Mumbai Court November 2006 Judgments
Shri Balaji Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2006
Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC346
1. Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by the authorities below.2. After hearing both the sides, I find that the appellants are engaged in the processing of fabrics. Their factory was visited by the Central Excise Officers on 27.3.2003 and during the course of the search two blue notebooks and several incriminating documents showing unaccounted production and illicit clearance of processed fabrics were recovered.Apart from the above, officers also found job cards and grey challans showing receipt of grey fabrics and issuance of the same for processing. However, the fabrics shown to have been received were not entered in lot register.3. Statement of Shri Suresh K. Patel, Excise Clerk was recorded stating that the grey fabrics mentioned in the job cards were to be processed and cleared without payment of duty. Accordingly, the fabrics reflected in the said job cards, at various stages of processing were seized by t...
Tag this Judgment!Etc Networks Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2006
Reported in: (2007)9STT256
1. The challenged in the present appeal is to penalty of Rs. 1,49,900/-(Rupees one lakh forty nine thousand nine hundred only) imposed upon the appellant for late payment of service tax and late filing of ST-3 returns. It is seen that the appellants were liable to pay service tax on 'Broadcasting Service' w.e.f. 16.7.2001, they got themselves registered with the department. However, during the period July 2001 to July 2002, the tax was not paid in time and returns were not filed due date. The said tax was however subsequently deposited by them on their own without issuance of show cause notice.2. Notice was subsequently issued for confirmation of interest amount of Rs. 1,48,579/- (Rupees one lakh forty eight thousand five hundred seventy nine only) and for imposition of penalty. It is seen that the interest was also paid by the appellant before the issuance of the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority imposed personal penalty of Rs. 1,49,800/, (Rupees one lakh forty nine thous...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil S/O Janardan Shereka Vs. Nagar Parishad, Through Its Chief Offic ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR53; 2007(3)BomCR972
R.C. Chavan, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally.2. The petitioner takes exception to the order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Yavatmal, in Revision (ULP) No. 152 of 1999, whereby he set aside the order passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Yavatmal, in Complaint (ULP) No. 676 of 1994.3. The petitioner was employed as Junior Engineer on daily wages from 15-11-1991 with respondent Municipal Council. The regular Junior Engineer serving with the respondent Municipal Council, one Shri V.D. Choudhari, retired on 30-6-1992. Since then, the petitioner claimed to have been working as Incharge Junior Engineer of the respondent Municipal Council. The petitioner sought regularisation of his services. He had put in 240 days of service in the preceding 12 months' period. Instead of regularising his services, the respondent Municipal Council terminated his services with effect from 1-6-1994. The petitioner, therefore, filed complaint to the Labour Court, ...
Tag this Judgment!Nagpur Distillers Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR776; 2007(3)BomCR433
R.C. Chavan, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally.2. The petitioner, a distiller holding licence for manufacturing country liquor and potable liquor, has challenged the orders passed by respondent No. 2. Commissioner of State Excise, Mumbai, on 4-5-2002 and 11-3-2005 to the extent the orders refuse to levy privilege fees at the rates, which were applicable for the year 2001-2002.3. The petitioner, a partnership firm, decided to convert itself into a Private Limited Company by the same name and sought transfer of the licences for manufacturing of liquor, known as 'CL-I' and 'PLL'. They, therefore, applied to respondent No. 2 seeking to know the procedure for such transfer of licences in the name of new entity. This letter of the petitioner, dated 29-10-2001, was replied by respondent No. 2 on 18-2-2002. After exchange of queries, replies and applications, on 30-3-2002, the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra in Home Department wrote to respondent No. 2...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Poonamdas Bisandas Bairagi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)MhLj231
S.R. Dongaonkar, J.1. Heard learned A.P.P. for the applicant-State, none for respondent No. 1 [original complainant] and Mr. Firdos Mirza, learned Advocate for respondents No. 1-A to 22 [Accused persons].2. This is a revision application under Section 397 read with Section 399 of Criminal Procedure Code by which the applicant- State challenges the order passed by the learned 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana, in Sessions Trial No. 37/1998 below Exhibit 61 by which the application of the applicant-State / prosecution, under Section 321 of Criminal Procedure Code for grant of sanction to withdraw the prosecution, was rejected.3. Facts leading to the filing of this revision are thus.4. At the instance of the complainant respondent No. 1, the other respondents-accused were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 436, 143, 147, 148, 149, 448, 295, 336, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 37(1)(3), 135 of the Bombay Police Act arising out of Crime No....
