Mumbai Court October 2006 Judgments

Sazu R.S. Nadkarni Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR419; 2006(6)BomCR529

Kakade P.V., J.1. Heard both sides.2. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by Additional District Judge, Margao, rejecting the reference under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act. After hearing both the parties for sometime, it is obvious that the lower Court rejected the reference observing that in the said case no value was determined for plot No. 137 held on aforementioned by the applicant and, therefore, he was held to be not entitled to be succeeded in the said reference.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant brought to my notice unreported order of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2558 of 1989 in the case of Sri Piedade Fernandes v. Union of India, wherein it was observed that despite the restrictive covenant, the lessee is entitled to the compensation to the extent of his interest in the acquired lands, since the Government, by necessary implication, had recognised the interest in the lease hold property held by the lessee. In my c...

Nirlon Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(209)ELT12(Bom)

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondents have filed a reply. Counsel have made their submissions.3. The petitioner herein is challenging the action initiated by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for recovery of the amount of interest through their letters dated 24th August 2006, 4th September 2006 and the detention Memo dated 27th September 2006.4. The brief facts leading to the filing of this Petition are as follows:The petitioner is a Company having its factory at Tarapur in District Thane. The petitioner has been paying the excise duty while clearing the goods from time to time as per Rule 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It, however, so happened that there were a few defaults in the period of July to September 2000. The petitioner was required to make defaults good by paying interest at the rate of 24% under Sub-clause (1)(d) thereof. According to the petitioner, it has paid the same. Thereafter the Deputy Commissioner, Centra...

Administrator of U.T. of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and anr. Vs. R.S. Suth ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR724; 2007(1)MhLj579

V.M. Kanade, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 - Administrator of Union Territory of Dadra Nagar Haveli and the petitioner No. 2 - Union of India have filed these two Writ Petitions, challenging the Judgments and Orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the Tribunal was pleased to allow both the Original Applications and thereby held that the respondents were entitled to the pay- scale of Surveyor and Veterinary Assistant respectively in their Original Application on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Against the said Judgments and Orders passed by the Tribunal in the two Original Applications filed by the respondents, the petitioners have preferred a Writ Petition No. 5460 of 1999 in this Court and it was admitted on 3rd February, 2006 and interim relief in terms of prayer Clause (b) was granted. Facts:2. The respondents in Writ Petition No. 596 of 2001 were appointed as a Surveyors in the Administration of Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli by Order dated 1...

Prabhakar Balaji Bhoge and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ532

R.C. Chavan, J.1. Appellant-Prabhakar Balaji Bhoge in Criminal Appeal No. 386 of 2001 challenges his convictions for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentences of rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 250/- and rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 100/- respectively imposed upon him on the two counts by the learned Special Judge, Gadchiroli, vide judgment dated 12-12-2001 passed in Special Case No. 2 of 1994. Appellant-Murlidhar Namdeo Sarpe in Criminal Appeal No. 387 of 2001 challenges his conviction for offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the same judgment of the learned Special Judge, Gadchiroli.2. Facts, which led to prosecution and conviction of the two appellants, are as under:Appellant-Prabhakar was working as Assistant Police Sub-Inspector, whereas appellant-Murlidhar was working as servant in a Tea Stall at the...

Manisha Pharma Plast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(208)ELT213Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applicant in the miscellaneous application before us seeks order from the Tribunal to direct the department to comply with its order dated 12-1-2005 to the extent that the statutory amount of interest due on the refund sanctioned amounting to Rs. 2,53,81,156.02 be ordered to be paid to the applicant which is being denied by the department.2. The facts of the case are that the applicant has claimed a refund of duty amounting to Rs. 4,78,45,990.30 with interest which was denied by the lower adjudicating authority but allowed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide its order dated 1-10-2003. The Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order was dismissed by the Tribunal vide its Order Nos. A-120-121/WZB/2005/C-III, dated 12-1-2005 2005 (191) E.L.T.297 (Tri.-Mum.) and the cross objection filed by the applicant regarding non-payment of refund and interest were upheld. However, in spite of the dismissal of appeal filed by the Revenue, the interest still remain unpaid and therefore...

