Mumbai Court December 2005 Judgments

Sainath Traders and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Food and Drug Administrat ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR457

Deshpande A.P., J.1. The instant petition challenges four orders issued by the Commissioner, Food and Drugs administration and Food (Health) Authority. Maharashtra State. Mumbai dated 2-11- 2004, 29-1-2005, 31-1-2005 and 8-2-2005. The challenge is based on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Godawat Pan Masala Products I.P. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR2004SC4057 .2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has assailed the orders on the following grounds:(a) That, the orders issued by the Food (Health) Authority of the Maharastra State purportedly in exercise of powers under Rule 3 of the Maharastra Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1962, are without jurisdiction. The Authority has no power to prohibit sale, storage or distribution.(b) That, tobacco and tobacco products cannot be regulated by the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and the same has to be regulated by cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulatio...

Sahila Vimal Chadha Vs. Louisa Mathilda Drego

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR442; 2006(5)BomCR828

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard. The petitioner challenges the order dated 2-9-1994 passed in Interim Notice No. 1534 of 1993 in R.A.E. Suit No. 1176 of 1991 by the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai. By the impugned order, the trial Court has allowed the application filed on behalf of the respondent for amendment in order to bring on record the respondent in place of the deceased plaintiff.2. Few facts relevant for the decision are that one Mrs. Louisa Mathilda Drego filed R.A.E. Suit No. 1176 of 1991 in her capacity as the landlady of the premises comprising of Room No. 25-A, East Pali, situated at Bandra, Mumbai for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises on the various grounds stated in the plaint. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff expired on 22-7-1993. An application was moved by the respondent Owen Francis Drego to permit him to delete the name of the original plaintiff and to substitute his name in her place, which was objected to by the petitioner. The trial...

Rambhau Sadashivappa Jatkar Vs. Tryambak Shenfal Satbharkre

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR659; 2006(6)BomCR448; 2006(3)MhLj85

R.C. Chavan, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit by the learned Vth Civil Judge, (Junior Division) and subsequently his first appeal as well by the learned District Judge, Buldhana, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.2. It was the plaintiff case that he was the owner in possession of the site shown by letters A, B, C and D in the plaint map. The defendant had started keeping thresher machine in one corner of the suit site and had also constructed steps at point shown by letter E in the plaint map. The plaintiff insisted that the defendant should stop use of the suit property, but the defendant did not pay any heed. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his ownership, perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from using the site and mandatory injunction to direct the defendant to remove the steps.3. The respondent defendant resisted claim contending that the suit site does not belong to the plaintiff and that in fact, the site was owned by h...

Somaiya Shipping Clearing Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC372

1. All the four appeals are being disposed off by the commissioner's order as they arise out of the same impugned order of the Commissioner of central Excise & Customs vide which he has confiscated the goods meant for export with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption file of Rs. 1 Lakhs and imposed personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/-on each of the appellant under provisions of Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. As per facts on record M/s. Sunday Exports Limited filed shipping bills along with the relevant documents for export for consignment of 51 cartons. On examination, cartons No. 1 to 26 were found to be as per declaration. However, the goods in cartoon No. 27 to 51 were found to be old, used and in torn condition. Investigation were conducted and statements of various persons including the Director of Sunday Exports Ltd and Director of Customs Housing Agent Shri. Kanti Somaiya was recorded.3. Based upon the above facts, proceedings were init...

JaIn Irrigation Systems Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides and considered the matter. Appellant, M/s. Jain Irrigation Limited is an 100% Export Oriented Unit. They were approached by M/s. GCL Equipment and Machines Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as M/s. GCL) for supply of polycarbonate sheets to be used in the manufacture of Ballot boxes for export. Sheets were so removed/supplied after obtaining due permission of Development Commissioner and warehoused in the premises of M/s. GCL, where Ballot boxes were manufactured and exported.2. A proceeding was launched on ground of illicit removal of sheets by the EOU without payment of duty in violation of Exim Policy. Duty demand of Rs. 38,61,804/- (Rupees Thirty-eight lakhs sixty-one thousand eight hundred four only) confirmed along with interest and penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The other appellant, Shri D.I. Desarda, Vice-President of 100% EOU was imposed penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.3. The...

