Mumbai Court October 2005 Judgments

S.V. Business Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Both the appeals are arising out of the same impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and issue involved is identical. As such, both the appeals are being disposed off by a common order. I have heard Shri K.V. Sahasrabudhe, ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant and Shri N.V.B. Nair, ld. DR for the revenue.2. The appellant is engaged in the processing of textile fabrics and had cleared MMF fabrics to 100% EOU under bond. They filed refund claims of the Modvat credit availed by them and lying unutilized for Rs. 1,52,265/- and Rs. 87,585/- for the month of January, 2002 and February, 2002 in terms of provisions of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001, read with Section 11B of Central Excise Act. The said refund claims were allowed by the Assistant Commissioner by observing that the appellant had given an undertaking that no rebate claims in respect of the deemed exports had been filed by them. He further observed that in terms of Notification No. 53/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 29....

Gestetner (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The issue relates to classification of goods declared as multi-functioning printer, copier, fax, scanner Model No.1802 and 4502 under Heading 8471.60 as output unit of ADPM. It is seen from the catalogue of machine model 1802, the machine is described as affordable office digital document production in one compact machine which can print, copy and fax. The catalogue for machine model 4502 describes machine as (digital invention for multi functional productivity) which can print, copy, fax and scan. Thus, these machines are multi functional which function in stand alone modes as well as in conjunction with ADPM falling to be classified under Heading 8472 as office machines.2. Both the Lower Authorities after hearing submissions of the appellant and after going through the documents, classified the aforesaid machines looking to their various features and functions under sub-heading 8472.90. The said classification is under challenge in the present appeal. The appell...

Cce Vs. Kohli Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(196)ELT49Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Revenue is in appeal, aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upholding the confirmation of the amount of duty by lower authorities but setting aside the imposition of penalty of Rs.35000/- on the assessee.2. The grounds, taken up by Revenue, are that the Apex Court in the case of Z.B. Nagarkar v. Union of India and Ors. (Civil Appeal No.4294/1999) held "It is difficult to accept the argument of the appellant that levy of penalty is discretionary. It is only the amount of penalty which is discretionary," and further Central Board of Excise & Customs has issued Circular no. 387/90/98-JC dated 9.5.2000 based on the above mentioned decision of the Supreme Court, which would be binding all Central Excise officers.3. After hearing he Ld. D.R., the grounds taken and considering the matter, since no one appeared for the Respondent, we find : (a) Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) is not bound by the orders issued by the Central Board of Excise &...

John Oomen and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(1)SLJ53CAT

1. These two O.As. viz. 282/2005 and 307/2005 have been filed by the applicants aggrieved by the cancellation of the select panel dt.14.2.2005 for Goods Driver (for short, GDs) by respondents. There are 41 applicants in O. A. No. 282/2005 and 47 applicants in O.A. 307/2005 and all of them were included in the panel dt. 14.2.2005 containing the names of 141 persons who hadqualified in the written examination. We therefore, propose to dispose of both the O.As. with this common order.2. The earned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents had taken action for filling up vacant posts of GDs. The written test was conducted in batches on five dates viz. 10.12.2004, 14.12.2004, 18.12.2004, 22.12.2004 and 26.12.2004. The result of written examination was declared on 14.2.2005. The Railway Unions in a letter dt. 13.12.2005 addressed to the Divisional Railway Manager, Personnel Branch, Mumbai CST complained that the question paper set on 10.12.2004 was not as per the guidelines l...

Acit Vs. Mrs. Leela P. Nanda

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)102ITD281(Mum.)

1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of CIT (A)-XI, Bombay dated 15^th September 1993 for assessment year 1991-92. The proceedings arise out of assessment made Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The first and second ground of appeal relates to exemption Under Section 54 in respect of cost of second flat purchased by the assessee.3. Brief facts, as stated and as borne from the record are that the assessee agreed to sell her residential flat at "Shivthirth" Building to Parikh family for Rs. 51,51,000/-. The deal was done through two brokers and it was agreed to pay 1% brokerage to each of them. Since the sale consideration exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs the statement in Form No.37-1 was submitted before the appropriate authority. The appropriate authority passed an order Under Section 269UD(1) acquiring the flat for central government and the consideration was fixed at Rs. 50,62,398/-.4. The assessee entered into an agreement on 16.10.1990 for purchase of ...

Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. D.C. Polyster Pvt. Ltd., Sir

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)102ITD394(Mum.)

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in directing the assessing officer to allow the carry forward of investment allowance of Rs. 36,05,370/- instead of Rs. 14,59,896/- allowed by the assessing officer by holding that amount of Rs. 21,45,574/-charged Under Section 115J cannot be adjusted against the brought forward investment allowance ignoring the provisions laid down in Sub-section (2) of Section 115Jof the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Without prejudice to ground No. 1, the decision of learned CIT (A) is contrary to the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Suryalatha Spinning Mills Ltd. and Anr. 223 ITR 713. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in holding that the assessing officer is not justified in reopening the assessment merely because of the change of opinion on the part of the assessing officer ignoring the fact that Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had been ...

