Mumbai Court August 2005 Judgments

Commr. of C. Ex. and Customs Vs. Uttam Steel Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT33Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise. In the impugned order the Commissioner held that Spent Flux which arises during the process of galvanization is not excisable goods for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty. He set aside the order of the lower authority holding that the said goods fall under Chapter Heading No. 38.23. The Revenue's grounds are that SPENT FLUX is marketable inasmuch as the respondents sells these goods to those who extract certain chemicals out of it and secondly the product results out of a process of manufacture. Thus the Revenue contends both marketability and the fact that the goods are manufactured indicate that the goods in question are excisable.3. The respondents rely on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Markfed Vanaspati & Allied Indus, v.Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, 2000 (116) E.L.T. 204, wherein the Tribunal held in that case Spent earth being...

Shalaka V. Rane Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Goa inter alia imposing a penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh on the appellant herein, a Director of M/s. Prashant Polyconcrete Products Pvt. Ltd., on whom duty of Customs has been confirmed and capital goods imported by the company have been confiscated with an option to redeem them on payment of fine. The appellant is one of the Directors. The company and other Directors have not filed appeals before this Tribunal.2. We find, after hearing the ld. S.D.R, and perusing the record, that M/s. Prashant Polyconcrete Products Pvt. Ltd., a 100% EOU, had not complied with the conditions specified in Notification No. 13/81-Cus., dated 9-2-1981 i.e. fulfilment of export obligations and it is for this reason that capital goods imported by the company were liable to confiscation. The appellant herein has been penalised, in her capacity, as a Director of the company. No ground has been raised in the appeal memorandum b...

Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Union Bank of India and anr.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: III(2006)BC254

1. This misc. appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendant No.1 Standard Chartered Bank being aggrieved by the order dated 13th December, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of D.R.T.-II, Mumbai on Exhibit No. 18 in Original Application No. 3189 of 2000. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application of the applicant Bank namely Union Bank of India for leading secondary evidence through xerox copies of 15 documents listed in the schedule annexed to the application.2. The defendants opposed this application inter alia on the ground that no case for leading secondary evidence was made out. Their resistance however was restricted to only one document viz. cheque bearing No. 842033 dated 3rd April, 1993 for Rs. 11,29,889.20, a copy of which was filed at Serial No. 1 of the schedule.3. The learned Presiding Officer after hearing both the sides and after going through the application and the reply, allowed the said application and in my view, r...

Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. P.K. Gupta, Commissioner of Income ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR840; (2006)202CTR(Bom)308; [2006]284ITR85(Bom); 2005(4)MhLj659

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. In this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.6.1988 passed by the 1st Respondent- the Commissioner of the Income Tax with regard to the Assessment Year 1982-1983 and the Assessment Year 1983-1984 for the claim of interest.2. The brief facts are that on 8.10.1982, the Petitioner Company had filed a Return of Income for the Assessment Year 1982-1983 declaring a loss of Rs. 23,82,75,310/-. It appears that prior to that, the Petitioner Company had already paid a sum of Rs. 6,30,00,000/-as an advance tax. Over and above, a sum of Rs. 8,44,150/- was also deducted at source and paid as tax to the Respondents. On 5.6.1984 the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Assessment Range II(B), Bombay had computed the total income of the Petitioner Company at Rs. 7,93,48,600/-. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner determined a refund of Rs. 1,19,78,111/-together with the interest at Rs. 31,14,306/-under Section 214 of the Income Tax Act and the amount of Rs. ...

National Textile Corporation Ltd. and anr. Vs. S.D. Sobharam

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR847; 2005(5)BomCR522; 2005(4)MhLj675

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present suit is filed by the National Textile Corporation Ltd. in respect of the debt due and payable by the defendants to M/s. Kohinoor Mills for the sum of Rs. 3,18,876/- with further interest @ 21% p.a. on Rs. 2,48,081.31 from the date of the suit till payment and/or realisation. 2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that pursuant to the provisions of the Textile Undertakings (Taking over of Management) Act, 1983 they have taken over the management of Textile Undertakings of M/s. Kohinoor Mills Ltd. and a custodian was appointed under Section 16 of the said Act. The said mill is subsequently nationalised and thus, the plaintiffs have acquired all the assets of the said undertaking known as M/s. Kohinoor Mills Ltd. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that prior to taking over of the said mill there were dealings between the said M/s. Kohinoor Mills Ltd. and the defendants and thereunder from time to time, M/s. Kohinoor Mills delivered cloth to the defendants. In r...

