Mumbai Court December 2004 Judgments

Shashikumar S/O Nagnathrao Dixit Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj521

V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition the petitioner seeks a declaration that he is entitled to a deemed date of promotion in the post of Registrar of the District Court as he had passed Lower Standard Departmental Examination earlier than the respondents No. 4 and 5 and in accordance with para 524 of the Civil Manual he was required to be considered as senior to them.2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk on the establishment of the District Court, Osmanabad, on 1-4-1959, whereas, respondents No. 4 and 5 were appointed as Junior Clerk on 1-4-1959 and 1-2-1959, respectively. The petitioner passed the Lower Standard Departmental Examination (for short, 'Examination') in July, 1964, whereas, the respondents No. 4 and 5 passed the Examination in July, 1967 and July, 1971, respectively.3. Thereafter, the petitioner passed the Higher Standard Departmental Examination in July, 1976, whereas, the respondents No. 4 and 5 passed the said examination in July, 1982 and 1983, respectively...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Supreme Graphics Creations P. Ltd. and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Bom)657; [2005]276ITR668(Bom)

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This appeal arises from the order dated September 28, 2001, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji, by allowing an appeal against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax as an Assessing Officer. The question of law as raised in this appeal is : 'Whether the operations carried out by the assessee namely of lamination, punching and pasting with glue for the purpose of making cartons is a manufacturing process as contemplated under Section 80IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. A search of the business premises of the assessee was carried out under Section 132 of the Act on October 16, 1996, and the search proceedings were completed on December 13, 1996. The notice under Section 158BC of the Act was served on the assessee on January 11, 1997, for the block assessment period 1987-88 to 1997-98. The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under Section 158BC(c) of the Act on December 17, 1997, and held that the total undisclosed i...

Union of India (UOi), thro' General Manager, Central Railway and Anr. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2005(105)FLR1117]; (2005)IIILLJ42Bom

1. This petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal Mumbai Bench Camp at Nagpur dated June 5, 2003, whereby the Original Application filed by the respondent No. 1 came to be allowed and the order impugned before the Tribunal came to be quashed and set aside including the punishment imposed on the respondent No. 1. Shri Sundaram the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while challenging the order of the Tribunal contends that the Tribunal could not have relied upon the Office Note dated May 15, 1996 and the assignment of duties on April 22, 1996 to consider the situation prevailing as on November 30, 1996.2. Before adverting to the submission made by Mr. Sundaram, if one turns to the charge-sheet itself it reads as under:'On November 30, 1996, while working in RR Section during O/8 shift duty, you were instructed to look after the out going locos. Although Loco No. 20681 was to go with Train No. 1391 as per link, you did not test the loco and ke...

Pandurang S/O Krishna Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR805; (2005)107BOMLR219

D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the revision applicants and learned A.G.P., for the respondents.2. Learned Counsel for the parties state that the facts in all these revision applications are identical except in case of Civil Revision Application Nos. 104/2004 and 109/2004. Hence, by consent of all, the said two revision applications are separated and remaining revision applications are heard and decided by this common judgment.3. In all these revision applications, the revision applicants challenge the orders passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Latur who exercising the powers of the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), rejected the applications made by the revision applicants under Section 18 of the Act for reference of the cases to the District Court for determination of the amount of compensation.4. A devastating earthquake struck eastern part of Maharashtra on 30th September, 1993 and several houses in many villages situated ...

Cit Vs. Supreme Graphics Creations (P) Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Bom)668

B.H. Marlapalle, J.This appeal arises from the order dated 28-9-2001, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji, by allowing an appeal against the order passed by the Assistant CIT as an AO. The question of law as raised in this appeal is : 'Whether the operations carried out by the assessee namely of lamination, punching and pasting with glue for the purpose of making cartons is a manufacturing process as contemplated under section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961?'A search of the business premises of the assessee was carried out under section 132 of the Act on 16-10-1996, and the search proceedings were completed on 13-12-1996. The notice under section 158BC of the Act was served on the assessee on 11-1-1997, for the block assessment period 1987-88 to 1997-98. The AO passed the assessment order under section 158BC(c) of the Act on 17-12-1997, and held that the total undisclosed income was Rs. 26,25,020 and, therefore, tax thereon was quantified at Rs. 15,75,012. This order...

