Mumbai Court June 2005 Judgments

Surendra Spring (P) Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 43,392/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/-, I propose to take up the appeal itself for final disposal.2. The above amount has been confirmed against the appellants by denying them the benefit of modvat credit on the ground that the same was not taken on the basis of duplicate copy of the invoice or the original copy. It is appellant's case that duplicate as well as original copies were lost by the transporter, as a result of which, they also lodged a FIR with the police. transporter's affidavit was also produced before the authorities. Subsequently, they procured triplicate copy of the invoice from the manufacturer's suppliers of the inputs, got it verified by the range Superintendent and took the credit on the basis of the same. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant's draws my attention to the findings of the original adjudicating authority, wherein he has not disputed the fact of receipt of the goods in the app...

Bombay Drugs and Pharmas Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)4SOT493(Mum.)

Appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A) on the following grounds "1(a) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 7,72,980 in respect of depreciation claimed for plant & machinery of Rs. 30,91,920 out of the total capitalization of pre-operative expenses of Rs. 59.46 lakhs, Le., 52 per cent.Appellant claims that the expenditure incurred represent pre-operative expenses in relation to plant & machinery of the new unit at Panoli on the basis of mandatory accounting policy followed by the appellant.The appellant explained before the CIT(A) regarding the allowability of the depreciation in respect of pre-operative expenses capitalised during the cause of hearing. Therefore, the disallowance of the claim for the reason given by the CIT(A) is against natural justice.1(b) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 2,85,408 in respect of depreciation claimed for building of Rs. 28,54,000 out of the total ...

Utkarsh Shikshak Sangh Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR618; 2005(6)BomCR410; 2005(3)MhLj1021

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Sometime in the year 1994-95, the limits of the Kalyan-Dombivli Municipal Corporation came to be altered inter alia by the inclusion of 27 villages. 28 Primary Schools were situated therein. On 12th July, 2002, the State Government issued a notification in exercise of its power under Section 3(3)(a) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. Thereby, the limits of the City of Kalyan-Dombivli were altered so as to exclude the area comprised therein from the aforesaid 27 villages. The process of transferring teachers working in 28 Marathi Medium Schools in those 27 villages to the Thane Zilla Parishad was thereupon commenced.2. The Primary Teachers' Association moved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court (Writ Petition 5440 of 2002) claiming to represent the interest of 71 Primary Teachers. A Writ of Mandamus was sought in the petition directing the Municipal Corporation to absorb the members of the Association into the ...

Kishan S/O Ganpati Muley Deceased Lrs. Indrabai W/O Kishanrao Muley an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR841; 2005(4)MhLj180

A.B. Naik, J.1. This writ petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India by the heirs of deceased tenant Kishan Ganpati Muley, challenging the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Deputy Collector (LR), Parbhani and Additional Tahsildar, Kalamnoorie. The respondents are the heirs and successors of one Abdul Quadar who was the owner of land Survey No. 24-B admeasuring 10-A, 25-G situated at Kalamkonda (Kd), Tq. Kalamnoorie Dist. Parbhani. The parties to this judgment i.e. petitioners and respondents will be referred to as the 'tenant' and the 'landlords'.2. The present proceedings arise out of an appeal filed by the landlords challenging the declaration made in favour of tenant under Section 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (for short 'the Act') that the declaration was in respect of land Survey No. 24 admeasuring 10-A, 25-G (for short 'the suit land'). It is contended by the landlord in the appeal that the declaration which ...

Gangadhar Naganna Rajulwar and ors. Vs. Chandrabhaga Rajeshwar Gangshe ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR371; 2005(5)BomCR697

Kharche S.T., J.1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the original defendant has filed this second appeal taking an exception to the judgment dated 20-5-1989 and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1986 whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment dated 13-1-1986 and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., in Regular Civil Suit No. 130 of 1982 was confirmed by which the defendant was directed to hand over the possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff with direction to pay arrears of rent of Rs. 234.50 and Rs. 25/- as damages with further enquiry under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The respondent/original plaintiff purchased the house bearing Nos. 352 and 353 along with plot having area 20 x 18 feet at Patanbori from one Laxinanrao Narlawar for a consideration of Rs. 23,000/- by registered sale-deed dated 13-4-1982 and the defendan...

