Mumbai Court September 2004 Judgments

Gujarat State Fertilizers and Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT245Tri(Mum.)bai

1. It is the contention of the appellants before us that interest on delayed refund is payable from the expiry of three months from the date of application for refund, while the department's view as expressed in the orders of the authorities below is that interest is payable after the passing of the Tribunal's order by which the orders of lower authorities rejecting the refund claim were set aside.2. We have heard both sides, and find that the appellants contention is correct in the light of Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of Rama Vision Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut [2004 (115) ECR 24 (Tri.-L.B.)] and the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Afrique Tradelinks Pvt.Ltd. v. Union of India [2004 (61) RLT 726 (Guj.)]. The submission of the Ld. DR that since the refund arises out of the order of the appellate Tribunal, the claim is not covered by Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, but by Section 27A does not alter the position as the explanation to Section 27A makes it clear th...

Mumbai Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. the State of Maharash ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR555; 2004(6)BomCR535; 2005(1)MhLj114

V.G. Palshikar J.1. By this petition, Mumbai Agricultural Produce Market Committee has challenged the action of the respondent State in demanding a sum of Rs. 23,88,500/-as per Government Resolution dated 5-10-1995. The petitioner has also challenged the Resolution dated 5-10-1995 as void or in the alternative its application to the petitioner as unreasonable.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition stated briefly are under:3. The undisputed facts are that the dues of the petitioner Committee are transmitted to the Government officials functioning under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code for recovery of the sums due to the Government as arrears of land revenue, 218 such certificates were issued by the petitioner between the period 1995-97 covering a sum of Rs. 23,88,500/-pertaining to recovery of amount of lease premium. The respondent State and its officials issued appropriate notices to various persons from whom the sum was due and on receipt of this notice the sums were recov...

Bhagwan Bajirao Bhargude and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR215; 2005(1)BomCR40; 2004(4)MhLj1010

Ranjana Desai, J.1. These two petitions challenge the validity of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Maharashtra Act No. 25) (for short, 'the Amending Act'). PIL No. 56 of 2002 is filed by senior advocates, practicing in Pune, in public interest, and Writ Petition No. 841 of 2003 is filed by one Gopal Narayan Dikshit, who has filed a revision application under Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Tenancy Act') before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal'). The said revision application is admitted on 24-7-2000 and is pending.2. On 3-7-2002, Rule was issued on PIL No. 56 of 2002. As an interim arrangement, the Divisional Commissioner was directed to entertain appeals/revisions/other proceedings in accordance with law. This court observed that the Divisional Commissioner would pass appropriate interim/interlocutory orders/directions without finally deciding them.3. On 29-7-2003, this court directed ...

Vasant Jobanputra Vs. Bank of India Staff Sampada Co-operative Housing ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR86; 2004(4)MhLj1093

A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This writ petition takes exception to the recovery certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, against the petitioner at the instance of the respondent Society dated March 18, 1989. The respondent Society had applied to the Deputy Registrar for issuance of recovery certificate on the assertion that the petitioner was in arrears of certain demands and outgoings of the respondent Society towards the maintenance and service charges, non-occupational charges and balance cost of construction along with interest accrued thereon. The said proceedings were resisted by the petitioner by contesting the demand as made being inflated and not realistic. The Deputy Registrar, on analysing the materials on record, has accepted the claim of the respondent Society that the petitioner was liable to pay amount towards maintenance and service charges from September, 1983 to June, 1987 of Rs. 14,348.00 and interest accrued thereon of Rs. 1366.53 at the rate of...

Waman Vyankatesh Deshpande Deceased Y.S. Mashankar and ors. Vs. Atul P ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR181; 2005(2)BomCR212; 2005(1)MhLj133

K.J. Rohee, J.1. The appellants have challenged the order dated 23-3-1998 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing their first appeal No. 473/1997 against the order dated 3-10-1997 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, appointing 15 persons as the trustees of the public trust.2. Shri Ambadevi Sansthan Amravati, is a registered public trust. The father of appellant No. 4 was one of the trustees of the said trust. The father of appellant No. 4 died on 3-12-1989. As there were vacancies which were not filled in, appellant No. 4 moved an application before the Joint Charity Commissioner under Section 47 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act') bearing Application No. 1/1996 for admitting him as a trustee. During the pendency of the application, several persons expressed their desire for being appointed as trustees in the vacant posts. After considering the matter, the Joint Charity Commissioner appointed 15 persons as the trustees of the said trust. Appe...