Orient Press Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in the present appeal is the classification of Aluminium Foils backed on both sides with printed polyester film.2. After hearing the appellants duly represented by Shri R. Nambirajan, Ld. Advocate and Shri K.M. Mandal, Ld. Consultant representing the revenue, we find that the issue is no more res-integra and stands settled by the earlier decision of the Tribunal, relied upon by the appellants.Sharp Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-III In this case, it has been held that Aluminium Foil of thickness not exceeding 0.02 mm sandwiched between films of polyester and polyethylene and articles (Pouches) thereof classifiable under Chapter 39 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 since it is the plastic that confers the essential characteristics of the product-Rule 3(b) of the Interpretative Rules.Note : Appeal against this decision is presently pending in the Supreme Court as Reported in 2001 (128) ELT Part-1 Page No. A-64.2. India Foils Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta-II In this case, ...

Nippon Polymers P. Ltd. and Dutron Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. It is seen from the impugned order that the issue relates to refund claim as well as time bar. In the present cases the assessee has filed refund claim on 24.3.2003 whereas duty for the clearances from 1.4.2001 to 15.3.2002 has been paid on or before 20.3.2002. Therefore, the refund claim for the period from 1.4.2001 to 15.3.2002 is barred by limitation. The adjudicating authority relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rallis India Ltd. wherein the Apex Court have ruled that the Rule under which the application for refund was made did not provide for computation of the period of limitation from the end of the financial year. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order stated that the appellant has failed to produce documentary evidence to show that they have not passed on the incidence of duty to the buyers.3. In these circumstances the ld. SDR submits that the decision of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Grasim Ind. (Chemical Divn.) v. CCE, Bhopal of credit...

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sakura Bank Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)100ITD215(Mum.)

1. This appeal is directed against CIT(A)'s order dt. 4th March, 1999, in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) r/w Section 250 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the asst. yr.1992-93 : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to tax the bank at the rate applicable to domestic companies @ 40 per cent and surcharge shall not be payable by it. The CIT(A) ought to have held that tax rate payable (applicable) to bank would be as per provisions of the Finance Act for foreign companies. Vide letter dt. 6th June, 2005, the present AO, i.e., Jt. Director of International Taxation, Range-B(1), Mumbai, has filed the revised grounds of appeal which are as follows : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to tax the foreign bank at a rate applicable to domestic companies, i.e., 45 per cent, and surcharge shall not be payable ...

V. Pankajakshi Vasudevan and ors. Vs. Jayant J. Patwardhan

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR2; 2006(1)MhLj784

R.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard Mr. A.A. Verma, the learned counsel for the appellants.2. The original plaintiffs are in appeal. Their suit came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 16th April, 1993. The notice of motion was taken out by the plaintiffs on 31st March, 1997 for setting aside the order dated 16th April, 1993 and restoration of the suit. The said notice of motion was dismissed by the learned motion Judge on April 4, 1997. It is this order which is the subject matter of the appeal.3. The learned counsel for the appellants invited our attention to the affidavit of the advocate Shri Arun Vasudeo Vaidya in support of his submission that there was bonafide reason on the part of the plaintiffs' advocate in not appearing before the court on 16.4.1993 and that delay in taking out the notice of motion for restoration is explained by sufficient cause.4. The suit was filed in the year 1989 and for more than three years no steps were taken in serving the writ of summons on the defendant....

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Chief Installation Manager ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR4; [2006(108)FLR887]; (2006)ILLJ1021Bom

R.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard.2. The impugned judgment is based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union and Ors., : (1997)ILLJ1113SC . The learned Single Judge relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation, directed the absorption of the workmen mentioned in Exhibit 'A' to the petition in the regular service with effect from respective dates of their entering into service. The workmen concerned are the workmen working as sweepers in the canteen of the appellant Hindustan Petroleum Corporation at Mazgaon Terminal, Mumbai.3. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. v. National Union Water Front Workers and Ors., : (2001)IILLJ1087SC has overruled the judgment in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation (cited supra).4. In paragraph 122 of the report, the Constitution Bench recorded its conclusions thus'122. The upshot of th...