Kishor Gopalrao Bapat and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR232; 2005(5)BomCR682; 2005(4)MhLj466

Sinha D.D., J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard Shri Manohar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1, and Shri Sambre, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.2. Shri Manohar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, states that petitioners are owners of land bearing field Survey No. 90/1, 90/2 and 90/3 situated at Mouza Sindi, Tahsil and District Wardha. In the year 1976 the above referred land was reserved under development plan of the city for open space (Plot No. 90/1) and for High School and play ground (Plot No. 90/2). It is contended that in view of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, since land was not acquired within ten years from the date on which final regional plan or final development plan came into force and proceedings for the acquisition of above referred and under the M.R.T.P. Act or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were not commenced within such period, the pe...

Sterlite Optical Technologies Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC241

1. The issue in these appeals are somewhat intricate and complicated.We heard the rival contentions for long hours, went through the written submissions and rather voluminous case laws relied upon.2. We are thankful to both the counsels who took enormous pains during the course of hearings to put the issues in proper perspective.3. M/s. SOTL has been manufacturing optical fibres in their domestic unit for some time. Success in India encouraged them to set up an Export Oriented Unit in March 2001 for the manufacture of same goods.They imported capital goods worth Rs 122 crores and raw materials under notification 53/97-Cus. which allows duty free imports provided they are used in the manufacture of goods for export. The EOU unit is set up adjacent to the domestic unit. For convenience the domestic unit is referred to as E2 and the EOU as E3.4. The two units had connecting doors for easy movement of men and material from one to another. The machines in E2 and R3 required to manufactured...

'J' Foundation And Ors. Vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals are against the common order of the Commissioner who vide the order impugned has determined duty on the assessee M/s. Haldyn Glass Ltd. (herein after referred to as Haldyn for short) along with interest for undervaluation of the glass bottles cleared on payment of duty and penalties imposed. Penalties were also imposed on the buyers, the other appellant herein under Rule 209A.1.2 The order impugned is consequent to an order in remand made by Tribunal vide its order CO/1252 to 1258/ WZB/2003 dated 13.06.03 wherein the Tribunal had observed - 8... We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the case for fresh decision by the Commissioner, who shall extend a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It shall be open to the assessee to advance all arguments available to them in their defense.1.3 The Commissioner, after considering the material, especially the share holding of Shri. N.D. Shetty, the Managing Director and Director Shri. J.A. Mehta in the...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. A.J. Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT428Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue for determination in this appeal is correct classification of "Horn Button Assembly manufactured and cleared by the respondent herein during the period in dispute. According to the Department, the goods are in nature of signaling equipment covered by CETA sub-heading 8512.00 and not under sub-heading 8708.00 as held by the lower appellate authority as parts of motor vehicle.2. None appears for the respondent in spite of notices. We have heard the Ld DR and perused the records. As per Section Note 2(a) of Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 covering chapters 84 & 85, it is observed that parts, which are goods included in any of the heading of chapter 84 or 85 (other than heading 84.85 and 85.48) are in all cases to be classified in their respective heading. The goods are signaling, wind screen, wiping equipment used for cycles or motor vehicles" by virtue of Note 2(a) of Section XVI. The goods would therefore be covered under CET sub-heading 8512.00, in ...

D.C. Polyester Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT423Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that in his written submission filed before the Tribunal he has specifically mentioned that the issued involved in the present case is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the decision in the appellant's own cases of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai-II v. D.C. Polyesters Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2004 (176) E.L.T. 471 (Tri. - Mumbai) and Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III v. D.C. Polyester Pvt. Ltd. . While passing the order these two decisions have not been considered and as such the order suffers from the patent error and as such he submitted that the ROM application may be allowed.3. The ld. JDR has no serious objection in allowing the ROM application.4. I, therefore, allow the ROM application. The case is fixed for regular hearing on 22-7-05....