Mumbai Court July 2005 Judgments

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Indu Nissan Oxo Chem. Indus. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT749Tri(Mum.)bai

1. A very short point is involved in the present appeal of the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), vide which he has granted interest on the refund amount in terms of the provisions of Section 11BB by following the Board's Circular No. 670/61/2002-CX dated 1-10-2002.2. The revenue's contention is that since the application was filed before the provisions of Section 11BB were enacted on 26-5-1995, the provisions of Section 11BB will not apply. However, I find that the proviso to said section clearly provides for payment of interest in respect of the applications pending before the Finance Bill 1995 receives accent of the precedent and is to the effect that if the refund is not granted within three months from such date, there shall be paid to the applicant interest under section from the date immediately after three months from such date. Said section itself is applicable to the refund application, which were filed before the said section came into existence. As su...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Spectrum Pharma Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT484Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Revenue is in appeal aggrieved by an Order dated 11-10-2000 made by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai.2. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-IV, has disallowed the discount claimed by the assessee in their sales price for sale to M/s. Raptokos Brett & Co. Ltd. and consequently confirmed the demand of Rs. 6,26,749/- covered by five Show Cause Notices.3. The Show Cause Notice alleged that the assessee has cleared Neopeptine Capsules and Siderfol Capsules and Hepatoglobine Capsules to their own licensor, M/s. Raptokos Brette & Co., on principal to principal basis and allowed the discount to them. The above products are manufactured by M/s. Raptokos Brette & Co. and therefore, discount allowed by the assessee does not appear to be admissible as the transaction is not at arms length. Since M/s. Raptokos Brette & Co. is a marketing agent, discount allowed to M/s. Raptokos Brette & Co. is not permissible under the provisions of Sect...

Rammaica (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. M/s. Rammaica (India) Limited is a manufacturer of decorative laminates. Bulk of the sales of the said goods are made through three dealers: 1. M/s. Maharashtra Laminates Pvt. Ltd. (MLPL) - Sales in Mumbai region only. 3. M/s. Ram Laminates (I) Pvt. Ltd. (RLPL), Pune - Sales in Maharashtra.2. It is the contention of the Revenue that these marketing outfits are related to the manufacturing concern. The appellant company seemed to have adopted a modus operandi by which it was selling 'A' grade laminated sheets as 'C' or 'D' grade to the first named marketing company who in turn sold them as 'A' grade sheets to its dealers.Further, it is also alleged that the appellant was under stating the value of sheets laminated while selling them to the related buyers (Marketing companies) thereby evading duty.3. M/s. RMIL is a Limited company. Its Chairman is one Mr. Ramabatar Jhunjhunwala. It has three directors, two of them his relatives and one an outsider. It has a network of branches at Mum...

Dhanlakshmi Bank Ltd. Vs. Bank of India and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: 3(2006)BC183

1. This appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendant No. 3 Dhanlakshmi Bank Ltd. being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 1st April, 2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the D.R.T.-II, Mumbai in AppealNo. 114/2004. The impugned order was passed by the learned Presiding Officer on the appeal filed by one Swift Finlease (India) Ltd; it filed the said appeal under Section 17 of the SRFAESI Act, 2002. The appeal pertains to commercial premises being office Nos. 101 to 106, 1st Floor, Nilkanth Commercial Centre, Sahar Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai. The appellant in Appeal No. 114/2004 (on which the impugned order has been passed) was Bank of India/respondent NO. 1' s constituent since 1989. At or about 1985, the appellant company was enjoying cash credit facility of Rs. 3.50 crores granted by the respondent No. 1 Bank of India inter alia against equitable mortgage (created in February 1995) of the property. The appellant could not clear the outstandings. The appell...

Shri D.K. Rajepandhare, Ex-joint Civil Judge and J.M. Satara Vs. State ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR858; 2005(6)BomCR288; 2005(4)MhLj1067

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This writ petition filed by a former Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, seeks to challenge the order dated 19th December 2002 passed by the Government of Maharashtra compulsorily retiring him after a disciplinary enquiry and a recommendation of the High Court to that effect. The respondents to this writ petition are the State of Maharashtra and the High Court of Bombay through its Registrar, respectively.2. The short facts leading to this writ petition are as follows:-The petitioner joined as a Civil Judge, Junior Division on 13th December 1982. During the course of his service, he was transferred from place to place. When he was posted at Satara he received a chargesheet dated 14th September 2000 for certain acts of misconduct committed by him when he was a Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate at Yeola in District Nashik from June 1994 to May 1997. The charges were principally three-fold.(i) Firstly, he was charged that durin...

