Mumbai Court June 2005 Judgments

Vidya Laminates Pvt. Ltd., Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals are filed against an Order-in-Original dated 22.02.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II.2. The facts leading to the present appeals may be briefly summarized as under: The appellants are a company carrying on business of manufacturing of paper based decorative laminated sheets. They obtained necessary licence before commencing their activities since almost a decade. They are also maintaining records correctly as per the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Rules made thereunder. Their records were also inspected by the authorities concerned on number of occasion, including audit parties. The stock of the raw materials and finished goods were also regularly verified, checked and compared with the statutory and private records and no variation is found on a single occasion.3. It is the case of the Department that the Officers of the Central Excise (Preventive), Ahmedabad, gathered an intelligence that the appellants were indulged...

Valson Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT211Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants had a texturising machine, which was separated from the yarn dyeing unit, by a small partition. Duty was paid on yarn texturised, removed to dyeing unit. The texturising unit was registered with the Central Excise department; the dyeing unit was not separately registered.1.2 Stocks of 'dyed yarn' were detained on 8-5-1997, contending the said stock to be manufactured prior to 1-3-97 and it should have discharged duty for the goods removed during the period 17-3-97 to 8-5-97; duty was demanded vide letter dated 15-5-97 by the Assistant Commissioner.1.3 The partition wall was removed on 16-4-97 and registration certificate was got amended. On 17-4-97, texturising activity was topped. Goods were removed during the period 17-4-97 to 8-5-97 of stocks as on 1-3-97 (as mentioned and admitted in SCN dated 8-5-97) were removed under benefit of Notification No. 19/97, dated 11-4-97 (entry 116A).1.4 The Assistant Commissioner ordered the release of detained goods on 21-6-97, with d...

State Bank of India Vs. S.S. Plastics and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: I(2007)BC164

1. This appeal is filed by the appellants/original applicant. State Bank of India being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30th April. 2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad in Original Application No. 329-A/2001.By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Presiding Officer partly allowed the Original Application with proportionate costs and ordered the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 to jointly and severally pay to the applicant Bank certain amount of Rs. 18,49,913/- as mentioned in serial No. 2 of the operative portion of the order with interest at the simple rate of Rs. 6% per annum from 1st August, 1993 onwards till date of filing of the suit. The learned Presiding Officer also ordered the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 to jointly and severally pay future interest to the applicant Bank on the said amount at the simple rate of Rs. 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realization of the amount. The Bank is aggrieved because simple rate...

Ms. Aishwarya Rai Vs. Dcit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)104ITD166(Mum.)

1. On a difference of opinion between the Members, who heard this appeal, the following question has been referred to me by the Hon'ble President under Section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, vide order dated 25-2-2005, for my opinion as Third Member. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is to be sustained or not? 2. The appeal involves various other grounds, on which there is no dispute. The difference of opinion between the learned Members, is on the issue raised in Ground No. 7 of the assessee's appeal, which is as under: 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 50,00.000/- on account of alleged unexplained investment in purchase of lat in La-Mer Building.3. Brief facts are - the assessee is a famous model/cine artist. She along with her father, mother and brother by agreement dated 26-9-2000 pur...

Orient Press Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Mum.)1091

1. These two appeals pertain to the same assessee, contain common grievances against imposition of penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the respective assessment years, and were heard together. As a matter of convenience, therefore, both of these appeals are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order.2. To adjudicate on the assessee's grievances in this appeal, only a minimal reference to the undisputed facts of the case is required. The assessee is engaged in the business of publishing pre-share issue stationery like company prospectus, brochures and share application forms, etc. The assessee takes up the job of printing on job work basis whereas the paper is supplied by its sister-concern namely, Vikas Printers. On 26th Feb., 1996, a survey operation was conducted on the assessee but it was in respect of verification of certain expenditure incurred by Ramgopal Polytex Limited. During the course of survey, the assessee surrendered incomes of Rs. 4,10,000 for t...

