Mumbai Court July 2005 Judgments

indus Coating Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of inter alia Aluminium Foils backed with Paper/LDPE claiming classification of the same under sub-heading No. 7607.60 of the CETA, 1985 by filing their Classification Lists/Declarations from time to time, which were approved by the Department. However, the Classification Declaration No.1/99-2000 with effect from 1-4-1999 for the said product filed was objected to by the Range Superintendent alleging that the same is classifiable under sub-heading 39.20 of the CETA, 1985. The appellants contested the same. The appellants factory is closed since December, 2000.2. Show Cause Notices dated 25-8-1999 for Nov. '94 to Jan. 1999 for Rs. 2,69,613/- invoking the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, 2-12-1999 for the period Feb '99 to June, 99 for Rs. 30,804/-, 19-1-2000 for the period July, 1999 to Dec '99 for Rs. 20,896/- and 28-6-2000 for the period Jan 2000 to February, 2000 for Rs. 2,585/- were issued to the appellants....

Shri Shriniwas Harinarayan Lahoti (Since Deceased His L/Rs. Smt. Vimal ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR185

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioners-Plaintiffs are the owners of the suit premises consisting of two rooms admeasuring 10' x 12', situated on the first floor of the house No. 108, Ganesh Peth, Pune. The respondents-tenants are the original defendants are in occupation of the same on monthly tenancy basis and using the same, basically for residential purpose. The Landlords, suit for eviction was decreed by order dated 29th March, 1989, against the respondents-tenants and thereby directed to recover the possession of the suit premises. The original defendant No. 1, Therefore, preferred the appeals and the same were allowed. In the result the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, was set aside. The petitioner landlord, therefore, have invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India and challenged the impugned judgment, dated 27th July, 1992.2. The present writ petition was admitted on 6th March, 1992. The order is, as passed 'Rule on question relating to groun...

Bhagchand Govardhan Naik Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR268; 2006(2)BomCR184; 2005(4)MhLj161

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Chandurkar, learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents. The learned Counsel for petitioner states that the petitioner was owner of Survey No. 17 (New Gut No. 50), admeasuring 6H, 58 R., of land situated at Taroda, Tq. Motala, District Buldhana. Proceedings under Land Acquisition Act were initiated and notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 19-7-1984. Section 6 notification was issued on 17-8-1985 and award in the Special Land Acquisition case No. LAO 93-93-84 of village Taroda was made on 24-10-1986.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that, as per the award the petitioner is entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 16,988.40. The learned Counsel for petitioner further submitted that notice was issued by Rehabilitation Officer, Buldhana to the petitioner, whereby the petitioner was informed that his land out of survey No. 17 area 1 H, 21 R, was acquired for rehab...

Maharashtra General Kamgar Mahasangh Vs. Tapan Chatterjee and Co.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2006(108)FLR362]; 2005(4)MhLj888

D.G. Karnik, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 20th December, 2001 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai dismissing its complaint filed under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act').2. The respondent was carrying on business of giving on hire to the members of Indian Motion Pictures Association movable generating sets mounted on motor vehicles. Three persons are required for operation of each generating set. One is an operator who operates the generating set; the second is helper/assistant who helps the operator and the third is a driver who drives to the site the motor vehicle on which the generating set is mounted. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent who was the owner of 7 movable generating sets had employed 21 employees in connection with the business of giving on hire of the generating sets. Though all the employees were employed for more than 10...

Bhaurao Ambadas Kasar, Vs. Vinod Ramdas Kasar, Cultivator

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR313; 2006(2)BomCR201; (2005)107BOMLR1591; 2006(1)MhLj353

S.T. Kharche, J.1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellants-defendants have filed this second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 5/12/1986 passed by the District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 25/1986, whereby the appeal has been partly allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is set aside and the defendants are restrained from disturbing the use of the lane of the present width (of which location is shown in Schedule C) up to the extent of 35 feet from the northern end towards south and further restrained from constructing or committing any act that would offend the plaintiffs right to use the lane over the aforesaid 35 feet part of the lane. 2. Brief facts are required to be stated as under.: The plaintiff and defendants are from the same family and they owned ancestral property which was the subject matter of the partition. The partition deed dated 01/1/1949 (Exh.63) was reduced int...