Rasiklal Kumbha Gala, by His Constituted Attorney Ashidhir Kumbha Gala ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR798; 2006(1)BomCR425; (2005)107BOMLR40

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Petitioner - original respondent has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and sought to challenge the judgment and order passed by the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bombay, dated 6th October, 1988, whereby, the Ejectment Application filed by the respondent-original applicant allowed and the petitioner-respondent has been directed to vacate the premises from Shop No. 1, Tashkand Building, Borivali (West)5 Bombay - 400 092. Therefore, the present Writ Petition.2. Based on a Conducting Agreement, dated 19th May, 1972, petitioner was allowed to run a grocery business on the terms and conditions as incorporated in the said agreement. The respondent preferred the said Ejectment Application No. 12/53/E/1976 in the Trial Court sometime in the year 1976. The application is dated 31st January, 1976, but there is an endorsement of date 12th August, 1976 also. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said application, as relevant, are reproduced herein below:'6. The...

Mohammed Alam Ibrahim Shaikh Vs. S.G. Suryavanshi, Dy. Commissioner of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)MhLj1089

Abhay S. Oka, J.1. On 28th June, 2005, the Counsel appearing for the parties were put to notice that this petition of the year 2004 challenging the order of externment will be heard finally at admission stage. Accordingly, on 28th June, 2005 this petition was fixed on 12th July, 2005. Though an Affidavit-in-reply dated 5th August, 2004 was already filed on 12th July, 2005, time was granted to the respondents to file additional reply till 14th July, 2005. On 14th July, 2005 again time was granted till 21st July, 2005. In the meanwhile on 18th July, 2005 affidavit-in-reply was filed by the respondent No. 2. On 3rd August, 2005, submissions were heard and the petition was kept on 9th August, 2005 for dictation of judgment. On 9th August, 2005 some documents were tendered by the learned A.P.P. and therefore, the Counsel appearing for the parties were heard and today this petition is kept for judgment.2. A show-cause notice dated 2nd October, 2002 was issued by the respondent No. 2 to the p...

Sunanda Janardan Rangnekar Vs. Rahul Apartment No. 11 Co-operative Hou ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR244; 2006(1)MhLj734

D.G. Karnik, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Bombay on 7th December, 2004 dismissing the revision.2. The respondent No. 1 is a co-operative housing society (for short 'the society') having 29 members. There are 28 residential flats which are allotted to 28 members and one shop is allotted to the petitioner. The area of the flats varies between 479 sq.ft and 657 sq.ft. The area of the shop premises in occupation of the petitioner is about 160 sq.ft. i.e. to say that the petitioner's shop is smaller than the smallest flat in the building of the respondent No. 1 society. It appears that the society recovers from the members property tax, payable to the municipal authorities at the rate of Rs. 30.81 per sq.ft per annum of the area of the flat/shop. In addition thereto, the Society also levies and recovers from the members amount by way of society charges/maintenance at a flat rate of Rs. 8,000/- per annum (Rs...

Sardar Surjeetsingh and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR382; 2006(2)BomCR704; 2006(1)MhLj538

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard.2. Perused the records.3. The petitioners challenge the notifications dated 16-1-2003 and 21-10-2004 issued by the respondent No. 1 to the extent it appointed the respondent No. 4 either as the Member or the President of the Committee for the administration and management of the institution called the Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkhand Shri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib (hereinafter called as 'the Gurudwara') on account of being appointed as the Hon'ble Governor of the State of Bihar since November last. The challenge is on the ground that Article 158(2) of the Constitution of India does not permit the Governor of a State to hold any other office of profit and that the office of member and/or president of the said Gurudwara, is an office of profit and therefore, the respondent No. 4, having been appointed as the Honourable Governor of the State of Bihar, is not entitled to continue to be a Member or the President of the Committee appointed for the administration ...

Baburao Narayan Bagade and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR366; 2006(1)BomCR382

Rebello F.I., J.1. Rule was issued on 12-7-2005. Notice was issued to respondent No. 4. Sheristedar informs that respondent No. 4 has been served.2. Petitioners are all elected Councilors of the Municipal Council, Bhandara. They have been elected in the general elections held in January, 2002. Since then the petitioners are in office. After the declaration of results in the year 2002, respondent No. 2 published the names of 32 elected Councilors. Similarly, the name of respondent No. 4 was also published as being elected as a President of the Council. Both publications were in the Official Gazette. The elected Councilors including the petitioners moved requisition to respondent No. 2 on 7-5-2005 to hold a special meeting for considering a motion of no-confidence against respondent No. 4. In view of the requisition, respondent No. 2 convened a special meeting of the Council on 17-5-2005 to consider the motion of no-confidence against respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 2 appointed responde...