Harish Kawa Vs. P.T. Mehta

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR657; 2006(1)BomCR70; (2005)107BOMLR854

Acts/Rules/Orders: Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908 - Order 21, Rules 10, 12, 32, 32(1) to (4), 32(5), 35, 97(1), 97(2), 98, 98(2), 99, 101, 102, 103, 104 and 105; - Order 39, Rule 1; Advocates' Act, 1961 ;Bombay High Court (O.S) Rules;Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 55(1) and 52;Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 3, 12 and 14Cases Referred: Mukund Bapu Jadhav v. Tanu Sakhu Pawar, A.I.R. 1933 Bombay 457; Subhan B. Shaikh Noor v. Abdul Samad Haji Abdul Raheman, 1978 Mh.L.J. 519; Babulal v. Hazarilal Kishori Lal and Ors., (1982) 3 S.C.R. 94; Silverline Forum Pvt.Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust and Anr., (1998) 3 S.C.C. 723; Bhanwar Lal v. Satyanarain and Anr., A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 358; Krishna Tukaram v. Mahadeo Krishnaji, A.I.R. 1953 Bombay 227; Krishna Kumar Khemka v. Grindlays Bank, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 899; Sujit Singh and Ors. v. Harbans Singh and Ors., 1995 (6) SCC 50; Ramchandra Ganpat Shinde v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1673; Satya Brata Biswal v. Kalyan Kumar Kisku and ...

Mr. Dilip Jadhav and anr. Vs. Ms. Lata Narvekar and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR545; 2005(6)BomCR244

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present Notice of Motion has been taken out for appointment of Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay as receiver of all the cassettes, ACDs, VCDs and DVDs of the cinematograph film made of the programme 'Ala Bahar Lavanila / Ala Lavanila Bahar' and/or their distributors, stockists, retail sales agents, employees, officers, etc. with all powers under Order XV Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. By prayer (b) injunction is sought restraining the defendants either by themselves or through their agents, servants, officers, assigns, distributors, retailers, dealers etc. from in any manner dealing with selling, reproducing and/or making copies of the said cassettes, ACDs, VCDs and DVDs and/or of any other audio, visual reproduction in any form of the said cinematograph film made of the programme 'Ala Bahar Lavanila / Ala Lavanila Bahar'. It has been further prayed that defendants also should be injuncted from dealing with, selling, reproducing and/or making any copie...

Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Shri Ashok Dnyanoba Dhumal and

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR460; 2006(2)BomCR625; 2006(1)MhLj147

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition filed by the employer-company takes exception to the award passed by the First Labour Court at Pune in Reference (IDA) No. 36 of 1990 directing to reinstate the respondent-workman on his original post with continuity of service and full backwages for the intervening period. The undisputed factual matrix relevant for deciding the petition could be described as under. 1A. The respondent-workman came to be employed as a helper on temporary basis as a daily rated unskilled workman during the following periods:Sr.No. Date of Date of No. of days Employment Termination worked 1. 23-07-1984 31-12-1984 1322. 10-02-1985 18-03-1985 31 3. 20-12-1985 19-02-1986 32 4. 28-02-1986 07-07-1986 107 5. 09-07-1986 31-08-1986 43 6. 16-03-1987 15-11-1987 119 After 15-11-1987 the respondent-workman was not employed by the petitioner and no dispute was raised on this count. By an order dated 28-03-1988 he came to be employed as Helper-1 from 26-03-1988 for a maximum period o...

Sanjeev Alias Sanjay Subhash Grover Vs. Vertex Trading Co. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR85; 2006(2)BomCR95; 2006(1)MhLj67

Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. The notice of motion has been filed by the applicant-plaintiff for ad-interim relief, as well as, interim relief against the respondents-defendants in respect of the suit premises i.e. Unit No. 14,ground floor, Ashish Co-operative Ind. Estate Ltd. Gokhale Road, Mumbai. These reliefs are (a) for appointment of receiver with all powers and Order XXXX of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.), (b) Mesne profit from March, 1986 till the delivery of the suit premises at the rate of Rs. 75,000/- per month (c) order of injunction, from storing combustible goods in the suit premises and (d) a retirement order from alienating or parting with the possession of the suit premises and or a creating any 3rd party interest in the suit premises or any part thereof. A supporting affidavit dated 17th September, 2003 has been controverted by an counter-affidavit dated 8th October, 2003, filed by defendant No. 2, as a partner of defendant No. 1. After considering the rival contentions ...