Haridas Namdeorao Rawankar and ors. Vs. Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR214; (2005)107BOMLR911; 2005(1)MhLj645

A.P. Deshpande, J.1. This writ petition is filed by six petitioners who were aspirants for selection to the post of Associate Professor in Agriculture Chemistry. The respondent No. 1 University under its advertisement dated 30th July, 1990, inter-alia, advertised three posts of Associate Professor in agriculture Chemistry. Out of the said three posts, one post was reserved for scheduled caste category, one for scheduled tribe category and one was an open post. All the petitioners, who are six in number, were to compete for open post. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were eligible and qualified for being appointed in the post of Associate Professor in Agriculture Chemistry. Section 58 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeths) Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') lays down that no person shall be appointed by the University as a member of the academic staff, except on the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted for that purpose i...

Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan (D) by L.Rs. Vs. Sou. Umabai and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom98; 2005(1)ALLMR543; 2005(2)BomCR220; 2005(2)MhLj8

F.I. Rebello, J. 1. The appellants, original plaintiffs in a suit filed against respondents original defendants for specific performance, in the alternative prayed for some other reliefs. Some of the Prayer Clauses read as under :'(a) Defendant be compelled to give the reconveyance of purchase deed of the suit property in the name of the plaintiffs as per the deed of agreement and get the same registered. On order being passed, the plaintiff is depositing the amount into Court.(b) In case of purchase deed being not done by the defendant No. 1, the same be got done through Court in the names of the plaintiffs on its completion.(c) Alternatively, the suit property after being free from mortgage as per the deed of mortgage under Serial No. 7 dated 2-1-1971 be given in actual possession of the plaintiffs.(d) It be declared that the plaintiffs are free from debt as per the Bombay Debt Relief Act and the suit property after being free from debt be given in possession of the plaintiffs.(e) In...

Goverdhandas Mulchand Agrawal and ors. Vs. Bherulal Uderam Bagade and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj196

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 10-2-1987 in Civil Appeal No. 65 of 1984. The judgment under challenge affirms the decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 323 of 1979 dated 27-6-1983 of IInd Joint Civil Judge, J.D., Dhule.2. The proceedings are under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short the Bombay Rent Act). The petitioners are original plaintiffs whereas respondents are original defendants. The suit property is C.T.S. No. 1893 and 1824 belonging to the petitioners.3. It is common ground that respondents are tenants of the ground floor premises which consists of three rooms, ota and godown. It appears that initially two rooms and godown was let out to the father of the respondents. The rent was fixed at Rs. 100/- per month. Then the third room was also let and monthly rent was increased to Rs. 160/-. In April, 1979, respondent took one more room adjac...

Aditya Industries and Shri M.N. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1.1 The appellants are manufacturing two types of products i.e. which are excisable and also products which are fully exempted under appropriate notifications they are -- i) Plastic Pipes and Tubes of various types such as Agricultural Rigid PVC Pipes, Braided pipes and other falling under sub-heading No. 3917.00; Plastic Pipes fitted with Brass falling under subheading 3922.90 chargeable to excise duty @ 25% with notification No. 1/93 dated 28/2/93, 38/97 dated 27/6/97 etc, as applicable during the relevant period. As they have been paying duty on the said finished products, they had claimed the benefit of modvat credit on the inputs used in these products under Rule 57A. ii) Plastic Closures such as Casing-N-Caping falling under sub-heading 3923.90 which were fully exempted under appropriate Notification No. 8/96 dated 23/7/96 (for the period October'96 to February'97) thereafter under Notification No. 4/97 dated 1/3/97 (For the period March'97 to January'98) respectively, the said ...

Manik Machinery Manufacturers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC347

2. The Commissioner in the impugned order disposed off some four show cause notices one of them issued beyond the normal period of limitation, while demanding differential duty of Rs. 1,52,42,040/- imposed an equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q of Central Excise Act and Central Excise Rules respectively and for good measure demanded interest under Section 11AB. He refrained from confiscating plant and machinery under Rule 173Q (2) Central Excise Rules since quote "In my consideration of the facts and circumstances covering this case justice is served by the imposition of penalties as above on the company". In our opinion justice would have been better served had the Commissioner not demanded the differential duty and imposed a penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q. By the way there are judicial pronouncements against imposing penalties in this manner, if one may care.4. The appellant manufactures goods falling under Chapter heading 84 of CETA. Prior...