Mumbai Court February 2004 Judgments

Dinshaws Dairy Foods Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

The appellant were issued 4 show cause notices seeking recovery of duty paid on the empty cups which are used by the manufacturer for packing ice cream. It is alleged that, when the manufacturer removed bulk packing of ice-cream in 4 liter packs, they also cleared certain specified numbers of empty paper cups, without reversing the duty paid on the cups, as required in terms of Rule 57F (1) (ii) of the Central Excise Rules 1944 (Central Excise Rules). The notice were adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner, who accepted the contention of the appellant that, no such duty is required to be paid on the empty cups which are supplied along with the bulk packs of ice creams.Accordingly, he dropped the demand. The order of the Assistant Collector was reviewed by the Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the appeal filed by the department and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and held that, the appellants were liable to pay the duty on empty cups which ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mutual Inds. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1.1 M/s Mutual Industries are the main respondents. They have two factories, one at Kandivali and the other at Silvassa. The later unit, sent various parts (inputs) to Kandivali unit for manufacture of various T.V. components of plastics totally valued at Rs. 43.97,347.80/- the inputs were to be converted into final T.V.components on job work basis. It is alleged that the Silvassa unit had taken modvat credit in respect of materials used for manufacture of incomplete parts and these were cleared in terms of Rule 57 F (4) to Kandivali unit for manufacturing complete T.V. parts on job work. The proviso to Rule 57F (4), at that point of time, required the respondents to receive the goods back from the job workers after completing the manufacturing processes for which these were sent. The rules had prescribed a time limit of 60 days for return of the goods after completing the job work. Failure to receive the goods back from the job workers within 60 days entailed the appellant's defaulti...

Shri Raja @ Raju Namdev Kharade Vs. Shri V.D. Mishra, Commissioner of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005BomCR(Cri)498

V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.1. Through this writ petition, the petitioner-detenu Raja @ Raju Namdev Kharade, has impugned the order of detention dated 054.05.2003 passed by the Respondent No. 1 Shri V.D. Mishra, Commissioner of Police, Solapur. By the said order, the petitioner has been detained under Sub-section 1 of Section 3 of Maharashtra Pretention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'MPDA Act' for the sake of brevity). The detention order dated 05.05.2003 alongwith the grounds of detention which are also dated 05.05.2003 was served on the detenu on 05.05.2003.2. Perusal of the ground of detention which are annexed at Exh.B to the petition, shows that the impugned order of detention is founded on one C.R. viz. C.R. No. 92/2003 registered under Section 307 and 504 of I.P.C. r.w. Section 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act and r.w. Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The said complaint dated 26.3.2003 ha...

Shri Anand B. Apte, Legal Heir of Late Smt. Kamalaben B. Apte Vs. Comm ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]270ITR581(Bom); 2004(3)MhLj738

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.3.1994 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune declining to consider the application of the petitioner filed under Section 273A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking waiver of penalty and interest levied against the petitioner for the assessment years 1981-82, 1984-85 and 1988-89.2. The petitioner is the legal heir of late Smt. Kamlaben Apte, who was assessed to tax under the I.T. Act. For the assessment years 1981-82 and 1984-85 to 1988-89 the returns of income were filed by the assessee voluntarily but belatedly. It was the case of Smt. Kamlaben that the returns could not be filed in time, because of the breakdown of the relationship with her three sons and at the relevant time the accounts were not maintained properly. The said returns of income were regularised by issue of notice under Section 148 of the I.T. Act and were accepted as correct and assessment order were passed accordingly ...

Shivamrut Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh (Through Its Chairman Mr. Rajsin ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR297; 2004(5)BomCR165; 2004(3)MhLj668

C.K. THAKKER, C.J.1. Rule. Mr. C.J. Sawant, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr. P.M. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Dr. B.R. Naik, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr. Prashant Naik, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 4. In the facts and circumstances and with the consent of parties, the matter has been taken up for final hearing.2. This petition is filed by the petitioners for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside orders passed by the State of Maharashtra, Respondent No. 1, under Section 157 read with Section 77A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), granting exemption under Sections 73-G and 73-H of the Act to Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Dudh Mahasangh Maryadit, respondent No. 4 herein, as ultra vires, unconstitutional and bad-in-law. A relief is also sought to declare Bye-law No. 7....

