Mumbai Court February 2005 Judgments

Arti Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT208Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise Daman . The issue pertains to valuation of goods under Central Excise Act read with Central Excise Valuation Rules.2. After hearing both sides for some time it is found possible to take up the appeal itself with the consent of both sides. We accordingly waive the pre-deposit duty and take up the appeal.3. The appellant is a manufacturer of para Nitro Chloro Benzene amongst other goods falling under Chapter heading 28 & 29. PNCB was dispatched to the appellants' sister concern as an intermediate product for manufacture of finished product on payment of duty. The value of the product was determined by the appellant, on the basis of selling price prevailing at the time of clearance of goods. The Department contends that the price has not been correctly determined as the interest and financial charges, office expenditure and selling and distribution expenditur...

Commr. of Cen. Excise Vs. Photo Kina

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondents herein were manufacturing photographic films in sheet and roll form by cutting and slitting jumbo rolls of imported graphic art film during the period 1993-94 to 1996-1997. Show cause notice dated 30.9.98 was issued to them proposing to deny the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 29/2/93 on the ground that the Notification specifically excluded from its purview the goods falling under Chapter Heading Nos. 37.01 and 37.02 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985 under which headings sheets and rolls of photographic films fall for classification, and that in terms of Note 3 to Chapter 37 of the Schedule to the CETA, which was introduced with effect from 1/3/94, in relation to goods falling under Chapter Headings 37.01 and 37.02 the process of cutting, slitting, perforation or any one or more of these processes shall amount to manufacture and, therefore, duty was payable on the sheets cut out of jumbo rolls from the beginning, and duty was payable on small...

Trini Impex and ors. Vs. Ccex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The stay applications filed by the appellants were disposed off by Bench order dated 30/7/2004 noting that the appellants represented by the learned Advocate Shri A.V. Naik had paid Rs. 80 lakhs out of their duty liability of Rs. 1.09 crores, whereas this was not so in respect of the appellants represented by the learned Advocate Shri V.S. Nankani who had paid Rs. 33.5 lakhs against a duty liability of Rs. 5.93 crores. As such, the second groups of appellants were directed to pre-deposit Rs. 60 lakhs towards duty by 31/8/2004 and also to show evidence of deposit of Rs. 32 lakhs claimed to have been deposited earlier and report compliance on 3/9/2004. When the matter came up for compliance earlier, the appellants informed that they have filed a writ petition against the order of pre-deposit before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. Today, Shri Niren Shetia, learned Advocate informs that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay have dismissed the writ petition, but he does not have a copy of ...

Recon Oil Industries Ltd. Vs. Mw Joint Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)2SOT732(Mum.)

These two appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of by this common order as under: This appeal arises from the order dated 21-3-2000 of CIT, Mumbai City-VI, passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The relevant facts are that the assessment for the assessment year 1995-96 was made by the assessing officer under section 143(3) vide order dated 29-12-1997 on the total income of Rs. 1,43,83,930 after allowing deduction of Rs. 6,27,736 under section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act. On perusal of the assessment record of the assessee, the CIT found that while allowing deduction under section 80-IA, the assessing officer did not exclude profit of Rs. 6,39,002 earned by the assessee from trading in vegetable oils. The CIT was of view that deduction under section 80-IA was admissible only with regard to the profit earned by the assessee in the vegetable oil products division, which is engaged in extraction of edible oil. The CIT also found that the assessee also earned profits in the o...

Vijay Narayan Uttekar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Its O ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ4452

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 16th October, 2003 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.644 of 1996. 3. The facts relevant for the decision are that, pursuant to the complaint lodged by the mother of the deceased - wife of the petitioner No.1 and consequent to the investigation carried out thereafter, the sessions case came to be registered as Sessions Case No.644 of 1996 wherein the petitioners had filed an application for discharge, which came to be rejected on 14th August, 2003. When the matter was fixed on 16th October, 2003 for framing of charge, the prosecution sought to produce two additional statement of the witnesses dated 10th September, 2003, being the additional statement of the father of the deceased, and the statement dated 20th August, 2003 of one Subhada Babu Dalvi, the previous neighbour of the Petitioners. The same was objected...

