Mumbai Court March 2005 Judgments

Videocon International Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The Additional Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad, dropped the duty demand of Rs. 2,40,000/-. On filing the appeal, the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad, has confirmed duty amounting to Rs. 2,40,000/- and an equal amount of penalty of Rs. 2,40,000/-. He further imposed redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation of the truck.3. The appellants are manufacturers of Colour Television Receiver sets of different sizes and parts thereof. They used to purchase various inputs and raw materials for the purpose of manufacturing parts and final products of television receiver sets and take credit when the goods are reached in the factory and the credit so availed is being utilized for clearing the inputs or final products as the case may be.4. M/s. PVR Infotech, Malanpur, Gwalior, are also manufacturers of television receiver sets. The said company placed purchase orders with the appellants for inputs/parts of televisions and a...

Central Pump Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides and considering the issues, it is found that the two issues in this appeal are covered in favour of the assessee and they are (i) The issues of excisability and recovery of duty on waste paper known as 'Broke'. This issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision Madhya Bharat Papers Ltd. 2003 (154) ELT 129 Tri-Kol wherein it was held that Broker used in the manufacture of paper is not marketable an thus not excisable. (ii) The issue recovery and duty on additional freight is covered in the assessee favour by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Baroda Electric Meters Ltd 1997 (94) ELT 13 (SC).2. In view of the issue being covered in favour of the assessee this appeal is allowed after setting aside the order impugned....

Pacific Export Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT147Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This matter was adjourned many times, on the request of the Department, since the order impugned of CC (Imports), Mumbai who has adjudicated this case was beyond his jurisdiction was the preliminary point raised by the Id. advocate for the appellants.2. Inspite of repeated adjournments no orders, authority transferring the case to CCE (Import) New Customs House Mumbai have been produced.It is found that Show Cause Notice dated 16-7-1997 was to be decided by the CC (JNPT) and issued by CC Exports (Mumbai) seeking to Show Cause Notice to him. The order, was to be passed by CC (Export). The order impugned herein passed without any jurisdiction with CC (Imports) is set aside and the matters remitted to the appropriate authority with directions to rehear the appellants and decide afresh....

Hemraj Canji Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)2SOT689(Mum.)

This is an appeal filed by assessee and is directed against the order of CIT(A), Mumbai dated 27-7-2004 for the assessment year 2001-02.1.1 "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) -XV, Mumbai erred in upholding the action of the Income Tax Officer of disallowing the entire interest and other office and administrative expenses in computing the total income for captioned assessment year.1.2 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate and ought to have held that such expenditure has always been claimed and allowed in the past assessment years as expenditure under the head "business" and that since there are no new facts relevant to the captioned year, the disallowance made by the assessing officer is unjustifiable and hence ought to be deleted.1.3 Without prejudice to the above, the extra expenditure ought to be allowed under the head "other sources" if not under the head "business"." 2.1 "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding...

Shree Shanti Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siddharth N. Shah

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR549; [2005]125CompCas576(Bom); [2005]61SCL1(Bom)

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present appeal is filed under section 10-F of the Companies Act, 1956 challenging the order and judgment passed by the Company Law Board. Though various questions are framed in the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has pressed the following three questions of law for my consideration:- (i) Whether in the event of there being a conflict between the statutory records maintained by the Company and the returns filed before the Registrar of Companies, the entries in the statutory registers maintained by the Company would prevail over the conflicting returns filed with the Registrar of Companies; (ii) Whether there could not have been a valid gift in the eyes of law of 1,290 equity shares or any other shares by the owner thereof, merely by signing a transfer deed in respect thereof without actually handing over the relevant share certificates in respect of the gifted shares; (iii) Whether the first joint shareholder, in the case of joint shareholding, could ...