Abbas Kasam Naddaf (Since Deceased Through His Heirs: Smt. Anwar Abbas ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR258; 2005(6)BomCR881; 2005(4)MhLj424

Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. The Petitioners-tenants, legal heirs of original defendant No. 1 have invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and sought to challenge the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Satara (for short 'Appellate Court'), dated 21st November, 1989, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 165 of 1983 by which respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 7 - original plaintiffs Nos.1 to 6 - landlords' Appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 7th July, 1983, passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 270 of 1978 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karad (for short 'Trial Court'), was set aside and, in the result, landlords-respondents suit has been decreed Therefore, the present Writ Petition by the heirs of the original tenant - defendant No. 1 in the suit in question. 2. One Mohiddin, father of respondents, inducted the petitioners' father Abbas in the suit premises as a monthly tenant on 6th August, 1949. Sometime in the year 1955, Mohiddin, father of the respondent...

Krishna Ramchandra Jadhav @ Yadav, Vs. Smt. Shankari B. Ajimal

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR185; 2005(6)BomCR364; 2005(4)MhLj577

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the original tenant Smt. Vatsala Krishna Jadhav. The respondent is the landlady. The premises consist of one room situated at Kurar Village, Daftary Road, Malad (East), Mumbai. The original tenant Smt. Vatsala Jadhav died during the pendency of the suit and, therefore, the petitioners-heirs are brought on the record. The suit filed by the landlady on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent, and unauthorised permanent alteration, was dismissed by The Court of Small Causes at Bombay (for short 'Trial Court'). The Appellate Court, however, allowed the same and decree for possession has been granted in favour of the respondent-landlady against the petitioners-tenant. Therefore, the present Writ Petition by the petitioners.2. The petitioners failed to deposit the rent regularly and were in arrears since 1st October, 1975. After due notice, the respondent-landlady filed the suit in the Trial Court. After considering t...

Mohanbhai Ishwarbhai Patel and Nayankumar M. Patel Vs. Indian Council ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom36; 2005(4)ALLMR652; 2006(1)BomCR830; 2005(4)MhLj433

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. S.C. Suit No. 8928 of 1991 was filed by the present applicants for a declaration and permanent injunction against defendant nos. 2 to 4. The Indian Council of Basic Education which was impleaded as defendant no. 1 in the said suit is a Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and defendant nos. 2 to 4 were the members of the said Trust. The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State was impleaded as defendant no. 5. The plaintiffs also claimed to be the members of defendant no. 1 and there was a dispute between them and defendant nos. 2 to 4. Defendant no. 3 is the daughter of defendant no. 2. Admittedly, defendant no. 3 is no more. In Notice of Motion no. 3430 of 1993 taken out in the said suit the following prayers were made:(a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the above suit this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an order: (i) restraining the Defendant Nos. 2, and 4 from acting as members of the First Defendant.(ii) restraining th...

Surajpal S/O Shankarpal Singh and anr. Vs. Dnyaneshwar Satw Mendke and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR239; 2006(1)BomCR800; 2005(4)MhLj907

D.S. Zoting, J.1. Heard Mr. R. M. Borde, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.T. Veer, Advocate holding for Mr. V. D. Salunke, learned counsel for the respondents.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forth with. Taken up for hearing by consent of both the parties.3. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs. They have challenged the order dated 19-11-2004 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Majalgaon, below Exh. 50 in Special Civil Suit No. 50/2004 (Old No. 12/2002). The said suit was filed by the petitioners against the respondent No. 1 to 4 for recovery of the possession of the suit property and for arrears of licence fee. They claimed that they are the owners of the suit property and the suit property was given on lease to the respondent No. 1 at the licence fee of Rs. 8,000/- per month, and the respondent No. 1 paid amount of Rs. 2,65,000/- as advance to the plaintiffs. According to the petitioners, as respondent No. 1 committed default in payment of the licence fee, they w...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajneesh Foundation

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Bom)490; [2006]280ITR553(Bom)

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of its appeal No. ITA 188/Pn/1995 by the order dt. 19th Oct., 2001, by the Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred the present appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act.2. Though the Revenue has sought to raise several questions of law, the appeal has been admitted only on the following substantial question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the IT Act, 1961 ?'3. Facts leading to this appeal may be briefly stated thus :The respondent is a trust registered under Bombay Public Trusts Act. Earlier it was known as Rajneesh Foundation. However, after amendment in the trust deed, it came to be known as Neo Sannyas Foundation. The respondent filed returns of income for the asst. yr. 1991-92 showing certain income and claimed exemption from income-tax under Section 11 of the IT Act. The AO rejected the claim on the gr...