Mumbai Court December 2005 Judgments

Prime Forwarders and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC478

2. The appellants have filed applications under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 in their concerned appeals, for waiver of pre-deposit amount as confirmed in the Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Kandla, and to grant stay from its recovery.3. An information was received by the Customs House that a consignment of Tin Bearing Sand with a top covering of tinplated brass was being imported from Malaysia by M/s. Vaibhav Laxmi Impex Pvt. Ltd., Delhi (Appeal No. C/976/05) by misdeclaring the same as 'Brass Scrap as per ISRI Label' and grossly undervaluing the same. Investigation wing of the Customs House initiated investigation in respect of the said consignment reached the Kandla Port in seven (7) containers vide Bill of Lading dated 11.04.2003 and it was found that the description of goods contained in the containers were shown as 'Brass scrap as per ISRI Label' and the consignee was shown as M/s. Vaibhav Laxmi Impex Pvt. Ltd., De...

The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Vs. Smt. Sharada Tukar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2006)ACC558; 2006(2)ALLMR421; 2006(2)BomCR60; (2006)108BOMLR7

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. This is the first appeal of The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company, original respondent No.4, hereby challenge has been made to the Judgment and Order dated 6th September, 1990 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangli (Claims Tribunal) whereby an application under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Motors Act) of respondent Nos.1 to 3 / applicant Nos.1 to 3 has been allowed only against the appellant. 2. The respondent No.4 herein, as a goods carrier was driving truck (MHL - 1194) owned by respondent No.5. Respondent No.6 is subsequent purchaser of the truck. The said truck was insured with the appellant as a goods carrier. The deceased Tukaram, aged 24 years, on 23rd July, 1979 at about 9.00 a.m. left his village Mayani for carrying bricks (Vita) by the truck in question. The said truck met with an accident, as one Ambassador Car was coming in a high speed from the opposite direction. Both the vehicle were in high speed. The driver, ...

Laxman N. Deshmukh Vs. Madhukar B. Deshmukh

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR257; 2006(1)MhLj882

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The petitioner instituted Regular Civil Suit 394 of 1983 for possession. CTS No. 269 at Bhavani Peth, Satara belongs to the Satara Municipality. The Municipality let out the open space to several persons for carrying on business. The suit property, bearing CTS No. 269/6, admeasures 9 ft. by 9 ft. and was let out by the Municipality prior to 1960 to Dadu Shripati Pawar who constructed a shed thereon. The petitioner purchased the shed on 15th September, 1966 and since then conducted a cycle repair shop. The petitioner initially paid rent in the amount of Rs. 8.90 to the Municipality which was increased to Rs. 12/- and thereafter, from 1975, to Rs. 15/-. The respondent is related to the petitioner and it was the contention of the petitioner that the respondent was engaged to work in the cycle repair shop. On receipt of a notice from the Municipality for the payment of the rent and taxes, the petitioner claimed to have paid an amount of Rs. 200/- on 15th March, 1975....

iram Feroz Vs. Ayaz Gadhiya

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR295; IV(2006)BC499; 2006(3)BomCR689; [2006]132CompCas194(Bom); 2006(2)MhLj514

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The suit is filed to recover the amounts lent and advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant. The suit is based on a dishonoured cheque. The cheque was issued by the defendant towards the repayment of the said amount.2. The defendant admits that the loan was advanced. The defendant admits that he issued the cheque towards the repayment and that the same was dishonoured.3. Two defences were raised. It was contended that the entire amount had been repaid. It was also contended that the suit is not maintainable as a Summary Suit.4. The payment by cheques referred to by the defendant are each in the sum of Rs. 4500/- paid half yearly. This does not evidence repayment of the principal amount. It in fact evidences an agreement on the part of the parties for interest at 18% per annum. In paragraph 11 of the reply, the defendant has also contended that he paid an aggregate sum of Rs. 27,500/-. There is no evidence whatsoever to substantiate the same. There was no reply to t...

