Mumbai Court December 2005 Judgments

Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The issue relates to modvat credit on inputs under Rule 57-I and interest under Rule 57-I(3) and penalty of Rs. 25,000/-(Twentyfive thousand). The ld. Counsel submitted that irrespective of the fact that chapter heading is different in the declaration even then the minor variations in heading cannot disqualify the modvat credit. The main point of denial of modvat credit appears to be that the appellants have not filed any declaration under Rule 57G.The contention of the appellant is that under Rule 57G (1) of CER, 1944 on 1.3.1997 describing it as "PPT SILICA" under S.H.No. 2811.90 and the silica supplied by different supplier is used inter-exchangeable in the process without any change. To support his contention the ld. Counsel submitted that "Flow Aid Silica Polymer" and "PPT Silica" both are same as certified by the production manager and also relied on the decision of the Tribunal. ld. Counsel relied on the following decisions:J.B.M. Tools Ltd v. Commissioner ...

The Jcit, Spl. Range-2 Vs. Alfa Laval (i) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)286ITR193(Mum.)

1. This appeal by the revenue is against the order of the CIT (A)-XVII.Mumbai dated 17.03.1999 relating to Assessment Year 1996-97. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 90,00,000/- made by the AO on account of capital gain regarding transfer of goodwill. In the alternative and without prejudice to the above, even if the amount of Rs. 90,00,000/- was received to compensate the assessee for foregoing the right to certain business activity, the IIT (A) should have held that the amount was taxable under the head "profits and gains of business.3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act VII of 1913 and is engaged in the business inter alia for the manufacture and sale of plant, machinery and equipment for the dairy, vegetable, oil food and beverage, brewery, sugar, pharmaceutical, chemical, fertilizer, petrochemical. power, ship building a...

Shree Satish Prabhakar Padhye Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the Sec ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2006(109)FLR84]; (2006)IILLJ671Bom

R.S. Dalvi, J. 1. The Petitioner is a person with hearing disability who has acquired his disability consequent upon and during his service with Respondent No.5. The Petitioner was a trained Telephone Operator working as such with Respondent No.5 for 23 years. Respondent No.5 are in the business of manufacturing industrial equipments and the Petitioner was posted in their factory. He was not provided with a soundproof cabin. The Petitioner contends that he worked under extremely noisy surroundings in the 5th Respondent's factory. It is his case that due to constant loud manufacturing sounds his sense of hearing became gradually impaired and he had to undergo medical treatment ultimately leading to the termination of his services by Respondent No.5. His legal rights to employment under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as 'the Act') are under consideration in this ...

Sadguru Constructions and anr. Vs. Smt. Jaimeet Kaur Nirmansingh Sial ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR394; 2006(2)MhLj794

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dt.6.10.05 passed on Ex.23 in R.C.S Suit No. 1160 of 2005 by the 8th, Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune. The said order has been passed on an application of the petitioner for a stay of the suit under section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. Some of the material facts of the present case which are necessary to be enumerated are as under:2. In 1985 a firm of Satguru Construction was constituted with three partners namely Sardar Nirman Singh, Sardar Harpal Singh and Sardar Sujan Singh. The said partnership was unregistered. As per the terms and conditions of the said partnership agreement the partnership commenced w.e.f. 1985. All the three partners had equal share. Under clause 14 of the said partnership it was provided that on the death of a partner partnership does not come to an end and shall be continued by the surviving partners. On 20.10.02 one of the partner Shri Nirman Singh Sial died leaving behind r...

Hanumant Pandurang Indalkar Vs. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Lt ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR630; [2006(109)FLR443]; 2006(2)MhLj583

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This petition is directed against the Awards of the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No. 469 of 1991 dated 19th October, 1996 and 23rd June, 2000. By Award Part-I dated 19th October, 1996, the Labour Court had held that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner in respect of charge-sheet dated 29th October, 1988 was fair and proper. However, the enquiry conducted in respect of the charge-sheet dated 25th March, 1989 was found to be in violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, vitiated. By Award Part-11 dated 23rd June, 2000, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was just and, therefore, dismissed the Reference.2. The petitioner was in service with Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Limited, respondent No. 1 herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') as a Millwright Mechanic in the Auto Division of the Company's Pimpri Works. The petitioner was one of the activists of the Telco Kamgar S...

