Mumbai Court June 2005 Judgments

Amit Packaging Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellants are an assessee in small scale, discharging duty on Plastic pouches made from printed plastic sheets in which engraved printing rollers are used. A dispute arose as regards valuation of the excisable goods. Revenue insisted on adding the sale price of rollers used for printing shown as purchased by the customers and added the lump sum of such sale accrues to duty under plastic rate applicable ignoring the costing and allocation per piece given by the assessee.2. The assessee's contention of not adding the cost of the roller cannot be accepted since that issue is settled by the Larger Bench (see Mutual Industries Ltd. v. CCE . The amortized costs are to be added. If the Revenue is contesting the amortization arrived at by the assessee, they could have got the same determined under the provisions of Section 14A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by deputing their Cost Accountant instead of resorting to the loading of full value of sale. We cannot uphold such loading.3. Both s...

Ronuk Manufacturing Company Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is filed by M/s. Ronuk Manufacturing Company, Mumbai, against the Order-in-Appeal dated 11.2.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture and clearance of embossed pleated fabrics falling under Chapter Heading No. 54.06 of CETA, 1985, is chargeable to Central Excise basic duty @12% and additional excise duty @8% ad valorem. The said process of embossing is covered under "Any other process" as per Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 54, hence pleating is treated as amounts to "manufacture". The Officers of Central Excise, Mumbai-I, booked a case against the appellants for clearing of goods clandestinely without Central Excise registration and without payment of Central Excise duty. The appellants were issued Show Cause Notice dated 23.4.1998 demanding duty of Rs. 15,49,165/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On the same ground, another Show Cause Notice dated 5.6.1988 was also issued with regar...

Omprakash Madanlal Pandya Vs. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR516; [2006]131CompCas527(Bom)

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present Chamber Summons has been taken out for the order and direction against defendant No. 4 to give inspection of the complete papers, records and proceedings in the aforesaid suit. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff against respondent No. 1 company. The said respondent No. 1 company has since gone into liquidation and Official Liquidator has been appointed in winding up proceedings u.s. 434 of the Companies Act by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad.2. The present suit has been filed interalia for the recovery of sum of Rs. 1,53,190/-being amount due and payable by the company to the plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that he was an employee of defendant No. 1 company from 1.10.69 at the monthly salary of Rs. 1500/-. According to the plaintiff, company is liable to make payment towards the salary from 1.10.76 to 31.9.79 and various increments, Privilege Leave, Provident Fund Contribution, Leave Travel Allowance and bonus, totalling to an amount of Rs. 1,53,1...

Sicom Limited Vs. Anandprasad G. Shrivastava and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2005)BC512; 2005(4)BomCR1; [2005]127CompCas541(Bom)

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present petition is filed u.s. 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 against the Guarantors. The company known as Consolidated Containers (India) Limited was incorporated interalia for carrying on business in the containers.2. The said company applied for a term loan of Rs. 85,00,000/- and Rs. 32,00,000/- during the period November 1988 to January 1995. Thus, the total term loan lent and advanced by the petitioner to the company was Rs. 1,17,00,000. The said term loan was sanctioned on 25.11.88 and 12.3.91. In respect of the aforesaid sanction of the loan amount, the loan agreement dt.1.12.89 and 22.10.92 was executed by and between the said company and the petitioner herein. Under the terms and conditions of the said loan agreement it was provided that the said amount has to be repaid in instalments along with interest costs, charges and expenses. The aforesaid loan amount was secured by a mortgage executed between the said company in respect of ...

industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd. and anr. Vs. World Digital So ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2006)BC92; 2005(4)BomCR14

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The petitioners before the Court is a financial institution known as Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd and the petition is filed in pursuance of the power conferred Section 13(1) of the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Act, 1984.2. Respondent No. 1 is a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 and is interalia incorporated and registered under the Companies Act. Respondent No. 1 company is engaged in manufacture of Compact Discs (CDs). In course of carrying on the aforesaid business the said company Respondent No. 1 approached the petitioners and requested for grant of term loan of Rs. 300.0 Lacs for financial assistance for manufacturing unit at Noida Export Processing Zone. The said company was established with the installed capacity of 5 million CD's manufactured per year.3. Respondent No. 1 has in consideration of advancement of loan of Rs. 300 Lacs has agreed to repay the said amount in instalments along with interest and charges under c...

