Mumbai Court May 2005 Judgments

Anand R. Kalwani Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2006)DMC177

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard Rule By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioner seeks to quash the FIR No. 408/2004 lodged at the Mulund Police Station on 20.12.2004 under Section 498A r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as far as it relates to the petitioner on the ground that the allegations in the complaint do not disclose any offence to have been committed by the petitioner.3. Undisputed facts disclose that the petitioner is the husband of the respondent No. 2, having married on 27.6.2004 and the marriage having been registered on 8.7.2004. The petitioner is employed at Singapore and after the marriage he left for Singapore on 11.7.2004 while the respondent No. 2 continued to reside with the family of her in-laws till 14.10.2004.4. Undisputedly, the FIR dated 20.12.2004 does not include any allegation against the petitioner though his name was recorded in the column referring to the names of the accused persons. All the allegations relating to the deman...

Pramod Narayanrao Dawale and anr. Vs. Food Inspector and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006FAJ238

ORDERJoshi A.H., J.1. The accused-applicant who has been tried for the offences under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, preferred to challenge the grievance of report of analyst of food stuff subject-matter. For raising the challenge as contemplated by Section 13, Sub-section (2), he submitted the application, copy thereof is at (ANNEXURE-A). In this application, he prayed for forwarding the sample for further analysis at the costs of the complainant-State.2. The complainant/prosecution opposed the application on the ground that it was the duty of accused to pay for the fee required for analysis of the sample by the Central Food Laboratory.3. The application filed by the accused was rejected by the trial Court by order dated 2-11-2002. The order of rejection is based on the ground that the amount was already ordered to be paid, however, the accused has failed to pay the same. The present applicant has not placed on record copy of the order passed below Exh. 5...

Jay Goga Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal arises out of the order of Commissioner (A) Surat. In the impugned order the Commissioner confirmed the order of the lower authority except that he set aside the penalty on the Proprietor. The appellant is a manufacturer of processed fabrics falling under Chapter 54.06 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act. During the search of the unit it was found that the appellant was using power in the manufacture of processed fabrics even though he was availing the benefit of exemption meant for non-power operated units. The appellant it was alleged was carrying on dyeing operations with the acid of power. The existence of 2HP motor in the factory premises is held to be an indicator to prove this. Some goods produced out of such operation were seized: later confiscated, duty was demanded and penalty was imposed on the Proprietary firm.3. The main contention is that the offending electric motor was purchased just three days before the visit of the officers: that an affidavit ...

Pushpaman Forgings Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The prayer in the application is for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.75,76,339/- confirmed against the appellants in respect of flanges manufactured by them during the period January 2001 to March 2003 by denying them the benefit of notification no. 6/2000 -CE dated 01.03.2000.2. Sr. No. 251 of the said notification exempts non-conventional energy devices/systems specified in the list 5 of the said notification. Sr.No. 13 of list 5 mentioned `Wind Operated Electricity Generators, their components and parts thereof'. The appellants were clearing flanges under the said notification inasmuch as the same were to be used in the erection of towers/structures of Wind Operated Electricity Generators.The demand has been confirmed against them on the ground that though towers are part of Wind Operated Electricity Generators, flanges being parts of towers cannot be extended the benefit of notification.3. Shri Prakash Shah, Ld. Advocate has drawn our attention to the...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Indocount Choongnam Textiles

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT105Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an application for rectification of the impugned order passed by this Tribunal Order No. C-II/207/03-WZB, dated 24-1-2003 filed by the Revenue.2. The facts that lead in filing the above ROM may be summed up as follows : M/s. Indocount Choongnam Textiles Ltd., (100% EOU), is engaged in the manufacture of cotton/polyester yarn exclusively from indigenous raw materials. The assessee manufactured and cleared the finished goods in the Domestic Tariff Area without payment of additional excise duty leviable thereon without intimation to the Department and without filing declaration under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It was the contention of the Department that Notification No. 8/97-C.E. as amended was applicable in the instant case and the assessee should pay the additional duty of excise (TTA) on the clearances affected by them in the Domestic Tariff Area. Show Cause Notice dated 28-3-2001 was issued proposing to recover duty, with interest and also proposing pena...

