Mumbai Court August 2004 Judgments

Candico (i) Ltd. Vs. C.C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

a) Appellant is an assessee manufacturing and paying duty on confectionary. During the period December 2001 to February 2002, they had cleared the goods on payment of duty on assessable value arrived by deduction of transportation charges / freight on average basis. They were issued a notice and the said deduction was denied duty demand of Rs. 77,794/- and pre-deposit of Rs. 10,000/- along with interest was imposed. b) CCE (Appeals), after examining the proviso of Rule 5 & 7 of the Valuation Rules 2000 found that it was clear that Transportation cost from the place of removal to the place of delivery is allowable mat too on actual basis subject to the condition that it should be shown separately in the manner along with the value (SIC) for the goods so charged and if that was not done the deduction for freight was not eligible. Thereafter, relying upon CBEC order no. 6/59/2000 - CX/ dated 19.12.2000, he did not allow such deductions as they were not shown separately and did not gr...

Cipla Ltd. and anr. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(117)LC59Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides at length. The appellant company, M/s Cipla Limited, developed a new drug named "Deferiprone" for treatment of Thalassemia and after successful clinical trials, the results of which were monitored by the Drugs Controller, obtained a licence to manufacture and market the same subsequently. It is not in dispute that after approval by the Drugs Controller, M/s Cipla regularly manufactured and marketed the drug on payment excise duty on the same.The impugned order relates to the period during which M/s Cipla manufactured and supplied the drug for clinical trials free of cost.The question that has been raised in this appeal is whether such manufacture and supply attracts central excise duty. It has been contended on behalf of M/s Cipla that during the impugned period, they had no licence from the Drugs Controller to manufacture and sale the drug and hence it was not marketable. They further contend that all the new drugs have to necessarily undergo successful clinical t...

Acit (inv.) Vs. P.N. Writer and Co.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)94ITD446(Mum.)

1. Revenue has filed the present appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) XLIII, Mumbai ('CIT(A)' in short). The appeal relates to the assessment year 1992-93.2. Parties represented by their respective representative and counsel have been heard. They have made oral as well as written submissions, in extenso, at the time of hearing.Ground Nos. 1: Admissibility of deduction Under Section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961 "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of the assessee Under Section 80-O of the I. T. Act 1961 in respect of the income from clearing and forwarding business done outside India, although the assessee has not rendered any technical or professional service as held in the case of CIT v. Jeevanlal Lallubhai & Co. reported at 206 ITR 548 (Bom.)." 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as relevant to the aforesaid ground of appeal, are as follows: The assessee-firm, d...

Sujit Vasant Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom1; 2004(4)ALLMR537; 2004(5)BomCR497; 2004(4)CTC572; 2004(3)MhLj1109

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This Writ Petition has been placed before us because the Division Bench of this Court has referred following three questions for consideration to the Full Bench by order dated 30-1-2004.(1) Whether in the matter of scrutiny and verification of the caste certificate and/or the caste claims of candidates elected to the Local Self-Government, the procedure laid down by the Apex Court in Kum. Madhuri Patil's case so also the procedure prescribed by the Resolution dated 1st January 1998, 19th April 1999 and 25th January 2000 could have any application even before coming in force of Act No. XXIII of 2001 for the reason that Local Self-Government Acts were holding field and more so in view of the bar contained in Article 243-O and 243-ZG of the Constitution of India and other statutory provisions contained in the Local Self-Government Act providing for a remedy of an Election Petition?(2) Whether the provision contained in Act No. XXIII of 2001 are repugnant to the scheme ...

Pune District Central Co-operative Bank Limited Vs. Shivajirao Dinkarr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR86; 2004(6)BomCR33; [2005(104)FLR238]; (2005)ILLJ838Bom; 2004(4)MhLj859

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This Petition arises out of the judgment and order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Appellate Authority confirming the same. By the judgments and orders, the Authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act have directed the Petitioner bank to pay additional gratuity to the respondent-workman including interest thereon @ 10% per annum w.e.f. 30.4.1997 till the date of the order. The Petitioner-bank has also been directed to pay further interest of 10% if the amounts were not paid within 30 days as directed.2. The Respondent-workman was employed as grade I officer with the petitioner-bank. He was retired w.e.f 28.2.1997. The retirement age was 60 years. After retirement on 28.2.1997, the Respondent was paid gratuity due to him on 18.3.1997. The maximum amount of gratuity payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 being Rs. 100,000/- at the relevant time, the respondent was paid this amount.2. It appears that on 3....