Tulshiram S/O Maroti Kohad and anr. Vs. Roopchand S/O Laxman Ninawe an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom183; 2006(3)ALLMR49; 2006(2)MhLj647

R.C. Chavan, J.1. The Plaintiff, whose Special Civil Suit No. 66 of 1989 for damages was allowed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhandara, and the decree was upset on defendants' Regular Civil Appeal No. 148 of 1993 by the learned District Judge, Bhandara, has preferred this appeal.2. It was not in dispute that plaintiff No. 2 Rekha, daughter of plaintiff No. 1 Tulshiram, was born on 4th May, 1971. On 25th December, 1988, she was engaged to be married to defendant No. 1 Roopchand, son of defendant No. 2 Laxman. The marriage was scheduled to be held on 7th July, 1989 according to the plaintiffs, and on 20th November, 1989 according to the defendants. It is likewise not in dispute that the marriage was broken and the parties have married elsewhere.3. It was the plaintiffs' case that the betrothal ceremony was held at Nagpur on 25th December, 1988, where about 100 guests descended from Bhandara and 300 guests of the defendants feasted. Plaintiff No. 1 was required to spend ab...

ito Vs. Roborant Investments (P.) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2006]7SOT181(NULL)

ORDERD.K. Srivastava, A.M. The appeal filed by the department is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) ('Commissioner (Appeals)' in short) on the following grounds:'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in deleting penalty of Rs. 9,86,733 levied under section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961'2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income before the assessing officer ('assessing officer' in short) declaring NIL income. It was taken up for scrutiny by the assessing officer as a result of which the assessment was completed under section 143(3) determining the total income at Rs. 8,54,750 which, inter alia, included rental income of Rs. 9,00,000. The assessing officer assessed the said rental income as income from house property whereas the assessee had shown the same as service charges under the head 'Income from business'. The assessee carri...

Bhagwan Dhongo Kharate Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2006)DMC645

V.M. Kanade, J.1. The appellant is challenging the judgment and and order passed by the Court of Session for Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 242/97 whereby the Sessions Court was pleased to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000 and, in default, to suffer further R.I. for one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 and he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000 and, in default, to suffer R.I. for six months for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case is that the appellant was an alcoholic and he used to assault his wife under the influence of liquor. Three children were born out of the said marriage. However, on account of extreme cruel treatment which was given by the appellant, the deceased went back to her parents and resided there for about two years. H...

Sushila Dhanbaji Kadu Vs. Birju Mangal Pache and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR75; 2006(5)BomCR859

Chavan R.C., J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 5 of 1988 for recovery of possession, which was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Katol, but the decree was reversed on appeal by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Nagpur.2. The appellant/ plaintiff claimed to have purchased property bearing Plot No. 386/3.5 is Ward No. 5 of Katol by a registered Sale deed on 2-6-1971. The plaintiff claimed to have constructed a shed shown by letters 'BIHMLKJB' in the plaint map. She allowed the defendant to reside there as her licensee. When she wanted to start construction of a latrine in the property, the defendant obstructed and approached Naib Tahsildar questioning the plaintiffs title. The plaintiff, therefore, revoked his licence by notice dated 16-12-1987 and asked the defendant to vacate the premises. Since the defendant refused, the plaintiff filed the suit stating that she wanted to demolish the entire shed and construct a house and, therefore,...

Yes Garments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC292

2. This appeal is filed against an Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), who has dismissed the same on the ground of limitation.3. The ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has heard the matter at length on merits, but surprisingly dismissed on the ground of limitation without touching the other aspects of the case. The issue involved in this case is reversal of Cenvat credit. It is contended by the appellants that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation and placed reliance on the following cases. (a) Standard Treads Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin Kuber Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad 2001 (137) ELT 951 (Tri. - Chennai)Jamuna Industries v. CCE, Jaipur-I 2002 (148) ELT 1144 (Tri. - Del.) 4. The facts on record show that there was a delay of ten (10) days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which is within thirty (30) days period. The Commissioner (Appeals) o...

Security and Personnel Services Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appellants are a private limited company and are covered by Service Tax as they are dealing in providing security services. There was a delay in payment of Service Tax and as well as filing the Returns quarterly. However, they said to have paid Service Tax amounting to Rs. 17,23,227/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Twenty-three Thousand Two Hundred Twenty-seven only) along with interest of Rs. 1,90,586/- Rupees One Lakh Ninety Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-six only for the period in dispute. On adjudication of the matter, penalty amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- Rupees Three Lakhs only was imposed under Section 76 of the Service Tax Act and Rs. 4,000/- Rupees Four Thousand only under Section 77 of the Service Tax Act.3. The delay in payment of tax and filing Returns is said to be on following reasons: The promoter and the Managing Director of the appellant company, Major S.S. Sukhi, has suddenly passed away on 22nd December, 1998. Thereafter, the General Manager managed the business for som...