V.M.S. Exports (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT222Tri(Mum.)bai

2. M/s. V.M.S. Exports (P) Ltd. were engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium Circles for utensils. As per Budget provision of 98-99, they were required to pay Rs. 7,500/- per month towards excise duty.Accordingly, they were paying the amount till September, 1998. Due to financial difficulties, they could not pay the duty amount from October, 1998 and ultimately in the third week of February, 1999, they have closed down the factory and it is claimed that they have informed the same to the Superintendent and Dy. Commissioner by registered post.They have also intimated that they have stopped all the activities and surrendering the licence also. But, in the meantime, the appellants were issued five Show Cause Notices as per the allegations of the Department and they were adjudicated by the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, Boiser Division, wherein total duty amount of Rs. 1,42,500/- and penalty of Rs. 30,000/- were confirmed.3. The appellants submitted that they are altogether ignorant ...

Comet Brass Industries Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT62Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After allowing the stay petition un-conditionally, we proceed to hear the appeal itself inasmuch as the issued is covered by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal.2. A short issue involved is as to whether the appellants can clear the waste and scrap generated in their factory to their job worker for conversion into ingots and return the same to the appellant's factory without payment of duty in terms of notification 214/86 CE. As per the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Wyeth Laboratories Ltd. v.Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai reported in 2000(120) ELT 218(Tri-LB), such waste and scrap can be cleared to the job worker's factory for further conversion and it is not obligatory on the part of the assessee to clear the same on payment of duty. It is seen that the lower authorities have though referred to the above decision of the Larger Bench, but have chosen to adopt the minority view as expressed in the said decision. It is observed that judicial propriety require...

Chembur Patalganga Pipelines Vs. Jcit, Spl. Rg. 18

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)98ITD143(Mum.)

1. As appeals No. 2189/M/2000 and 2190/M/2000 filed by the assessee for assessment years viz. 1992-93 & 1993-94 consisting of some identical / similar common grounds of appeal, they are clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed off by this common and consolidated order for the sake of brevity and convenience.For the Assessment year 1992-93 following grounds have been raised by the assessee. 1. The learned Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the decisions of learned Assessing Officer (Assessing Officer) in not granting the depreciation on the expenses of Rs. 50,60,433/- Incurred by the Appellant towards acquiring the right to use the lands for laying the pipelines. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Assessing Officer to allow the depreciation on legal and professional expenses of Rs. 65,000/- Appellant submits that the direction may please be given to allow the depredation as claimed. 3. The learned Commissio...

ito Vs. Punchline Forms

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)278ITR165(Mum.)

1. The appeal is filed by the Revenue related to the A.Y. 1998-99 and it is directed against the order of the CIT (A)-XII at Mumbai dated 15.01.2002. The proceedings arise out of the assessment made Under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act.2. The Revenue has raised four grounds of appeal but effectively solitary grievance of the Revenue is that the CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in allowing deduction Under Section 80IA of Rs. 38,47,731/- to the assessee.3. The brief facts as stated and as borne from the order of lower authorities are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing of continuous stationery for computer printing. It has set up an industrial undertaking in the backward Union territory of Daman and the main raw material required for manufacturing are paper roll of different sizes, gum, carbon paper and ink etc. These rolls are loaded on the unwind section of the machine and passed through tension controller. Thereafter, when it co...

Girnar Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Sonia Soo ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR107; 2006(2)BomCR290

ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard advocates for the petitioners and respondents. Respondent No.1/original plaintiff had filed a civil suit before the City Civil Court vide Long Cause Suit No.2830 of 2002. There were 14 defendants in all in that suit. Thereafter, while the suit was pending, the present petitioners filed an application for intervention. That application was allowed. The plaintiff was directed to amend the plaint. She did not amend the plaint. Certain interim orders came to be passed in favour of the plaintiff and, then plaintiff applied for withdrawal of the suit. A purshis to that effect or an application to that effect was filed on 05/01/2005 before the Vacation Judge. It was taken on record. The matter was adjourned to 08/02/2005 i.e. the date given by the judge before vacation. On 8.2.2005 the presiding officer was on leave, therefore, the matter was adjourned to 7.3.2005. On that date, as per the Roznama, the plaintiff and advocate were absent . Mr. Mali, advocate, wa...