Ramchandar Ramadhar Yadav Vs. Hyderabad (Sind) National Collegiate Boa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR820; 2006(2)MhLj530

V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd September, 1993 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Bombay ('Tribunal' for short) in Appeal No. GEN/126/THN-55 of 1993, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner came to be rejected holding that his appointment was for one academic year with effect from 3rd December, 1992 as such he was a temporary employee.Factual Matrix :2. The factual matrix of the case reveals that the petitioner came to be appointed as Peon, pursuant to the application made by him, with effect from 3rd December, 1992. The relevant term of the appointment order reads as under :ToShri Ramchander R. Yadav.LWith reference to your application...from time to time.2. Your appointment is temporary for a period of in clear vacancy of Shri Shejwal Shivram who in the leave vacancy has resigned. After expiry of the above period, your services shall stand terminated without any notice.3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, petitioner rep...

Mahiboobsaheb Kujruksaheb Harkare and ors. Vs. Yakubsaheb Saifansaheb ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR664; 2006(2)MhLj627

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This Second Appeal arises from the decree for specific performance passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division at Solapur in Regular Civil Suit No. 713 of 1980 on 21-3-1987 and duly confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge at Solapur vide his judgment and order dated 8-3-1991 by which Civil Appeal No, 390 of 1987 came to be dismissed. While admitting the Second Appeal this Court framed the substantial question of law as under:Whether the discretion to decree specific performance has been properly exercised. 2. Admittedly the suit property viz. Municipal House No. 819 located in City Survey No. 4617 of Solapur city admeasuring 29 sq. yards was agreed to be sold to the plaintiffs by the defendants (present appellants) vide the agreement for sale dated 6-2-1980 (Exh. 4/2) for consideration of Rs. 18,000/- and an amount of Rs. 8,000/- from the said consideration was already paid to the defendants when the agreement was signed. As per the sai...

Rajaram S/O Jairam Raut Vs. Baliram S/O Laxman Raut

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)MhLj693

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. In this Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, challenge is to the order dated 15-12-1997 passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division) Khamgaon, District Buldhana in Regular Civil Suit No. 40 of 1997 instituted by present respondent permitting him to withdraw said suit with liberty to file fresh one.2. I have heard Advocate Shri Paliwal for Revision applicant. Nobody has appeared for respondent though served. Advocate Paliwal has invited attention to impugned order and also to the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code to contend that the Court below has exercised jurisdiction not available to it. He argues that failure to claim relief or defect in drafting of plaint is not in defect of formal nature so as to enable the Court to exercise powers under said provision. In support he has placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at AIR 2000 SC 2132 between K. S. Bhoopathy v. Kokila.3. Perusal of impugne...

Burakhbee Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ3128

A.S. Bagga, J.1. The Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.6.1994, passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Sessions Trial No. 99/1991, whereby the appellant Burakhbee (original accused No. 1) has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for fifty days. By the same judgment, the other accused persons, namely accused Nos. 2 to 7 have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. All the accused persons, including the present appellant, have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution story runs as under : Deceased Halimabee was married to Salauddin 10 to 11 months prior to the date of incident. The appellant Burakhbee is the sister-in-law...

Coral Cosmetics Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009[16]STR371

V.C. Daga, J.1. The petitioners seek to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 131 and 132 of the Finance Act, 1999. By Section 131 of the Finance Act, Clause (xxviii) was inserted in Section 37(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) with effect from 1st March, 1995. By Section 132 of the Finance Act, 1999, Sub-rule 57-F(17) as inserted by Central Excise (Amendment) Rules, 1997 came to be validated from 1st March, 1997 and Clause (e) of Sub-rule (17) inserted by the Central Excise (Elevent Amendment) Rules came to be validated with effect from 1st day of October, 1997. As a result, the credit earned by the petitioners of the duty paid on the inputs used, in, or in relation to the manufacture of final product, namely toothpaste, was made to have lapsed and not to be allowed to be utilised for payment of duty on any excisable goods cleared for home consumption, or for export, except to the extent of the credit of duty, if any, in respect of inputs lying in stock or contai...