Choksi Arvind Jewellers, Vs. the Official Liquidator, Hitechi Jeweller ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2006)BC174; 2005(4)BomCR489; [2006]134CompCas492(Bom)

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present show cause notice is issued under section 2 r/w s. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and in exercise of power conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India against the Contemnor namely Narendra S.Soni @ Patadia and his son namely Shailendra N. Patadia. The aforesaid show cause notice was issued in view of the following circumstances.2. In the present case, company petition is filed u.s. 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1 of 1956 for winding up of company namely Hitechi Jewellery Industries Ltd. In a Company Application No.277 of 2002 which was initiated by the petitioner an order dt.21.2.03 was passed by this court and it was directed that pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition an Official Liquidator, High Court, Mumbai be appointed as Provisional Liquidator of all the assets of the Company. The Liquidator was also directed to take charge of all the assets and properties belonging to the respondent company.3. Pursuant thereto, th...

integrated Finance Ltd. Vs. the Official Liquidator, Rohan Stampings P ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2006)BC162; 2005(4)BomCR479; [2006]134CompCas82(Bom); [2006]68SCL321(Bom)

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present show cause notice was issued against Rajeev M Dixit for breaking open the lock and seal of the Official Liquidator which was placed on the premises of a company under Liquidation. Some of the material facts of the present case are as under:2. In the said company petition, on 5.6.96 in company application no.182 of 1996 the liquidator was appointed as Provisional Liquidator in respect of machinery described in Exhibit (A) and (C). However, since it was not possible to separately identify those machineries nor was it possible to keep the said machineries separately the Liquidator with a view to safeguard the said properties locked the factory premises. On 10.6.98 the Liquidator sealed the said premises and took possession thereof. 3. Subsequently the State Bank of India, Juhu Tara Road Branch, Mumbai filed a suit being suit No.4593 of 1997 in this court and a Court Receiver High Court Mumbai was appointed as Receiver in favour of the Bank. The applicants in ...

Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. Vs. Mayur Co-operative ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR834; 2005(5)BomCR669; 2005(3)MhLj1001

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. The first petition, i.e. Writ Petition No. 386 of 2000, is filed by a federal milk procuring and processing society to challenge certain orders passed by authorities designated under the Milk and Milk Products Order, 1992 (MMPO) in favour of respondent No. 1, which is another milk procuring and processing society. The petitioner Society is registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Act') whereas respondent No. 1 is a society registered under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act'). The petitioner Society in this petition is aggrieved by the functioning of the 1st respondent - Milk Co-operative Union, which, according to it, affects its economic viability.2. As far as this petition is concerned, the case of the petitioner is that it is registered on 16th March, 1963. It has been allotted the operating area of all the 12 Talukas of Kolhapur District of ...

Sanjay S/O Pundlikrao Niranjane Vs. Swati W/O Sanjay Niranjane

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2006)DMC731; 2005(4)MhLj122

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith and called out hearing.2. Heard learned Advocate Mrs. Jyoti Dharmadhikari for the applicant and Shri R. R. Srivastava, Advocate for the Non-applicant.3. The chronological event as to the Court proceedings have to be narrated as below since the parties have chosen not to give them per se quatum. Those however, could be narrated as follows :(i) Parties who were married as per Boudha rites and rituals on 22-10-2000 have been separated.(ii) The applicant husband filed petition for dissolution of marriage in the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Chandrapur some time in the year 2002 which proceeding was registered as HMP No. 42 of 2002 and has been re-numbered as 772 of 2002.(iii) After knowing the motion for dissolution by the husband, wife present respondent has filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Nagpur which is registered as Case No. A-490 of 2002.(iv) Since the wife's petition was later in time, i...

Education Society Vs. Narayan Govindrao Deshpande and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR393; 2005(6)BomCR325; 2005(4)MhLj417

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner - an educational society challenges the order dated 16-3-1993 passed by Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati, whereby the Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to implement the decision of this High Court under Section 11(3) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Regulation of Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as M.E.P.S. Act) and directed the petitioner to pay to respondent No. 1 amount of Rs. 288401/- within 40 days and in default recommended to the Government to deduct an equal amount from grants due and payable to the petitioner in future and to pay the same to respondent No. 1. This Court has issued notice before admission initially on 3rd August, 1993 and at that time it found that the amount was recovered by respondent No. 1 and as such there was no question of staying further recovery. However, on 6th August, 1993 it was brought to notice of this Court that part of amount was...