Mumbai Court December 2005 Judgments

Kirti Vs. Vikas Bhagiratrao Yeskade

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR39; 2(2006)DMC436

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This is an application for transfer of Petition No. A-26 of 2005 from Family Court, Nagpur to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Chandrapur, where applicant's H.M.P. No. 24 of 2005 is pending.2. The applicant seeks transfer on the grounds that she apprehends danger to her life, in case she enters Nagpur. She is dependent on her aged parents. She has no independent source of income and it is not possible for her parents to come at Nagpurto attend each and every date. She has proposed to take admission in B.Ed, course and regular attendance in the college would make it impossible to attend the Court at Nagpur. Her place of residence is about 200 kms. away from Nagpur and journey will cause her a considerable hardship.3. The learned Counsel for the respondent opposes the petition on the ground that except for the ground regarding appearance for B.Ed, course all other grounds are unimportant. Ballarsha is well connected with Nagpur by train as well as road and t...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Raviraj Plastics Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. This is a case where two units belonging to two brothers have used the same unregistered brand name and have independently claimed small scale exemption. The learned Advocate for the respondents relies on the Board's Circular 52/52/94-CX. dated 1-9-1994 and states that when the brand name is not owned by any particular person, another person using the same is entitled for availing the small scale exemption, 2. The learned SDR, on the other hand, argues that the Commissioner (Appeals) has come to the finding that one of the units is the owner of the brand name, though the same has not been registered. He further states that this finding of the lower appellate authority has not been challenged by the respondents either by filing an appeal or by filing a cross-objection. Hence, he argues that the second part of the lower appellate authority's order allowing the second unit to avail the small scale exemption is self contradictory and not legal.3. We find force in the ...

Baijnath Plastic Products Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The appellants are not contesting the disputed duty liability on merit. However, they contend that the demand for the period September 1995 to July 1997 is time barred as the notice was issued on 11.8.2000 and the extended time period cannot be applied as department had issued similar demands on 3.3.1998, 4.6.1998 and 28.10.1998.2. We find that the lower appellate authority has dealt with the issue of time bar in his detailed findings as follows: I have carefully considered the facts of the case, grounds of appeal, findings of the adjudicating authority and law on the subject. It is well established that the money value of 'additional considerations' have to be added to the normal price under Section 4(1)(a) read with Rule 5 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975. There can not be any dispute about this. It is a fact that appellant had been receiving moulds for manufacture of plastic parts from M/s Godrej GE Appliances Ltd., and did not add the value of moulds to...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Khandelwal Lab. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides at length. The issue involved is whether the principles of unjust enrichment under Section 11B(2) & (3) will apply to the case at hand. It is the contention of the respondents that the refund in this case arises out of finalization of provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and hence the principles of unjust enrichment will not apply to this case. The learned Advocate for the respondents cites the following two decisions in this regard: - (ii) CCE, Mumbai- II v. Allied Photographies India Ltd. .2. The learned SDR argues that this is a provisional assessment case under Rule 9B and the same was finalized after the amendment of the said Rule 9B by Notification No. 45/99-C.E. (N.T.), dated 25-6-1999. It is the department's case that the specific amendment was made to subject refunds arising out of provisional assessment to the provisions of unjust enrichment under Section 11B(2) & (3). In this regard, the Id. SDR cites the decisio...

Commissioner of Cus. (P) Vs. Royal Cushion Vinyl Products Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The brief facts of the case are that the factory premises of the respondents herein was searched by officers of the Directorate of Anti-evasion and officers of the Central Excise Collectorate and it appeared that M/s. Royal Cushion Vinyl Products Ltd. had illegally transferred raw material imported duty free under advance licence/DEEC scheme to its sister concern, M/s. National Leather Cloth Mfg. Co.Statements of Shri Jayesh A. Motasha, director of M/s. Royal Cushion Vinyl Products Ltd. and partner of its sister concern, were recorded wherein he inter alia stated that M/s. Royal Cushion Vinyl Products Ltd. had to take on loan basis, indigenous duty paid and imported duty paid materials mainly PVC and DOP from M/s. National Leather Cloth Mfg.Co. in Order to enable it to fulfil export commitment within a short period, that this loan arrangement was with the permission of the DGTD.The details of loan arrangement showed that during the period January 1990 to February 1991, 930 tons of ...