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Arjun Dattaram Bhekare,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ472

R.S. Mohoe, J.1. This appeal is filed by the State of Maharashtra meeting to quash and set aside the Judgment and order dated 6.11.1992 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri in Sessions Case No. 48 of 1992 acquitting the respondents (hereinafter referred as 'Accused Nos. 1 to 3' respectively) from the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as unders:a) That, the deceased Yeshwant Laxman. Bhekare was the son of P.W.No. 5-Laxmi Laxman Bhekare and he was residing alongwith Laxmi at Village Pet Panhale, Taluka Guhagar, Dist. Ratnagiri. That, on 25.12.1991 at about 7.30p.m. P.W.No. 5-Laxmi Bhekare heard a cry 'bay bay' and went towards that sound. When she reached the house of one Parvati Vishnu Bhekare she saw Accused No. 1 Arjun, Accused No. 2-Atmaram and Accused No. 3-Santosh assaulting Yeshwant with ribs. Laxmi tried to intervene and made a request to the accused not to beat her son Yeshwant. However, all t...

Gauri Mohan Pohoomul Vs. Regional Director, Employees State Insurance ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR537; [2005(104)FLR603]; (2005)ILLJ478Bom; 2004(4)MhLj1027; 2005(1)SLJ489(Bombay)

F.I. Rebello, J2. The petitioner who has joined as owner and Proprietor of M/s A. G. Daftary is carrying on the business as Engineers and Contractors in the name and style of M/s A. G. Daftary. By the present petition they impugn the order dated 17-12-2003 passed by the Employees State Insurance Court, Mumbai. The said decision was rendered pursuant to application made by the petitioner herein under Section 75 of the E.S.I.S. Act pursuant to notification No. ESI/1677/3910/PH-15 dated 18-9-1978. The case of the petitioner is that they are registered as approved contractors with the Government of Gujarat, Roads and Buildings Division as also the Mumbai Municipal Corporation as also CIDCO, and do the work like building construction including retaining walls, water storage reservoirs, construction of road over bridges and foot over-bridges including pre-stressed construction, construction of cement concrete roads etc. The inspector of the respondents it is averred had visited the office of...

V.V. Benadikar Vs. N.G. Kulkarni

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom475; 2005(1)BomCR221

R.M. Lodha, J.1. This reference is under Sub-section 5 of Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (for short the Act of 1949').2. One Mr. U.V. Benadikar (for short 'the complainant') filed a complaint dated December 18, 1978 against Mr. N.G. Kulkarni (for short 'the respondent') under Section 21 of the Act of 1949.3. The complainant was articled clerk with the respondent for the period from June 15, 1976 to November 24, 1978. According to him he wanted to take transfer from the respondent but the respondent refused to sign on form No. 20A. The complainant alleged that when he went to the respondent for signing form No. 20A the respondent orally told him that he would sign on form No. 20A only if he (the complainant) gave him receipts for receipt of stipend without receiving the same. The complainant refused to do so and consequently the respondent refused to sign form No. 20A. The complainant levelled three charges of misconduct against the respondent in his complaint namely ...

Wg. Cdr. S.S. Dhingra (Retd.) Vs. Ministry of Defence and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR869

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking disability pension from 31-12-1994 and is challenging the orders dated 13-5-1999, 20-6-1999 and the subsequent order dated 8-3-2001 passed by the Competent Authority, the First Appellate Authority and Second Appellate Authority.2. The petitioner appeared in person and therefore, his pleadings in the matter are scattered in various rejoinders, applications, which are all on record. Similarly, the respondents also did not file any return and at the time of final hearing of the matter, the Counsel for the respondents made request to call for their submissions filed to oppose the admission. Thus submissions were, therefore, accordingly called. The respondents have also filed their replies to the rejoinders and applications of the petitioner from time to time. Thus, the pleadings of the parties are not compact in any one document and one has to peruse all these papers to ascer...

The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer Vs. Suhas S/O ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR982

P.S. Brahme, J.1. Heard Mr. Mandpe, learned A.P.P., for the appellant and Mr. Abhijit Deshpande, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed on 31.5.1991 by Special Judge, Amravati in Special Case No. 4/1983 acquitting the respondents of offence under Section 161 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and for offence under Section 5(1)(d) punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. It is stated by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 that respondent No. 1 is dead. Mr. M. M. Agrawal was appearing in this appeal for respondent No. 1, He has filed a pursis on 9.10.1997 informing that respondent No. 1 died on 20.2.1995. The learned A. P. P., has not disputed that respondent No. 1 died during the pendency of this appeal. In this view of the matter, the appeal against respondent No. 1 stands abated.2. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 stated that deceased respondent No. 1 was the main accused a...