Vikas Automatic Fasteners Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT90Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides and considered the issue of classification of Agriculture Implement kit/parts claimed under Heading 84.32.00 by the assessee and arrived at under 73.18.00 by Revenue.1.2 From the nature of goods under dispute, from the records it is seen they are-------------------------------------------------------------------------------PART NO.REF DESCRIPTION--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RIGID THE CARRIER ASSEMBLY R-09 R-11--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10142 Ml 1 Rigid tine carrier 1.H 9 11-------------------------------------------------------------------------------179859 Bolt hex. Hd 7/16 UNC x 1.18" Lg 18 22-------------------------------------------------------------------------------103322 Spring lock washer 7/16 med. 18...

ispat Metallics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1.2 The case issue is eligibility of capital goods entitled & credit on "Coal Bsiquelte Plant" where the appellants converted Iron Ore fines received on job work under Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Rules from M/s Ispat Industries Ltd & returned the Briquette, for further use there for manufacture of Iron & Steel Products. I have perused the case records and considered the arguments advanced in the appeal memorandum and reiterated at the time of personal hearing. The dispute lies in a narrow compass. The only point involved is whether the appellants were entitled to take capital goods credit on machine used for manufacture of non-dutiable goods. The appellants were using the said machine for making briquettes from fine ore which does not amount to manufacture. This aspect is not in dispute. The contention of the appellant is that there is no bar on such credit in terms of Rule 6(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules. The argument is fallacious. There is no absolute or unqualified right to cre...

Sigma Securities Vs. the Jcit, Spl. Rg. 28

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)102ITD342(Mum.)

1. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of CIT(A)VII, Mumbai dated 28/3/01 passed for the block period starting from A.Y 1987-88 and ending on 27/1/97. The main grievance of the assessee relates to disallowance of claim of depreciation of Rs. 60,68,690/-.2. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation Section 132 was carried out on 27/1/97 at the business premises of the assessee along with other group concern namely M/s. Sigma Credit & Capital Service Pvt. Ltd. From the premises of the assessee no books of accounts were seized, however, while conducting search at the premises of M/s. Sigma Credit & Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. a file containing 91 pages was found and seized. It was inventorised as A-4. From the perusal of this file it revealed that assessee had leased out the following assets to M/s. Gujarat Health Care Ltd. by lease agreement dated 31/3/95._________________________________________________________S. No. Description Qty. N...

Adarsh Associates Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)7SOT517(Mum.)

These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against two separate orders dated 11-2-2002 of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) XIII, Mumbai treating the income earned by the partnership firm on leasing of its properties as income under the head "Income from house property", pertaining to the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, respectively.The facts in brief are that the assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business as "dealers and investors in properties and giving the same on rent". For the years under consideration, the assessee-firm has shown a receipt of Rs. 5,04,120 by way of rent on letting out the premises as Vapi to Central Excise department in each year. This amount of Rs. 5,04,120 was credited to profit and loss account against which, depreciation, office expenses and interest on partner's capital were debited to profit and loss account and net loss of Rs. 11,215 is worked out and shown in the return of income for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1990-2000, re...

Aftab Alam Abdul Hamid Ansari Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ3634

R.C. Chavan, J.1. Being aggrieved by his conviction by Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, for offences of murder, dowry death and cruelty to his wife punishable under sections 302, 498A and 304B of the I.P.C., the appellant has preferred this appeal.2. Facts which led to prosecution of the appellant are as under:-3. Appellant was married to Tahera about five years prior to the incident. They were residing together at Andheri with appellant's mother. It was alleged that while settling marriage, appellant's relations falsely represented that he was earning Rs 15,000/-or more per month when, in fact, he was idle. Appellant's relations had sold their flat to utilise money for business purpose. There used to be fights between husband and wife every day. It was alleged that appellant wanted Tahera to bring a sum of Rs 1 lakh from her father for setting him up in some work. Though Tahera was pregnant, fights continued. Eventually, on 25/10/1999, Tahera was admitted to Nair Hospital at...