Vinayak S/O Shivajirao Shenwai (Dr.) Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)MhLj667

D.D. Sinha, J. 1. Heard Mr. Kaptan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Fulzele, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Agrawal, learned Advocate, holding for Mr. M. G. Bhangde, counsel for the respondent No. 3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer on 23rd August, 1954 in the pay-scale of Rs. 175-400. In 1966 first revision in the pay-scale was effected and three-tier pay-scales were evolved, namely (1) for Lecturer - Rs. 300-600, (2) Lecturer (Senior Grade) -Rs. 400-800, and (3) Senior Lecturer - Rs. 700-1100. Senior Grade pay-scale was given to those Lecturers, who had completed 15 years' service with post graduate teaching experience. On 1st September, 1969, petitioner was placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 700-1100/3. Mr. Kaptan, learned counsel, states that in the year 1973, further revision of pay-scale was effected and though the petitioner was placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 700-1600, but according ...

Eskay Enterprises Vs. Suresh P. Hinduja

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR289

Karnik D.G., J.1. This motion is taken out by the defendant for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against him on 28th August, 2001 in Summary Suit No. 129 of 2001. The plaintiff opposes the motion.2. The case of the defendant is that after service of the summons he had engaged an Advocate and instructed him to do the needful. The defendant bona fide believed that the Advocate would file appearance in Court and would do the needful for defending the suit. However, the Advocate did not file an appearance and therefore an ex parte decree was passed. The defendant should not be penalised for the negligence of the Advocate, says his learned Counsel. After controverting these facts, learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits that assuming all averments to be true the ex parte decree cannot be set aside because no special circumstances have been made out as required under Order 37, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pinco Textiles

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. Shri U.H. Jadhav. Ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue submitted that the amount was deposited by the appellant under the Compounded Levy Scheme. All the expenditure is included in the value of the sales and the same has been recovered from the buyers. Therefore the presumption is in favour of the department that the appellant should prove whether the incidence of the expenses has been passed on the buyers. He reiterated the impugned order.3. The ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents drew my attention to para 4 on page 13 of the impugned order. For the sake of convenience par 4 is reproduced as under:- "I have carefully considered the facts on record and the submissions made by the appellants. I find that there is no dispute about the fact that the appellants have paid excess amount towards duty, then what they were required to pay as per the APC fixed by the competent authority. This amount can be considered only as a deposit and the provisions of unjust enrichment would not be a...

Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT471Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants manufacture P or P medicines. During the period August 1995 to May 2000, they cleared physicians samples on payment of duty determining the value of such samples under Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975. It needs no mention that the value of regular packs of medicines was determined Under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and that of the physicians samples under the Valuation Rules as the latter are supplied free. During the said period the appellants filed price declaration with the department in respect of physician samples giving the following particulars: description, tariff classification, cost of production, profit that could have been normally earned by assessee on sale of such goods and value declared Under Section 4. The department did not question the basis on which the value was arrived.2. On 20th July 2000, however, a show cause notice was issued asking the appellants to show cause why the value of physician samples cleared during ...

Paramount Rolling Mills and M.Z. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT666Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The Ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants submitted that the issue relates to non-accounting of the goods in the RG I register. He submitted that the unit was visited by the Central Excise Officers on 20.01.2001 and they accounted for the previous day which was to be recorded on the same morning. Since the job was to be done by the clerk and the staff concerned and it could have taken sometime. The accounting was not done but there was no intentional avoidance on the part of the appellants and the goods were lying in the factory. He submitted that the penalty cannot be imposed on the partnership firm as well as on the partners individually. He also submitted that this is a clear cut case of imposition of penalty under Rule 126 where the maximum penalty provided is Rs. 2000/- only. However, since the Rule was not invoked the question of imposing penalty under Rule 126E does not arise. He submitted that the issues involved in the present case are squarely covered by the followi...