Mumbai Court October 2005 Judgments

Sharda Textile Mills India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 51,88,978.04 under Section 11A(2) of the Act read with the proviso to Sub-section (1) and Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules and imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,00,000/- in terms of Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules on the appellants herein, treating them as manufacturers; of processed manmade fabrics and holding that the fabrics had been undervalued by them.2. None appears for the appellants in spite of notice; hence we heard the learned DR and perused the records.3. We find that the Commissioner has given detailed reasonings as to why he holds Sharda Textile Mills India Ltd., the appellants herein, to be the manufacturers. He has found that the appellants played a pivotal and comprehensive role in the matter of getting grey fabrics including grey fabrics with the word "Sharda" on the selvedges, manufactured to their specifications and design and under supervision by their...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Aisco Engg. Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. After hearing both sides, I find that the respondents as per letter dated 20-9-99 have informed the Department that their activity involves training to their clients for use of paper writing, tally package. They also informed that they help customers Organisations in implementing a copyrighted package for maintaining their accounts and help them by solving queries of customer's employees in connection with the implementation of a software and that software package, up-gradation etc. procured by customers.3. Thus it is clear that the respondents do not have any consultancy services and as such they do not fall within the definition of "Management Consultancy" as given in Section 65(21) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner of Appeal in his order has categorically recorded that the law credential in which the appellant stands as "Management" is basically an Organisation that manages business, manager manages workers, management in the art of getting things done through people. I...

Munna Babubhai Shaikh Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR599

V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. Heard both sides.2. The applicant is seeking bail. The applicant has been convicted under Section 392 of I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for three years.3. It is stated by the learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant was on bail pending the trial and this liberty has not been misused by him. This statement has not been controverted by the prosecution. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that the maximum sentence imposed on the applicant is three years and this appeal is not likely to be heard within the said time. The learned A.P.P. has also handed over a report which states that the applicant has no other antecedents. The said report is taken on record and, marked 'X' for identification.4. The Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Gosai and Ors. v. State of Gujrat reported in : 1999CriLJ2568 , has observed that if the sentence is of limited duration and the appeal cannot be heard expeditiously, then bail should be gran...

Coca Cola India Private Limited a Company Incorporated Under the Compa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR543; (2005)199CTR(Bom)138; [2006]285ITR419(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 3. By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 4. This petition challenges the orders dated August 11, 2005 (Exhibit 'H') and September 19, 2005 (Exhibit 'Z') passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and the Commissioner of Income-tax, Pune respectively, dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner seeking stay of recovery of demand for the assessment year 2002-2003 and the petitioner has also challenged six notices all dated September 30, 2005 issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) whereby various bank accounts of the petitioner have been attached. 5. Assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act for assessment year 2002-2003 was passed by the assessing officer on March 31, 2005 inter alia making addition of Rs. 210 crores by disallowing the marketing expenses and service charges claimed by the petitioner. In the light of the above additi...

Ms. Stella A. Machado and ors. Vs. A.H. Wadia Charity Trust and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR133; (2005)107BOMLR1093

ORDERD.B. Bhosale, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.5.2005 rendered by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Greater Mumbai Region, Mumbai rejecting the application filed under Section 36(2) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (for short the Act'). The said application was filed by the petitioners seeking revocation of the order dated 31.12.2003 passed under Section 36(1)(a) of the Act, sanctioning the sale of land of respondent No. 1 -trust bearing Survey No. 292, Hissa No. 11(pt) village Kolekalyan admeasuring 6 acres, 16 gunthas (for short 'the said land'). Admittedly, pursuant to the order under Section 36(1)(a) a deed of conveyance had been executed by respondent No. 1 - trust in favour of respondent No. 2 - firm on 15.6.2004.3. The petitioners claim to be the heirs and legal representatives of one Anthony Louis Machado, who, according to them, was lessee i...