Chandrakant Dharma Bhonu Vs. Pandurang Ramchandra Dandekar and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom374; 2004(2)MhLj782

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent, taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. In this Petition under Article 227 an order passed by the City Civil Court on 19th September, 2003 rejecting a Chamber Summons filed by the Petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for being impleaded as a Defendant to the suit instituted by the First Respondent against the Second Respondent, has been challenged.3. The Petitioner and the First Respondent are owners of adjoining structures situated at Goma Galli, Versova Village, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 061. The structure belonging to the Petitioner consists of a ground floor built in brick masonry walls. According to the Petitioner, there was a parcel of open land between the structure of the First Respondent and that of the Petitioner. In the first week of November, 2001, it was alleged that me First Respondent started digging up the land underneath his structure, with the...

Trackparts of India Ltd. Vs. Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR59; IV(2004)BC333; 2004(5)BomCR158; [2004]120CompCas324(Bom); 2004(3)MhLj228; [2004]52SCL550(Bom)

R.M.S. Khandeparkar J.1. The short point for consideration which arises in the matter is whether the restrictions imposed against continuation of the proceedings without the consent of the competent authority under the provision of Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as 'the SICA'), apply even to the appeals filed by an industrial company against the order of the lower court/authority pertaining to a monetary claim against such industry.2. The respondents filed a dispute under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, for recovery of the amount alleged to be due from the petitioner-company wherein an ex parte award dated February 20, 1999, came to be passed against the petitioner by the co-operative court and the same was challenged by the petitioner by an appeal filed in May, 1999. By an order dated May 18, 1999, passed by the Co-operative Appellate Court, the appeal was admitted for final hearing and th...

Anand B. Apte, L/H of Late Smt. Kamalaben B. Apte Vs. Commissioner of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Bom)416

J.P. DEVADHAR, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dt. 25th March, 1994, passed by the CIT, Pune, declining to consider the application of the petitioner filed under Section 273A of the IT Act, 1961, seeking waiver of penalty and interest levied against the petitioner for the asst. yrs. 1981-82, 1984-85 & 1988-89.2. The petitioner is the legal heir of late Smt. Kamlaben Apte, who was assessed to tax under the IT Act. For the asst. yrs. 1981-82 and 1984-85 and 1988-89 the returns of income were filed by the assessee voluntarily but belatedly. It was the case of Smt. Kamlaben that the returns could not be filed in time, because of the breakdown of the relationship with her three sons and at the relevant time the accounts were not maintained properly. The said returns of income were regularised by issue of notice under Section 148 of the IT Act and were accepted as correct and assessment orders were passed accordingly with penalty and interest for delay in ...

Matru Ashish Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Bhagwan V. Moorjane ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR737; 2004(3)MhLj98

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the respondent No. 1a in person and the learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5.2. Though the impugned order is sought to be challenged on various grounds, it is not necessary to consider all those grounds in this petition, and suffice to say to the point of lack of jurisdiction to the Secretary for Co-operation to entertain the revision application under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 against the order dated 22nd March, 1999 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Appeal) M.D., Mumbai, in Revision Application No. 341 of 1998. Undoubtedly, simultaneously, it is also necessary to consider the grievance of the respondent No. 1a in relation to the order passed in the Revision Application No. 341 of 1998 on 22nd March, 1999.3. This Court has consistently held that no second revision is maintainable under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Socie...

Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar, Assistant Commissioner of Income ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Bom)275; [2004]268ITR339(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, rule is taken up for final hearing.2. This petition was heard by us along with another writ petition bearing No. 1505 of 2003, Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar, Asst. CIT (No. 1) : [2004]268ITR332(Bom) , wherein notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), dated November 5, 2002, for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 1996-97 was the subject-matter of challenge. That petition was heard along with this petition as the parties were the same and one of the basic grounds of challenge being identical.3. While deciding Writ Petition No. 1505 of 2003 : [2004]268ITR332(Bom) , the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated November 5, 2002, for reopening the assessment of the assessment year 1996-97 was quashed and set aside by us holding that the said notice was without jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer did not record in the reasons that there was failure on...