Mumbai Court July 2005 Judgments

Pundlik Chingalaba Kaje Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR684; 2006(1)BomCR368

Bobde S.A., J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith.The learned Counsel for the respective respondents waive service of rule.Heard by consent.2. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Collector dated 28.6.2005 refusing to include the petitioner's name in the list of voters. This order is passed in the course of election to the Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Doodh Mahasangh Maryadit of which the petitioner claims to be a representative i.e. The Aurangabad Zilla Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., as an voter.3. Briefly, the facts are that The Aurangabad Zilla Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the 'Zilla Sangh', is a member of an apex society i.e. the Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Doodh Mahasangh Maryadit. Elections to the Managing Committee in the year 2005 are to be held. The Zilla Sangh being a society can only cast its vote through a representative nominated in accordance with the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1971, he...

Prithvi Associates Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC531

1. The appellant is registered with the department as advertising agent and comes under the category of "Advertising Services" ands is liable to pay service tax on the services provided by them. The dispute in the present case relates to the service provided by the appellant to State/Central Government department for advertising various general awareness programmes issued by the Directorate of Information and Broadcasting, Government of Gujarat. For the said purposes, the appellant was hiring the space available in Government buses, etc., and readymade advertisements were being received by them from Government departments, which were displayed on specified buses. The said work of Government departments of displaying various advertisements were being undertaken by the appellants through a DAVP.During the period 1997-98 to 2001-02, the appellants provided such advertising services to the tune of Rs. 9,87,39,667/- but did not discharge service tax of Rs. 49,36,984/- @ 5%. It may be menti...

Hyundai Unitech Electrical Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT312Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Vide his impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise has confirmed duty of Rs. 1,03,31,791/- (Rupees one crore three lakh thirty one thousand seven hundred ninety one only) in respect of the parts of Tower and Lattice Mast cleared by the appellants during the period 1-3-2000 to 31-8-2000 by availing the benefit of Notification No.6/2000. He has however allowed the appellants to adjust the amount of Rs. 51,65,567/- (Fifty one lakh sixty five thousand five hundred sixty seven only) paid by the appellants @ 8% of the value of the goods in terms of the provisions of Rule 57AD. In addition, personal penalty of identical amount has been imposed on M/s. Hyundai Unilech Electrical Transmission Ltd., in terms of the provisions of Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 173Q and personal penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs, on the Chief Manager (Works), Shri Utpal Kumar Das in terms of Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 38A of the Central E...

Vasant Ajmera, Motilal Brothers, Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(204)ELT151Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) Mumbai confirming Customs duty demand of Rs. 41,97,964/- in respect of 9 consignments of dyes imported and cleared free of duty under the proviso to Section 28(1) and customs duty demand of Rs. 62,42,587/- on 5 consignments of dyes which were provisionally released but held liable to confiscation under Section 111(d), confiscating dyes under seizure under Section 111(d) with option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 1.5 lakhs in addition to duty and imposing penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962 of Rs. 10 lakhs on Motilal & Bros, Rs. 5 lakhs on S. Baranwal of Motilal & Bros. and Rs. One lakh each on Vasant Ajmera, partner of Mayur chemicals who disposed of 3 consignments imported duty free and Shri Sunil Jethanand Shah, partner of Mayur Chemicals.2. The brief facts of the case are that based on information regarding misuse of Import-Export Passbook and diversion of duty fr...

Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Modvat credit of Rs. 3,88,212/- has been confirmed against the appellant in respect of waste and scrap of the capital goods, on which the appellant had taken the Modvat credit, cleared by them during the period 1-4-97 to 31-7-01. In terms of the provisions of Rule 57S(2)(c), if an assessee clears capital goods on which he has taken the Modvat credit, he is required to pay duty equal to the duty leviable on transaction value. The appellants main contention is that such waste and scrap generated out of the modvatable capital goods cannot be considered as having been manufactured by them and as such no duty can be asked to be paid. For the above prepositions, they have referred to various decisions of the Tribunal laying down that such waste and scrap emerged during the course of dismantling of machine or machinery cannot be considered to be manufactured final product so as to be leviable to duty. However I find that the said decisions are not applicable inasmuch as they do not deal w...

