Mumbai Court November 2006 Judgments

Godrej Industries Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. As per facts on record, a dispute about the correct classification of imported consignment of "Alpha Olefin C-14" arose between the appellants and the Customs authorities. Whereas the appellant was claiming the classification under Chapter 29, revenue classified the same under Customs Tariff Heading 27.10. The dispute travelled up to Tribunal and the appeal filed by the appellants was rejected. The said order of the Tribunal was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.As per the interim order dated 21/08/2000 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellants deposited an amount of Rs. 3,39,72,898/- on 16/11/2000. The appeal was ultimately disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court remanding the matter to the original adjudicating authority for deciding the issue of classification. As a consequence, the original adjudicating authority passed the order accepting the appellants claim of classification under heading 2901. There is no dispute about the said classification adopted by...

Greaves Cotton 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 ICD Engines. PD Pumps and parts thereof falling under Chapter No. 84 and Gensets falling under Chapter 85 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants are availing the Cenvat Credit facility. As per their Internal Audit Report for the year 2002-2003, there was a shortage of raw materials valued at Rs. 33.42 lakhs involving Cenvat Credit of Rs. 5,34,746/-. The Appellant's Senior Executive (Commercial) Shri S.P.Ponde, accepted the Cost Audit Report to be binding on the company to submit that such shortage of raw material was not on account of any mis-utilisation but on account of various reasons. Reference was made to Cost Accountant's letter dated 16-5-2004 detailing the reasons for such shortages.2. However, the proceedings were initiated against them by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 15-12-2004 proposing reversal of Modvat credit. The said proceedings culminated into an order passed by the Joint Commissioner confir...

Gopal L. Raheja and anr. Vs. Vijay B. Raheja and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR138; 2006(6)BomCR845

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. We have been hearing the above Appeal. On 20th April, 2006, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 4 sought to tender an affidavit of one Mrs. Tara Subramanyam, Senior Manager of Housing Development and Finance Corporation Ltd. (HDFC). When the same was sought to be tendered, it was found that it was a notarised affidavit. As such, the same was returned back to the learned Counsel so as to enable the said Mrs. Tara Subramanyam to file an affidavit duly sworn before this Court, as Mrs. Tara Subramanyam is residing in Bombay. 2. It is strongly contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that Mrs.Tara Subramanyam came to the office of this Court to affirm the said affidavit on 21st April, 2006. Appellant 1. Mr. Gopal Raheja had sought to obstruct the said lady Mrs. Tara Subramanyam from affirming her affidavit on 21st April, 2006 in the office of this Court. Therefore, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 contends that the a...

Sow. Kamalbai W/O Narasaiyya Shrimal and Narsaiyya S/O Sayanna Shrimal ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR608; 2007(1)BomCR51; 2007(1)MhLj807

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. The petitioners were defendants in suit filed by respondent for recovery of possession in respect of certain house property. They participated in the trial. The suit was decreed on merits. The petitioners preferred an appeal after lapse of six months from the date of pronouncement of the Judgment. They moved an application for condonation of delay caused in filing of the appeal. Their application (MCA No. 95/2005) was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Parbhani. The petitioners challenge this order.3. The petitioners averred that due to poverty they could not prefer the appeal within prescribed period of limitation. According to them, the delay should have been condoned by taking liberal approach. The petitioners averred that the petitioner No. 1 was suffering from illness for certain period between May and August, 2005. They submit that cause shown by them was sufficient for the co...

Shri Lilachand Navalmal Shah, Proprietor of Shiva Parvati Chitra Mandi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR585; 2007(2)BomCR172

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. The petitioner, by this writ petition, seeks to quash and set aside the order passed by the Collector, Sangli giving directions to pay amount of Rs. 2,12,794/- towards entertainment duty on unutilised amount of service charges collected during the years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95.2. The facts leading to this petition may be stated in brief as under:The petitioner runs a Cinema Theatre in the name and style as ' Shiva Parvati Chitra Mandir' at Islampur, Taluka Walva, District Sangli. Prior to December, 1992 the entertainment duty used to be 50% of the value of the tickets fixed by the exhibitor. Out of the said fixed value of the tickets, the owner of the theatre was expected to look after the maintenance of the theatre and to provide all the facilities. However, on 25th December, 1992 the Governor of Maharashtra promulgated Bombay Entertainment Duty (Amendment) Ordinance, 1992. Under the newly added proviso to Clause (b) of Section 2 of the Bombay Entertainment Duty...

