. Respondent No. 1 laid criminal action in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court at Ballard Pier, Mumbai, being C.C. No. 2323/S/1999 against 10 accused persons. The petitioners are named as accused Nos. 7 and 8 respectively. The complaint is in respect of cheque purportedly dated 30th June, 1999 and presented oh 1st July, 1999, which was eventually returned as dishonoured. After issuing statutory notice, the above numbered complaint has been instituted. In the complaint, it is averred that accused Nos. 2 to 9 are the Directors and accused No. 10 is the Vice-President of accused No. 1. Undoubtedly, when the accused is a company, the officers, who are in charge of the company at the time w...

R.K. Patel and Co. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT464Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 3,76,49,018/- confirmed under proviso to Section 11A(2) against applicant No. 1, M/s. R.K. Patel & Co. Tobacco Manufacturers, Amalner, (hereinafter referred to as M/s. RKPTM) on clandestine production and clearance of 1,12,256 kgs. chewing tobacco and penalty of equal amount Under Section 11AC and penalties of following amounts on the following persons who are partners of applicant No. 1/traders of chewing tobacco etc. in terms of Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise Nasik :-Sr. Amount ofNo. Name of the Applicant penalty-Rs.3. Sanjay Bhaskar Patil (Proprietor of Shripati 25,000/- Tobacco, Dhule)6. Pramod Pandii Raundal (Proprietor of M/s Pramod 25,000/- Pandit Raundal)7. Bhagwan Totaram Patil (Salesman of M/s 25,000/- RKPTM)8. Ratilal Raghunath Bhavsar (Salesman of M/s 25,000/- RKPTM)9. Himmat Gangaram Patil (Manager of M/s 50,000/- RKPTM)10. Dyneshwar S...

National Peroxide Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. This is an application for granting stay from the implementation of the impugned order made by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai-IV.2. M/s. National Peroxide Ltd. Mohone, Kalyan, are engaged in the manufacture of Hydrogen Peroxide falling under Chapter 28 of the Central Excise & Tariff Act, 1985. It is alleged by the Department that the appellant has contravened the provision of Section 68 and 70 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended and read with 6(1)(i) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, in as much as they have failed to pay the Service Tax and failed to file the required Returns for the amount of Rs.39,53,565/- paid under the head of 'Royalty' to buy the technical know-how during the year 1998-99. The said amount is paid to M/s.Solvay Interox, Belgium, and M/s. Laporte, U.K. for obtaining technical know-how and technical assistance for the manufacture of final product i.e. Hydrogen Peroxide.3. The assessee has entered into a contra...

Jaihind Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)1SOT1(Mum.)

This Special Bench has been constituted under section 255(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Honble President, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to decide the following questions arising out of the cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue in the abovementioned appeals : "Question No. 1 : Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the bottles costing less than Rs. 5,000 constitute part of block of assets as contemplated under section 2(11) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thereby attracting the provisions of section 50 of the Act Question No. 2: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, if the answer to question No. 1 is in the negative, the sale proceeds realised by the assessee from the sale of old bottles are revenue receipts or capital in nature Let us first deal with question No. 1, which reads as under "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the bottles costing less than Rs. 5,000 constitute part of block of assets as contemplated under section ...

i.C.i.C.i. Bank Ltd. Vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. and State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR533; [2006]129CompCas690(Bom); 2005(1)MhLj845; [2005]62SCL225(Bom)

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present chamber summons is taken out under Rule 591 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 inter alia seeking a reduction in the fees charged by the Court Receiver in accordance with the provisions thereof.2. Some of the material facts of the present case briefly enumerated are as under:-3. A suit was filed on 20-11-1997 for recovery of aggregate amount of Rs. 1,01,29,33,563/- and for various other reliefs. An interim application being Notice of Motion No. 3 of 1997 was moved. On 7-1-1998 this Court appointed Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay as Receiver in respect of the properties of the 1st respondent described in Exhibits A-1 to A-5 of the plaint. The Receiver was also appointed in respect of the goods, movables and bankers goods described in Exhibits B-1 to B-7 with all powers under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908. Under the said order it was ordered that the defendant No. 1 should be appointed as agent of the Court Recei...

Pandurang Narayan Mangle Vs. Akola District Central Co-operative Bank ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom236; IV(2005)BC218; 2005(2)BomCR599; 2005(2)MhLj521

Lavande A.P., J.1. Heard Mr. C.S. Kaptan, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.N. Ingley, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the decree dated 23-8-1991 passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Akola in Regular Civil Appeal No. 1/1988 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent and dismissing the cross-objection filed by the present appellant.3. The appellant is the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 184/77 filed against the respondents in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Akot. The plaintiff filed the suit against the respondent-defendant for mandatory injunction, recovery of the amount, illegally debited and damages.4. Briefly, the facts which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are as follows :The plaintiff was having Saving Bank Account No. 13721 with Akola District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Akola. According to the plaintiff, on 17-1-1977, the balance amount in his account was Rs. 1...

Mahalakshmi Dyeing and Printing (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(127)LC163(Bombay); 2005(186)ELT157(Bom)

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The following substantial question of law arise in this appeal.(a) Whether the appellant could be denied the refund on the extended length of galleries despite the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II v. S.P.B.L. Limited Civil Appeal No. 4972 of 2001, decided on 17th September, 2002.(b) Whether the appellant could be denied refund when the order dated 1st July, 1999 determining the capacity on the basis of goods which have been declared ultra vires Section 3(a) of the Madras High Court?3. Admit....

Shri Abdulla Koyloth Vs. the Commissioner of Customs (Gen)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT257Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant imported a consignment of various general items and filed a bill of entry on 03/05/2002 declaring total assessable value of the goods as Rs. 6,75,796.90 with duty liability of Rs. 3,86,352/-. The said consignment was put to 100% examination and certain discrepancies in the number of certain glass items were found. It was further noticed that the country of origin declared by the appellant did not tally with the country of origin of the goods in question. Investigations were initiated and statements of the proprietor of the importing firm were recorded on various stages. During the course of investigation, the appellant pleaded for release of the goods and in the alternative for early adjudication, inasmuch as the market value of the goods was on the fall. The Commissioner in his impugned order has rejected the transaction value of the goods, on the findings of mis-declaration in quantity of certain glassware items and has enhanced ...

Hajee Texturising Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc and Ce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(125)LC339Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 3,08,750/- representing the modvat credit allegedly wrongly availed and penalty of Rs. 50,000/-, I found that it was possible to decide the appeal itself at this stage and hence proceed to do so with the consent of both sides, after waiving pre-deposit.2. The amount of duty has been confirmed oh the ground that the assessees were not entitled to the above amount of modvat credit since they had also claimed depreciation of the value of capital goods which included excise duty element, under the Income-tax Act, thus resulting in violation of the provisions of Rule 57R(8) and 57T of the Central Excise Rules. The appellants had submitted before the lower appellate authority that they had revised their claim in 1997-1998 and had not got the benefit of depreciation; however, the lower appellate authority, on perusal of the assessment order for 1997-1998, has found that the assessment order makes no...