Smt. Yashodabai Ganpatrao Dhamale Vs. Santosh Lalchand Kachhave

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR359; 2005(5)BomCR150; 2005(3)MhLj1018

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner-tenant has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and, thereby, challenged the concurrent finding of facts regarding the non-payment of the rent to the respondent-landlord. 2. Respondent-landlord is the owner of House No.447B, situated at Mahatma Phule Peth, Pune by virtue of a Will dated 9th May 1979. The petitioner has been in occupation of the suit premises, but not paid the rent regularly. Therefore, by Notice dated 14th January, 1986, a demand was made for the arrears of rent from the year 1979 till the date of the Notice. The said Notice was replied. The Suit for eviction, based upon the said Notice was filed on 3rd March, 1986. Admittedly, the petitioner-tenant has not deposited and/or shown her bonafide and/or intention to deposit the rent immediately within one month. No steps were taken, as contemplated under Section 13 of The Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short 'The Bombay Rent Act') within on...

Sahil Resorts, Agri Fields and Farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Suman Resorts India ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR641; 2005(5)BomCR155; 2005(3)MhLj1091

B.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. Heard Mr. Walawalkar with Mr. Gangal for appellants and Mr. Somandy with Mr. Jawal for Respondent no.1, Mr. Sawant for Respondent no.2 and Mr. Subramaniam for Respondent No. 42. Admit.3. Respondent No. 3 is a formal party. Other respondents waive service. By consent of the parties appeal is heard for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 4. Appellant No. 1-Company came to be impleaded as Defendant No. 3 in Short Cause Suit No. 1248 of 2005 and the said Suit has been instituted by the present Respondent No. 1. The present respondent nos.2 to 4 are Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 respectively. In the said Suit Notice of Motion No. 1006 of 2005 has been allowed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court at Mumbai by the impugned order dated 21-4-2005 and the appellant - original defendant No. 3 is aggrieved by the said order. 5. In the main Suit the substantial reliefs prayed for are as under: '(a) That the Defendants and particularly the Defendant No. 3 be restr...

John Louis Araujo Vs. Allahabad Bank, a Banking Company Constituted Un ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR174; [2005(107)FLR770]; (2006)ILLJ634Bom

R.M. Lodha, J.1. Allahabad Bank is a Banking Company constituted under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970. The petitioner joined the service of Allahabad Bank in the year 1956 much before it's nationalisation. The Bank of California, Bombay Representative Office offered to the petitioner an assignment in that bank somewhere in the year 1987. The petitioner at that time was working as Chief Manager of the respondent's international branch at Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai. By his letter dated 2nd May, 1987, the petitioner communicated that he intended to go in for voluntary retirement with effect from 15.5.1987. He also indicated that his communication may be treated as his letter of resignation.2. In response to his letter dated 2nd May, 1987, the petitioner was informed that the Head Office was not in a position to waive the requisite period of three months as required under the provisions of clause 20(2) of the Allahabad Bank Off...

Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. Sunfield Resources Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR850; 2005(4)MhLj607

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition the petitioner challenges the award made by the learned Arbitrator. By the award the learned Arbitrator allowed the claim made by the respondent/claimant and rejected the counter-claim that was made by the petitioner. The respondent is the original claimant. The petitioner and the respondent had entered into an agreement whereby the respondent had agreed to supply and the petitioner had agreed to buy Steaming Coal. The quantity to be supplied was mentioned in clause 4 of the agreement. In addition to the five shipments agreed to be supplied, there was an option cargo (sixth shipment), which was to be confirmed by the petitioner. The claim of the respondent was for demurrage against the petitioner in the sum of US $ 2,45,337.92 incurred by the vessel hired by the respondent under the contract between the parties. Pursuant to the agreement between the parties the respondent shipped to the petitioner cargo in five shipments and they were discharged at ...

Dashrath Ganpat Dhote and ors. Vs. Gajanan Mahadeorao Wankhede

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR931; 2006(1)BomCR446; 2005(4)MhLj788

S.T. Kharche, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16-11-1988 and decree passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 267 of 1984 whereby the appeal came to be dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court with a direction that the defendant shall hand over the possession of the suit site as described in para 2 of the plaint to the plaintiff.2. Brief facts are as under:The suit site is an open plot which has been purchased by the plaintiff under registered sale-deed dated 22-6-1976 from one Ramarao Shamrao Dhote who is the cousin of defendants No. 1 and 4. The father of plaintiff's vendor Shamrao, Ganpat and Gulab are brothers and they were separate in estate and mess. Defendants No. 1 and 4 are sons and defendants No. 2 and 5 are the wives of defendant No. 1 and 4. Defendant No. 3 is the wife of Ganpat. It is contended that the suit site is in possession of plaintiff by virtue of the aforesaid sa...