Shri Vaijanath S/O. Tatyarao Shinde Vs. the Secretary, Marathwada Shik ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR823; 2006(6)BomCR804; 2006(6)MhLj682; 2007(4)AIRKarR665(FB)(Bom)

ORDERA.P. Deshpande, J.1. A conflict in the views expressed by two Division Benches of this Court was noticed by one of us and hence, a reference was made to the Honourable the Chief Justice with a request to refer the matter to a Bench comprising of more than two Judges. This Full Bench is constituted pursuant to the said reference. We formulate the point of reference as herein below:For promotion to the post of Head Master of a Primary School, whether seniority of the teacher is to be counted from the date of initial appointment, or from the date of acquisition of educational and training qualification 2. In a judgment reported in : 2003(3)MhLj438 , in case of Chintaman Ramaji Mahakalkar v. Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Wardha and Ors., the Division Bench held that the seniority of primary school teachers has to be determined on the basis of date of joining service and continuous affiliation irrespective of the date of acquiring D.Ed. qualification, whereas a contrary ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Laxmi Prints

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All the respondents in the above appeals are traders having shops, who purchase grey fabrics and get them processed by processors and then sell them from their premises. Processed fabrics were seized from each of the respondents on the ground that they had received the goods back from processors without cover of Central Excise invoice and without payment of Central Excise duty leviable thereon. Statements of officers of the respondents were recorded in which they admitted that no duty had been paid on the processed fabrics. Show cause notices were issued proposing confiscation of seized goods, recovery of additional duty of excise on seized goods and proposing penal action. The adjudicating authority passed separate adjudication orders in respect of the respondents, upholding the charges levelled in the show cause notices by ordering confiscation of seized goods with option to redeem the same on payment of fine, confirming duty liability and imposing penalties of different amounts....

New English High School Association and anr. Vs. Baldev S/O Fakira Ade ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR381; 2007(1)BomCR6; 2006(6)MhLj882

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard.2. The points for consideration which arise in these references are whether the Rule of 50 point roster will apply to the cases where total number of posts in a cadre are three or less and the total reservation is 24 percent and what should be the minimum strength of cadre for the applicability of 50 point roster3. The Division Bench of this Court in Somsingh Chandrasingh Thakur v. Head Master, Captain R.M. Oak School, Kalyan (W), Dist. Thane and Ors. reported in : 2006(2)BomCR673 , while dealing with the similar issue and relying upon the decisions in Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in : (1988)IILLJ66SC and Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty Association reported in : [1998]2SCR845 has held that under Rule 9(10) of the MEPS Rules permissible reservation is only 24% and therefore only one out of 4 such posts can be subjected to reservation.4. When the matter in Writ Petition No. 4723 ...

Lotus Investments Ltd. Vs. G.Y. Wagh, Assistant Commissioner of Income ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Bom)24; [2007]288ITR459(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Heard.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, all these writ petitions are taken up for final hearing.3. In all these group of writ petitions, notices issued under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961. ('the Act' for short) are challenged. By the said notices all dt. 30th March, 2006, the Revenue seeks to reopen the assessments for asst. yr. 1989-90 to asst. yr. 1999-2000.4. According to the Revenue the impugned notices have been issued as per the directions given by CIT(A) by his order dt. 24th Dec, 2004 to disallow bank interest in the respective assessment years aggregating to Rs. 2,39,65,498 and also to disallow depreciation in the respective assessment years aggregating to Rs. 10,66,429 by initiating proceedings under Section 148 r/w Section 150(1) and Expln. 2 to Section 153 of the Act. The question, therefore, to be considered in all these petitions is, whether the CIT(A) has in fact issued such directions and if so, whether such directions...

Gangubai Bhagwan Kolhe Vs. Bhagwan Bandu Kolhe Since Deceased, Represe ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR287; 2007(3)MhLj223

S.R. Sathe, J.1. Heard both the learned advocates at length as it was agreed to decide the matter finally at admission stage.2. The Appellant-original Plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 86/1985 has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Court of 3rd Additional District Judge, Solapur whereby the judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Barshi dismissing the plaintiffs suit for declaration and partition was confirmed and appeal was dismissed. For the sake of convenience hereafter parties shall be referred to as 'Plaintiff' and 'Defendants'.3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:Plaintiff Gangubai Bhagwan Kolhe is the wife of Original Defendant No. 1 (He died during the pendency of the suit on 13-5-1992). The Defendant Nos. 7 and 8 are the daughters of Plaintiff and defendant No. 1. The defendant Nos. 2 to 6 are purchasers of the suit property. 4. According to Plaintiff, the suit properties which are as agricultural l...