Hutchison Essar Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)14STT133

1. We have heard both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 4,43,98,631/-covering the period April 2004 to September 2004.2. The applicants had paid Rs. 33,35,08,511/- towards service tax and the remaining amount of Rs. 4,43,98,631/- by utilizing the service tax credit, far which had been objected to for the reason of failure to follow the provisions of Rule 5(4) of the Rules 2002, according to which return in the form prescribed called ST-3 return was required to be submitted. We find that such return was filed in July, 2005 and the return also contains details of input, service provider etc. as stipulated in the return form. We also note that prima facie it is not a case of wrong availment or utilization of service tax but a case of utilization without filing of ST-3 return in time. Prima facie, this is not sufficient for holding that a substantive right to credit is to be denied to the applicants. We, therefore, waive pre-deposit of the amount of ...

indorama Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The prayer in the application is to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 1,85,273/- (Rupees one lakh eighty five thousand two hundred seventy three only) confirmed by denying the modvat credit in respect of Conveyor Belt as of capital goods.2. After hearing both the side, I find that the credit was originally allowed by the adjudicating authority, by following various decisions of the Tribunal on appeal against the said order, filed by the Revenue, Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the same. By following the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vikas Industrial Gas v. CCE .3. Shri Mayur Shroff Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the issue before the Larger Bench in the above case was as regards admissi-bility of credit in respect of Pump used for delivering water from the reservoir through pipe line to factory located klm. away from the factory. However, in the instant case a part of the conveyor belt is installed in the f...

Nikita Transphase Adducts Pvt. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)7STR182

2. The appeal is preferred by the appellants against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn rejected the appeal of this appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. (i) Whether the manufacturer has the option to pay Excise Duty when the product is exempted under the exemption notification. (ii) Whether the jurisdictional Excise Authorities of the manufacturer can question availing of credit taken on the basis of valid duty paying documents.4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) while relying upon the decision of Narayan Polyplast v. CCE Ahmedabad 2003 (153) E.L.T 160 (Tri. - Mumbai) has held that the assessee does not have an option to pay the duty, when the goods are unconditionally exempted. Secondly any duty paid on exempted goods to be treated as deposits under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Thus the appellants have wrongly availed credit on Lidocaine/Lignocaine, an Anesthetic which are unconditionally exempted. The appellants were well aw...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Movilex Irrigation Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is a Department's appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. P-III/123/2005 dated 23-03-2005 by which the order-in-original No. 35/REFUND/C.Ex./VIII/04 dated April, 2004 was modified. (a) The respondent filed a refund claim for Rs. 48,913/- on 10-9-1997; (b) The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim by his order-in-original dated 28-10-1999 after issuing a SCN dated 26-02-1999; (c) On appeal by the party, Commissioner (Appeals) by his order dated 22-12-2003 held that the party is entitled to the refund; (d) Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 06-5-2004 sanctioned the refund of Rs. 48,913/- under the provisions of Section 11B and permitted the assessee for taking credit in cenvat; (e) On appeal by the assessee the Commissioner (Appeals) vide her order dated 23-3-2005 held that the party is eligible for interest on the refund from the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of refund application as ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals)....

Chandeshwar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(2)SLJ206CAT

1. The applicant aggrieved by the downward revision of his pension has approached this Tribunal for quashing and setting aside order dated 13.12.2000 of the respondents.2. The applicant has submitted that he was working in the Railways as Goods Guard and retired from service on 29.2.1996. Pension Payment Order (PPO) was issued on 11.3.1996 which was based upon his emoluments drawn in pursuance of the Fourth Pay Commission scales. The applicant was placed in the Fifth Pay Commission scale of Rs. 4500-7000 w.e.f.1.1.1996 but such orders fixing his pay in this scale were issued subsequently. The initial PPO issued to the applicant on 11.3.1996 was subsequently revised by PPO dated 13.1.1999. The applicant has stated that in August, 2005 he came to know that his pension had been reduced on the ground that his basic pension fixed initially, was wrong. The Senior Divisional Accounts Office, Bombay Division advised the Versova Branch of Canara Bank from where the applicant was drawing his pe...