Tag this Judgment!Jawahar Vidyarthi Gruha Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2006
Reported in: (2007)8STJ426CESTAT(Mum.)bai
1. After allowing the restoration application and restoring the appeal to its original number, I proceed to decide the same inasmuch as a short issue is involved.2. The appellant is engaged in providing service as Mandap Keeper, which was levied to service tax w.e.f. 06.07.1997, Service tax returns were not submitted in time by the appellant for some period in between.However, the appellant paid the tax totally amounting to Rs. 5,19,602/- alongwith interest amount of Rs. 2,33,691/- on 31.01.2003. The original adjudicating authority, while confirming the duty and interest, also imposed personal penalty equivalent to duty amount. However, on appeal against the same Commissioner (Appeals) took notice of various decisions of the Tribunal as also Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1991, for holding that penalty amount requires reduction as there was reasonable cause for non-payment of tax. He accordingly reduced the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act to Rs. 3.75 Lakhs.3. The a...
Tag this Judgment!Jetking Information Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2006
Reported in: (2007)8STJ476CESTAT(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant is engaged in the business of setting up and operating centres for vocational training in relation to computer-oriented programmes They have 5 centres and/or branches of their own in addition have entered into agreements with 66 other unrelated and independent parties for the purpose of imparting the same training and authorizing these parties to use their name for the operation of the centres.W.e.f. 1.7.2003 service tax was levied in respect of commercial training or coaching services as well as Franchise Services. However, the commercial training for coaching by a vocational training institute or computer training institute was exempted from payment of whole of service tax wide notification No. 9/2003-ST dt 20.6.20003, as amended by Notification No. 1/04-ST dt. 4.2.2004. The dispute in the present appeal does not relate to the services being provided by the appellant in their own centres as computer training or coaching services.2. Inasmuch as, the appellant has ent...
Tag this Judgment!Vasant Raghunath Tupekar Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, thro ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR524; 2007(1)BomCR862
R.M. Savant, J.1. This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 12.3.2001 passed by the Chairman of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the State Board) reverting the Petitioner from the post of Chief Engineer to that of Superintending Engineer. 2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the issues raised in the Petition are narrated hereinunder:The Petitioner joined the services of the Respondent No. 1 i.e. State Board in August, 1965 as Junior Engineer. The Petitioner in due course was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer, thereafter to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, Executive Engineer and to the post of Superintending Engineer in the year 1995 and thereafter to the post of Chief Engineer in the year 1999 and was at the relevant time working as Chief Engineer, Aurangabad Zonal Office, Aurangabad. The Petitioner therefore reached the highest echelon in service. It is the case of the Petitioner t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs (General) Vs. Worldwide Cargo Movers
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)BomCR789
H.L. Gokhale, J. 1. Customs Appeal No. 37 of 2006 is filed by the Commissioner of Customs (General). Respondent to this Appeal is Worldwide Cargo Movers, a Firm functioning as a Custom House Agent ('CHA' for short). This Firm has filed the connected Appeal No. 39 of 2006. Union of India and the Commissioner of Customs (General) are the respondents to this Appeal. Both these Appeals are filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 ('the said Act' for short) against an order dated 4th April 2006 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ('CESTAT' for short) in Appeal No. C-72 of 2006 which was filed by the said Firm. Since the order under challenge is one and the same, both the Appeals are heard and are being decided together. However, for the sake of convenience, the Commissioner of Customs (General) is hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant' and the Firm as 'the respondent'. 2. Amongst others, we are concerned in these Appeals with the provisions of...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnanath A. Prabhu Desai Vs. State of Goa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR162; 2007(4)BomCR385; (2007)4BOMLR385; 2007(6)MhLj106
J.N. Patel, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is a member of 'Sanjivani Bagayatdar Sahakari Saunstha' a Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (as applicable to the then Union Territories of Goa, Daman and Diu). It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 3 had passed an interim order dated 24th March, 1994 under Section 102(1)(a)(iv) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act read with Rule 84 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962 for winding up of the said Society and further calling upon the Society as to why its affairs should not be wound up. In response to the show cause notice the Chairman of the said Society filed its objections but respondent No. 3 by its Order dated 28th April, 1994 passed under Section 102(2) of the said Act, confirmed the interim order dated 24th March, 1994 and appointed respondent No. 4 as Liquidator of the Society.3. It is the case of the petitioner that under Section 1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »