Mumbai Court February 2006 Judgments

Hanil Era Textiles Ltd., a Limited Company Incorporated Under the Comp ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR322; 2006(2)BomCR740

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, by consent returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waive service. By consent of Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing. 2. This batch of petitions has been set down for hearing on the request of Counsel since all the petitions involve a common question of law. In Writ Petition 6937 of 2005 which came to be argued as the lead petition before the Court, the Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondents, all of whom are Public Sector Oil Companies to open the price bid of the Petitioner for the supply of Anhydrous Ethanol and a declaration that the condition stipulated in the tender, of obtaining an endorsement of the name and dosage of the denaturant used should be mentioned on the invoice duly endorsed by the State Excise Authorities, is not applicable to the Petitioner. Similar reliefs have been pressed in the companion 4. Petitions. In all the petitions before the Court, the only point that has been canvassed is wh...

Ralph D'souza and Ors. Vs. Danny D'souza and Ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR519; 2006(3)BomCR326; 2006(3)MhLj497

Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. Admit.3. Mr. Clive D'souza waives notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 10. None appears for the respondent No. 11. Ms. Musle waives notice for respondent No. 12. The contesting respondents are respondent Nos. 1 to 10 who had filed the suit. The respondent No. 11 has not appeared even before the lower Court. In the circumstances, as contesting parties are before the Court, by consent, appeal is taken up for final disposal, as short question is involved.4. This appeal from order takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay dated 27th October, 2005 in Notice of Motion No. 1436 of 2004 in S.C. Suit No. 1795 of 2004. In the said suit respondent Nos. 1 to 10 took out Notice of Motion No. 1436 of 2004 for temporary injunction. That Notice of Motion has been allowed in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 10 and against the appellants herein. The basis on which interim relief was sought by the plaintiffs/respon...

Ank Seals Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR546; [2006(111)FLR268]; 2006(4)MhLj796

J.N. Patel, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 21-10-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2, i.e. Annexure 'IT and TV' and the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 2 as per Annexures II and IV by passing order dated 21-10-1995 and 7-12-1995 respectively calling upon the petitioner to clear off the arrears of E.S.I, dues of M/s J. J. Cold Tread, Nagpur, petitioner having purchased land and building of the above employer from Maharashtra State Financial Corporation on the ground that the said transfer is a deemed transfer as per the provisions contained in Section 29(2) of State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 for the purpose of Section 93-A of the E.S.I. Act as amended, otherwise coercive action was contemplated against him in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 45-C, 45-I of E.S.I. Act, 1948 as amended and II Schedule to the Income-Tax Act read with Section 45-H of ESI Act, 1948. It is the case of the petitioner th...

Swapnil Madhukar Ramade (Minor) Through His Mother Vs. Raja Ram Jagu S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2006)ACC685

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Mr. Kotak appearing for petitioner. He states that respondent No. 2, Insurance Company is contesting respondent and service is effected. He seeks time to place affidavit proving the same.2. Affidavit to be filed within a period of one week from today.3. Since the second respondent has received a copy of petition, along with its annexures with the communication of petitioner's Advocate dated 11th February, 2006 and the order that I propose to pass, causing no prejudice to it, I am disposing of the present petition.4. Application under Section 140 preferred by petitioner has been rejected by the learned Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on the ground that the medical certificate is dated 12th April, 2004 whereas the injuries are of 3rd June, 2001. The Court has rejected the application because the latest position about injuries is not brought on record. Application is under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act which is for payment of compensation on the p...

Reliable Impex Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide his impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs has confiscated the consignment of Synthetic Warp Knitted Pile Fabrics imported by the appellants on the finding of undervaluation with an option to them to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1.25 lakhs.Personal penalty of Rs. 12,000/- has also been imposed under the provisions of Section 112 (a) of the Act.2. After hearing both sides, we find that the appellants declared the goods as "Synthetic Warp Knitted Pile Fabrics". The revenue's grievance is that no mention about the fact as to whether the same were two way stretch or four way stretch was made in the bill of entry. However, the goods were examined and the opinion of Textile Expert was taken. It was found that 80% of the goods were two way stretch fabrics and 20% was four way stretch fabrics. Accordingly, it was proposed to enhance the value of four way stretch fabrics to US $ 2.40 per metre as against the value of US $ 1.20 per metre, declared by the imp...

indorama Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Ccex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(106)ECC303

1. Heard both sides. The adjudicating Commissioner has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 28,58,643/- disallowing the Modvat/Cenvet credit on furnace oil for the period 1997-98 to 2001-02 (upto January, 2002) used for generation of electricity supplied to the residential colony/township of the appellants. He has also imposed redemption fine of Rs.20 lakhs in respect of the impugned furnace oil, which was not available for confiscation. He has also imposed a penalty of Rs.30 lakhs and has ordered recovery of appropriate interest under the law.2. At the time of consideration of the stay application, the Bench hearing the same was of the view that the appellants did not have a prima facie case in their favour and hence, they were asked to pre-deposit Rs. 20 lakhs towards duty, which has been deposited by the appellants. This appeal is now being taken up for hearing out of turn pursuant to early hearing application filed by the Revenue being allowed.3. Shri V.S. Nankani, learned Advocate fo...

Ccex Vs. Milton Laminates

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(106)ECC250

1. Heard both sides. The respondents manufacture paper based Decorative Laminated Sheets. This appeal filed by the applicant Commissioner relates to the following Show Cause Notices:______________________________________________________________________________Sr. SCN No. Date Period AmountNo.9. V-48/3-12/D-11A/95 08.5.1995 Nov. 94 to Dec.94 6,59,280/-________________________________________________________________________________ Total 1,20,54,057/- 2. Shri Devan Parikh, learned Advocate for the respondents fairly states that these Notices have been issued demanding differential duty from time to time within the prescribed normal period of limitation and that the classification of the impugned goods has been held to be under Chapter 39 (sub-heading No. 3920.31/3920.37) and not under Chapter 48 (sub-heading No. 4818.90) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Bakelite Hylam Ltd. 3. It is the contention of applicant Commissioner that it is wrong on the part of the ...

Omkar Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides in this application. The issue in this matter is whether the applicants are entitled to exemption under Notification 30/2004 having taken credit on the inputs and reversed the same and whether they were entitled to the benefit of both Notifications i.e.29/2004 and 30/2004 both dated 9-7-2004 simultaneously, when they had maintained separate records in respect of clearances under both the said notifications.2. Prima facie it appears that the appellant's case is well covered in their favour vide CBEC Circular No. 795/28/2004-CX., dated 20-7-2004, wherein the Board has clarified that there was no restriction on availing the benefit of both these notifications simultaneously, provided separate accounts were maintained.3. In view of the matter, total waiver of duty demand of Rs. 37,13,205/-and a penalty of Rs. 10.00 lakhs is called for and ordered along with stay of recovery thereof and the appeal is directed to be listed in due course....

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)100ITD187(Mum.)

1. The Hon'ble President, ITAT, vide its order dated 26-8-2005, has constituted this Special Bench to consider the following issue : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case assessee-Corporation is required to obtain permission from the High Powered Committee known as Committee on Disputes Constituted in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC v. Collector of Central Excise 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 541 as interpreted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Delhi Tourism & Transport Development Corpn. Ltd. 2. At the outset, we may mention the circumstances giving raise to this reference. The Respondent is an Undertaking owned by Maharashtra Government. The present appeal is by the Revenue against the order of the Learned CIT (A). When the matter came up for hearing before the Regular Bench, the Learned Counsel for the assessee took a preliminary objection that this appeal could not be heard in the absence of requisite clearan...

Far Video Films (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. All these appeals are assessee's appeals directed against the order of learned CIT(A), XIV-Mumbai dated 19-5-2000 for assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 and a separate order of learned CIT(A), XXV-Mumbai dated 21-6-1999 for assessment year 1996-97 and for the sake of convenience, all these appeals are being disposed of by this common order.2. First, we take up the assessee's appeal for assessment year 1996-97 being I.T.A. No. 4925/M/1999 because this order of learned CIT(A) was followed in other two years.3. The first ground of appeal in the original Grounds of Appeal is regarding the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 80HHC, which was rejected by the assessing officer and CIT(A). The assessee has raised an additional ground for granting deduction under Section 80-O as an alternative claim if the claim of deduction under Section 80HHC is not allowed.4. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of producing TV commercials as ...