Atmaram Sitaram Mane Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR252; 2006(1)MhLj756

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Since common questions of law and facts arise in all these petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In all these petitions, the petitioners challenge the land acquisition proceedings on two grounds. Firstly that the petitioners were not given personal hearing in the course of the inquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called as 'the said Act', in spite of the written objections by the petitioners consequent to the publication of notification and service of the copy of the notice under Section 4 of the said Act and secondly that considering the fact that the notification under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976, hereinafter called as 'the Resettlement Act,' was published much prior to the enforcement of Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986, hereinafter called as 'the Rehabilitation Act and the ceiling limit whi...

Abdul Latif S/O DIn Mohammad Khatri Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR768; 2006(1)MhLj786

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.2. Heard Mr. Gordey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Dangre, learned A.G.P., for respondent No. 1, Mr. Ghare, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, Mr. Borkar learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Madkholkar learned counsel for intervenor.3. The facts which are relevant for adjudication are as under :-The petitioner has been recognized by respondent No. 3 as Leader of Opposition of Akola Municipal Corporation in the year 2003. This decision was challenged by Vishnu Shivram Mehere by filing Writ Petition No. 3418 of 2003 in this Court. This Court decided the said writ petition vide judgment dated 8-12-2003 reported in 2003(5) Mh.L.J. 522 2004(3) All MR 151. The issues involved in the said writ petition are reflected in para 30 of the judgment which reads thus -(A) Whether under Section 19-1AA, the Mayor has a power to recognise an elected councillor, who is, for the time being Leader of the Party...

Snehlata Keshaorao Pachkhede Vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR180; 2006(2)MhLj378

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner in this petition is a Retired Teacher of a primary school, who was promoted as Headmistress and whose promotion has been set aside on 15-3-1994 by the respondent No. 1 School Tribunal in Appeal filed under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), by the present respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 3 is the Management, while the respondent No. 4 is the Education Officer (Primary). The petitioner has retired on 31-3-1996 and till then she worked as Headmistress, in view of the interim orders passed by this Court. After her retirement the present intervener No. 1 Smt. Sheela Deshpande, has worked as Headmistress upto 30-6-2003 and thereafter the present respondent No. 2 was promoted as Headmaster by the Management.2. The question required to be decided in this petition can be briefly stated as under:How the Seniority of a teacher for his pr...

Niskalp Investments and Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. Hinduja Tmt Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR563; [2008]143CompCas204(Bom); [2007]79SCL368(Bom)

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present suit is filed for the recovery of Rs. 8,67,11,781 with interest (a) 20 per cent per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 3,70,00,000 from 11 -8-2004 till the date of payment and/or realisation.2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the claim arises under the agreement dated 25-11-1997 entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The said agreement inter alia provided that Hinduja Finance Corporation Ltd. (HFCL) has agreed to offer 10 lakhs shares of the Mody International Paper Ltd. (MIP) held by HFCL in the share capital of MIP to plaintiffs herein who agrees to acquire the same from HFCL @ Rs. 37 per share. The total consideration fixed under the agreement for the aforesaid 10 lakhs shares is sum of Rs. 3.7 crores. The said amount is due and payable by the plaintiffs to HFCL against the delivery of the said shares. Clause 8 of the said agreement inter alia provided that HFCL agrees to take, in consultation with the plaintiffs all such necess...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. the Simplex Mills Company

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC611

1. The issue pertains to refund of duty paid in pursuance of an order of final assessment. The respondents paid Rs. 65,05,506/- (Rupees Sixty five Page 0613 lacs five thousand five hundred six only) in pursuance of an order of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise dated 8th September 2005 and preferred an appeal against the said order to Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner remanded the matter for denovo consideration. The respondents claimed a refund of the above said amount on the ground that the amount paid by them represented a deposit made and since the order of the Deputy Commissioner was set aside by the Commissioner, they are eligible for the refund of pre-deposit made.This application for refund was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that the matter has not reached finality as the denovo proceedings were still pending. The respondents therefore, preferred an appeal against the order of rejection. In the impugned order the Commissioner ordered refund of ...