Pearl Soap Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT460Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants are the job workers of Wipro Limited. Wipro supplied all the raw materials and packing materials and the appellants manufactured soap and cleared the same on payment of duty. The appellants filed price lists from time to time supported by CA's Certificate for the cost of production and after including the job charges (which also included the job workers' profit), arrived at the assessable value.2. A number of show cause notices were issued to the appellants seeking to include the following further costs in the assessable value declared by the appellants in the PLs :-(a) Octroi - 3%(b) Wastage - 2%(c) Trader's profit - 11%(d) Insurance - 1%.3. During the adjudication proceedings, the ld. Assistant Commissioner accepted the submissions of the Appellants that octroi only on soap noodles supplied by Wipro is includible (as rest of the items were supplied locally from Mumbai itself and no octroi is paid on them), and since the goods are not insured no cost was incurred on...

Ram Krishna Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to penalty of Rs. 1,47,052/- imposed under the provisions of Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the ground that the appellants, who is a "Rent-a-cab operator" failed to deposit the service tax during the period 4-4-2000 to 27-10-2000.2. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that up to 31-3-2000, the said services were exempted under Notification No. 3/99 dated 28-2-99. The appellants continued to entertain a bonafide belief that even after the expiry of the said Notification, the services in question were exempted and no lax was liable to be paid. However, as soon as they were pointed out by the revenue, they deposited the amount in question immediately thereafter along with interest. He also draws my attention to the observation made by the Commissioner (Appeals), vide which he has set aside the penalty imposed under other sections by observing that there is nothing on record to suggest that the appellants had suppressed any f...

Triton Communication Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant is an advertising agency and is liable to pay service tax. It was registered with the department with effect from November 1996. However, during the period May 1997 to September 1999, service tax was paid late and the returns were also filed late. Subsequently, the appellants deposited the service tax amount along with interest.Proceedings were initiated for imposition of personal penalty upon the appellants.2. The Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax Cell, Central Excise, Mumbai, after taking note of the fact that there was delay in depositing the tax without any justifiable cause, imposed personal penalty @ Rs. 100/- per day. The delay in depositing tax and fling the returns ranging from 2 to 276 days, as such, the total penalty imposed was to the tune of Rs. 2.64,400/-. On appeal against the above order, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the same. Hence, the present appeal.3. Shri Dipen Lathi. ld., CA., appearing for the appellants submits that the delay has occur...

Burroughs Wellcome (i) Ltd. Vs. Jagannath Namdeo Patel,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR812; 2005(4)MhLj57

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The short point raised in this petition is, whether the employees who have availed the benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) by expressly declaring that they shall have no claim or any benefit that may arise out of any dispute pending now or that may be raised in future at any forum, can insist on continuing with the pending complaint filed by them under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 In the present case, the application made by the company for dismissal of pending complaint filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 who have availed the benefits under the VRS has been dismissed by the Industrial Court on the ground that the matter is controversial and needs to be decided on merit. Challenging the aforesaid decision of the Industrial Court, the present petition is filed. 2. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 were the workmen employed by the petitioner company at their factory at Mulund (W), Mumbai. On 17th June, 2003, the petitioner company had floated a voluntarily retire...

ishwar Daya Kevalram Agarwal Vs. Madhukar Shankar Prabhane

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom428; 2005(4)ALLMR13; 2005(5)BomCR34; 2005(4)MhLj599

Mohta Anoop V., J.1. The petitioner-landlord, being a decree holder, moved an application under Order XX, Rule 10(1)(a) and (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') for mesne profits against the respondent-tenant/judgment debtor. The suit for recovery of the possession of the premises, let out to the tenant, was decreed on 25th June, 1982. The Appeal No. 522 of 1982, preferred by the tenant was also dismissed. Writ Petition No. 946 of 1983 filed by the tenant was disposed of by order dated 18th January, 1985. The operative part of the order in Writ Petition No. 3029 of 1983 is reproduced as under:'The Court records the statements that it is agreed between the parties that the decree passed by the Small Cause Court at Pune in Regular Civil Suit No. 314 of 1980 and confirmed by the District Court of Pune in Appeal No. 522 of 1982 shall not be executed before 31st October 1985 if the defendant files in this Court on or before 25th January, 1985 on affidavit:1. affirming that h...