D.N. Punamiya Vs. the State of Maharashtra (Through Bhoiwada Police St ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005BomCR(Cri)747

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner challenges the issue of process by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 41st Court, Mumbai, in Criminal Case No.45/P/2000. 3. Pursuant to the charge sheet being filed under Section 53(1)(7) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act', for failure to restore a toilet block in the Neelkanth Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Limited, situated Goculdas Pasta Road, Dadar, Mumbai, the process came to be issued against the petitioner and one Shri S.S. Rane. The complaint in that regard was preceded by a notice dated 14-1-2000 from the Development Authority addressed to Shri S.S. Rane, Chairman, the accused No.1 in the said case, calling upon him to restore the said toilet block in the premises of the said society within 30 days from the receipt of the said notice. The notice period expired on 14-2-2000 and yet no steps were ta...

M. Venugopalan Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Through the Secretary, Mi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR522

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The matter was adjourned today to enable the Respondents in terms of the statement by their learned counsel and more particularly in view of the documents filed by the petitioner from Pages 198 onwards to find out as to whether the post of Sanitary Supervisor was existing. The Respondents have been unable to show that the said post was not existing.2. A few facts may now be set out.The Petitioner who was in service of the Respondents was promoted as Sanitary Inspector on 25.5.1978. It is the case of the Petitioner that the next promotional post for a Sanitary Inspector is that of Sanitary Supervisor. One Shri. S.R. Bhosale holding the said post retired on superannuation on 28.2.1981. The departmental promotion committee thereafter came to be constituted on 4.5.1981. It is the case of the Petitioner that the post of Sanitary Supervisor is also called as Sanitary Superintendent or Sanitary Assistant by Respondent No. 4. On 10.6.1981 promotion order was published by Res...

In Re: Rallis India Limited

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR262; IV(2005)BC187; 2005(3)BomCR618; [2005]125CompCas268(Bom); (2005)5CompLJ234(Bom); [2005]59SCL219(Bom)

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present application is placed before me for directions inter-alia seeking direction that the provisions of section 101(2) and procedure set out therein should not apply to the reduction of the capital due to adjustment of share premium account and Capital Redemption Reserve Account of the applicant with the accumulated losses of the company. The applicant company has passed a special resolution in terms aforestated on 20.12.2004 and in terms of section 100 and section 101 of the Act seeks confirmation thereof from this Court. 2. This application raises a very interesting question of law as to the interpretation of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 101 of the Companies Act-I of 1956. 3. Some of the few facts which are necessary for determination of the aforesaid question of law. I ave briefly enumerated as under : 4. Rallis India Limited was incorporated on 13.8.1998 under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1930 as a public limited company limit...

In Re: Eoc Tailor Made Polymers India Private Limited; in Re: Raj Prak ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR718; [2005]125CompCas648(Bom); (2005)5CompLJ253(Bom); [2005]59SCL199(Bom)

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. These two company petitions are filed by the transferor company and transferee company for sanction of an amalgamation scheme under section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act-I of 1956. 2. Some of the material facts of the present case are as under: 3. On 16.3.2004 the board of directors of the transferor company passed a resolution approving the scheme of amalgamation of the transferor company being EOC Tailor Polymers India Private Limited with the transferee company known as Raj Prakash Chemicals Limited. On 6.5.2004 an order was passed by this court for convening a meeting of the equity shareholders and creditors of the transferor company as well as the transferee company. In the said meeting a special resolution has been passed approving the scheme of amalgamation. Accordingly the present petition is moved for seeking final approval under section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act-I of 1956. All the procedural requirements for the purpose of amalgamation as contemplate...

M.G. Shirhatti Vs. University of Mumbai and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)MhLj685

ORDERH.L. Gokhale, J. 1. Heard Mr. Jahagirdar in support of this petition. Mr. Naik, AGP appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are members of the Committee of Enquiry appointed by respondent No. 1-University. They are served and being members of the Committee, they have not engaged any Advocate to represent them. Mr. Talsania and Ms. Menon appear for respondent No. 7. Respondent No. 8 is served.2. The petitioner is the Principal of respondent No. 6-Lalalajpat Rai College. The college is affiliated to respondent No. 1-University which is governed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. Respondent No. 7 is a Lecturer working in respondent No. 6-college. She made a complaint of alleged sexual harassment against the petitioner. This has led to the constitution of the Committee of Enquiry which consists of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 headed by Mrs. Justice Baam (respondent No. 3), a retired Judge of this Court. The petitioner has been suspended v...