Capt. Vishal Capoor and ors. Vs. Air India Limited and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR566; [2005(106)FLR679]; 2005(3)MhLj154

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners who are pilots challenge an order passed on 30th September 2004 by the first respondent and further seek a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to enforce the order dated 1st October 2004 issued by General Manager-Operations (Administration) of the first respondent whereunder Command Training has been offered to respondent Nos. 4 to 9. In substance, petitioners submit that they ought to have been sent for this Command Training as decided earlier by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the decision in that behalf is withdrawn illegally and arbitrarily in total disregard to the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 2. When this matter was placed before us, our attention was invited by the learned Counsel appearing for both sides to an order dated 29th October 2004 passed by a Division Bench of this Court (Dalve...

Minoo Rustomji Shroff and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR404; 2005(4)BomCR147; 2005(2)MhLj1124

S. J. Vazifdar, J.1. By consent the Writ Petition is admitted. At the request of the petitioners it was taken up for final hearing.2. The petitioners, who are the trustees of the Parsi Panchayat Funds and Properties have sought a declaration that the learned Presiding Judge of the Parsi Chief Matrimonial Court at Bombay does not have jurisdiction to pass a decree of divorce by mutual consent under the Parsi Marriage And Divorce Act, 1936 without seeking aid/assistance from the delegates appointed under the Act. The petitioners have also sought a Writ of Certiorari to quash the decrees passed by the learned Presiding Judge (a learned Judge of this High Court) of the Parsi Chief Matrimonial Court dissolving the marriages of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and so on to respondent Nos. 27 and 28.Respondent Nos. 3 to 28 are Parsi Zoroastrians. The Writ of Certiorari is sought on the basis that the decrees were passed by the Presiding Judge without seeking the aid/assistance of the delegates appoint...

Indian Airlines Ltd. Vs. Premchand

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR605; 2005(2)MhLj1018

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Notice has been issued in this petition on 14th February, 2005 for hearing and final disposal at the stage of admission. The respondent has accordingly appeared before the Court in response to the notice through counsel. The petition has in these circumstances been heard and is being finally disposed of by consent at the stage of admission.2. The respondent joined the services of Indian Airlines as an Air-conditioning technician in the Engineering Department on 18th March, 1983 and was later confirmed. On 23rd June, 2000 a charge-sheet was issued to the respondent for unauthorized absence for a period of 96 days during the period 1998-99. The respondent filed his reply on 12th July, 2000 and claimed that his absence from duty was on account of sickness and that he had been a heart patient since 1992. The respondent annexed certain copies of his medical reports. A departmental enquiry was convened against the respondent to enquire into the charge of unauthorized a...

Prabhudas Bachhubhai Babaria and ors. Vs. Sulbha W/O Wasudeorao Take a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR425; 2005(2)MhLj1058

K.J. Rohee, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred by original defendant Nos. 1 and 4 against the order passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Akola dismissing Regular Civil Appeal No. 334 of 1984 against the judgment and decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akola in Regular Civil Suit No. 28 of 1982 declaring that the auction held by the revenue authorities was void, it does not bind the plaintiffs and directing the defendants therein to deliver possession of the suit plot to plaintiff No. 1.2. In order to appreciate the controversy it is necessary to state a few facts :An open plot bearing No. 35 in survey No. 13/1 of Umari-Umarkhed, Tahsil and District - Akola, admeasuring 5000 sq.ft. was owned by respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as defendant No. 2). Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff No. 2) purchased the said plot from defendant No. 2 by registered sale deed dated 17-7-1967 for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/- and plaintiff N...

Navyug Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. and anr. Vs. Vile Parle Kelavani Ma ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR579

Deshmukh D.K., J.1. In this suit, by order dated 3rd February, 2005 two preliminary issues have been framed in accordance with the provisions of Section 9-A of Civil Procedure Code, which read as under :-'(i) Does defendant No. 1 prove that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and Presidency Small Causes Court Act ?(ii) Does defendant No. 1 prove that the suit as framed and filed is not maintainable in this Court in view of the provisions of Sections 50 and 51 of the Bombay Public Trust Act ?'Both the parties stated that they do not want to lead oral evidence in relation to these issues. Therefore, on the basis of pleadings and the documents produced by both the parties, I have heard learned Counsel for the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1.2. Now first taking up the Issue No. 1, the learned Counsel for defendant No. 1 submits that the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suit is barred by the provisions of Sect...