Mumbai Court February 2004 Judgments

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

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)BomCR691; [2004]268ITR332(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, rule is taken up for final hearing.2. In this petition, the petitioners are challenging the notice dated November 5, 2002, for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 1996-97, issued by respondent No. 1, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act' for short).3. The petitioners are engaged in the business of manufacture of various consumer products in respect of which excise duty is payable. The petitioners also import certain raw materials for their manufacturing activities subject to payment of customs duty may be leviable under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.4. The petitioners had filed their return of income for the assessment year 1996-97 on November 30, 1996. The computation of income was accompanied by a specific note reading as under :'. . . . in accordance with the practice followed for the earlier years, the company has not made a provision for excise duty and customs duty on stoc...

Mrs. Fatima Abdul Rehman Omer Vs. Mrs. Salam MoIn Zafar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom239; 2005(1)ALLMR66; 2004(4)BomCR883; 2004(4)MhLj42

ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. By this notice of motion, the defendants pray that the suit as filed by the next friend on behalf of the plaintiff Mrs. Fatima Abdul Rehman Omer, be dismissed on the ground that the next friend Ashfaque Abdul Rehman Omer is incompetent to pursue the suit on account of the fact that he is staying outside India and also because he has adverse interest to that of the plaintiff.2. The present suit has been filed through the next friend Ashfaque Abdul Rehman Omer on the assertion that Mrs. Fatima Abdul Rehman Omer Plaintiff, is of unsound mind being incapable by reason of mental infirmity, due to her old age, of protecting her interest when suing or being sued.3. I shall first deal with the argument regarding the incompetency of Ashfaque Abdul Rehman Omer to pursue the suit as a next friend of plaintiff on account of the fact that he is resident of USA and staying outside India, Counsel for the defendants has placed reliance on the provisions of Order 32, Rule 4 r...

Bageshwari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited Vs. Shivajirao S/O Gopalra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR536; 2004(3)ARBLR602(Bom); 2004(4)MhLj28

A.B. Naik, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respective Advocates waives service. With the consent of the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.2. This Writ Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd December, 2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Jalna, thereby dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 393 days in filing Miscellaneous Civil Petition No. 88/2003, under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. The petitioner herein, is a society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The main purpose and object of the petitioner was to crush sugarcane of its members and to produce sugar. The petitioner entered into an agreement with respondent No. 1 i.e. proprietor of M/s Tara Engineers Kolhapur in the year 1991, for erection of factory and installation of ...

Shamsunder S/O Pandharinath Yadnurwar Vs. Wasudeo Ganpati Bobde

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR404; (2004)106BOMLR218

S.T. Kharche, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the respondent was a protected tenant and the certificate issued by the Tenancy Tahsildar would be the conclusive proof and on that basis mutation entry could be recorded and certified by the Revenue Inspector in the land records?2. Relevant facts are as under :The petitioner is the original owner of the agricultural land of which the respondent claims to be a protected tenant and, therefore, he filed an application before the Talathi for recording mutation entry in his name on the basis of the certificate issued by the Tenancy Tahsildar under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short the Tenancy Act). The mutation entry was recorded which was certified by the Revenue Inspector in Mutation Entry No. 259 on 22.2.1983. The petitioner/ owner being aggrieved by the certification of the said imitation entry had carried appeal to the Sub-Divisional Officer under Secti...

Anand B. Apte Vs. Cit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN656(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25-3-1994 passed by the Commissioner, 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 Income Tax 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 Act and were accepted as correct and assessment orders were passed accordingly with penalty an...

Ashok S/O Mahadeorao Murtzapurkar and anr. Vs. the Divisional Controll ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR66; (2004)106BOMLR140

A.S. Oka, J.1. In this petition rule was issued on 15th December, 2003 and ad interim relief was granted. On 6th February, 2004 the petition came up before me for hearing as to interim relief. While arguing the matter on grant of interim relief, the Counsel appearing for the parties agreed that considering the time required for hearing on question of granting interim relief, the petition itself should be heard and finally decided. Accordingly the writ petition was finally heard on subsequent dates. The hearing was concluded on 17th February, 2004 and the Judgment was reserved.2. The petitioner No. 1 was employed by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Corporation') as a Conductor. On 28th August, 1994 the petitioner No. 1 was on duty. The bus in which the petitioner No, 1 was doing his duty was checked at Yeoda by the Checking Squad of the said Corporation. The Checking Officer found that the Way Bill of the petitioner No. 1 was not pro...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bajaj Plastics Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT308Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is revenue's appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby revenue's appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Additional Commissioner was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) solely on the ground that the department's appeal was filed by the Assistant Commissioner and not the adjudicating authority namely the "Additional Commissioner" i.e. the adjudicating authority.2. Heard the DR. The respondents have furnished written submissions and placed reliance on the judgments of Cegat in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. Lloyds Metals and Engineering Ltd. & Others reported in 2003 (59) RLT 229.3. In the revenue's appeal, reliance has been placed on two decisions of Cegat namely : - Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. Falcon Tyres Ltd. reported in 1997 (91) ELT 649 (Tri.) Sun Export Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs reported in 1989 (42) ELT 308 (Tribunal) to claim that the appeals filed by any other aut...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mukund Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT177Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The dispute involved in the present appeal of the Revenue is as regards the classification of Knuckles and Coupler body casting.Whereas the Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the respondent's contention that the said castings are classifiable under sub-heading 7325.90 in the light of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Shivaji Works Ltd. v. C.C.E. Aurangabad - 1994 (69) E.L.T. 674 (Tribunal), the Revenue's contention is that the same are properly classifiable under heading 86.07 inasmuch as the same are distinctly identifiable as parts of railway or tram way locomotive or rolling stock.2. The impugned decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) has been arrived at after taking note of the manufacturing process adopted by the respondents, which has been reproduced in the said order, in detail. He has also observed that the goods in question do not possess the essential characteristics of any goods except of casting and only proof machining has been done on the same. As such, by follo...

Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal of the appellants is directed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereunder the claim for modvat credit in respect of capital goods obtained by the appellants on lease basis has been denied.3. The appellants are claiming that the show cause notice issued to them merely mentions that the capital goods do not qualify for modvat credit as the goods have been purchased under lease or hire purchase scheme. It further says that the appellants had not followed the procedure as mentioned under Rule 57R of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Notification No. 27/94/CE(NT) dated 17/06/94 issued thereunder. In the adjudication order the conditions of Notification No. 27/94/CE(NT) are extracted and thereafter it is mentioned that the appellants have not produced any documents to establish that the amount of excise duty as indicated in the invoices was paid to the financing company prior to the first instalment of lease, hire purchase or loan.It is furt...

Bharatiya Bhavan Co-operative Housing Society Limited and anr. Vs. Kri ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom387; 2004(2)ALLMR340; 2004(5)BomCR196; 2004(2)MhLj810

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The order of the Co-operative Appellate Court passed on 24th December, 2003 in Revision Application No. 673 of 2003 permitting the respondent No. 1 to plead through his attorney instead of an advocate, is sought to be challenged in this petition. The notice of the hearing of the matter was issued to the respondents for final disposal of the same, at the admission stage. However, apart from the respondent No. 1, none has appeared. In any case, there is no case for proceeding against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the petition is liable to be dismissed in limine against the said respondents and is accordingly dismissed. Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the respondent No. 1, while issuing the rule, by consent, the matter was heard forthwith for final disposal.2. The respondent No. 1 filed a case for recovery of amount of Rs. 51 lakhs as damages and Rs. 20 lakhs towards repairs charges from the petitioner No. 1-society and by order dated 1...