Pratap Singh and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. This appeal is against a demand of service tax of Rs. 1,38,44,520/- and penalties under Sections 75A, 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. After perusal of the case ecords and consideration of arguments from both sides, we find that the appellants prima facie do not come under the purview of service tax on clearing and forwarding agents. They have bought and sold goods from their principals as distributors and at the most they appear to have in addition rendered the service of sales promotion which is not taxable under the category of clearing and forwarding agency as held in the case of CCE, Chennai v. Bhuwalika Steel Industries . Hence, we are of the view that the appellants have a strong prima facie case in their favour. Therefore, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit unconditionally during the pendency of the appeal....

M.M. Rathod Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(1)SLJ212CAT

1. The following relief has been sought by the applicant in the present case: (a) Call for the record of proceedings from the file of the UPSC regarding the Select Committee meeting record of 04.12.1987; peruse the same; (b) Issue rule nisi and admit the Original Application for final hearing at the earliest. (c) Quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 14.7.2005 of UPSC respondent No. 2 referred herein above and marked as Annexure-I and direct the applicant to be considered in select committee meeting on 4.12.1987 and direct him to be selected with appropriate grading; (d) Direct the respondent No. 3 to issue notification promoting the applicant to IPS under Sub-regulation 3 of Regulation 7 of IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1965 in the select committee meeting held on 4.12.1987 by inclusion of his name in the notification dated 21.9.1988 and grant him year of allotment of 1984 in the interest of justice; (e) Direct the respondents to grant all consequential b...

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Western Geco International Lt ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ARBLR18(Bom); II(2006)BC550; 2006(3)BomCR848; [2006]132CompCas145(Bom)

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this Petition the Petitioner challenges the award made by the arbitral tribunal dated 4-2-2005 directing the Petitioner to pay to the Respondent a sum of US$ 2,936,607.82 (USD two million, nine hundred thirty-six thousand, six hundred seven and eighty-two cents only) with interest.2. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition are that the Petitioner ONGC is a public sector undertaking engaged in the business of drilling and exploration of oil within India. The Respondent is a company duly incorporated under the laws of British Virgin Island, engaged in the business of oil exploration and related activities in India. Some time in November, 1999 the Petitioner floated a tender notice inviting offers for technical upgradation of Seismic Survey Vessel M.V. Sagar Sandhani with a view to modernizing it.In the tender specifications one of the equipment required for upgradation was 'streamers' fitted with Hydrophones. Since the national origin of...

Damodar Sadashiv Agre Vs. K.K. Prasad and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR58; 2006(4)BomCR459; 2006(2)MhLj256

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This is an application for restoration of Contempt Petition No. 29 of 2004 dismissed by this Court by an order dated 29-6-2004.2. The applicant/petitioner had filed the said contempt petition complaining of non-compliance of the order passed by this Court on 12-6-2003. When the contempt petition came up for hearing on 29-6-2004, none appeared for the petitioner. After considering the material on record and hearing the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court held that there was no wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents/contemners. The Court also observed that in view of the explanation, which has come forward, namely that the order has been complied with, it is not necessary to take any action. The petition was, therefore disposed of.3. By the present application, the applicant contends that his matter was listed at serial No. 6 for admission. The counsel for the applicant was required to appear at the same time in the matters listed before the Divi...

Sudhir S/O Chatarpal Kedar Vs. Chairman, Maharashtra State Co-operativ ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR507; 2006(2)MhLj726

R.C. Chavan, J. 1. This Second Appeal has been admitted on 19-9-2005 to consist following substantial question of law.1) Whether Respondent No. 1 Bank is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India?2. The facts which gave rise to the present appeal are as under :The appellant/original plaintiff Sunil Chatarpal Kedar is a Civil Engineer who was appointed as Engineer/Officer Grade-I in the respondent Bank in July, 1990 and was confirmed in 1991. On 22-7-1994 the plaintiff had written a letter to his employer stating that, he was entitled to a promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Officer according to his seniority. He made a representation again on 18-9-1994. Since his representations were not considered he filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1530 of 1994 before Civil Judge Jr. Dn. at Nagpur. He contended that juniors who were appointed as officers after him were considered for the post of Deputy Chief Officer, resulting in violation of principle of equality and subjec...