Mumbai Court March 2006 Judgments

H.M. Saraiya ors. Vs. Ajanta India Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(33)PTC4(Bom)

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present notice of motion is taken out by the plaintiffs seeking reliefs that the defendants should be restrained from using the trade mark 'Ajanta' in respect of the non-medicated toilet preparations including tooth paste, soaps, shaving cream, shampoo and allied goods. The said injunction is sought by them on grounds of both infringement of 'trade mark' and 'passing off. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has fairly stated that he is pressing relief only on the basis of a 'passing off action in view of the fact that the defendants mark 'Ajanta' is registered for the tooth paste. He has further submitted that though the reliefs in the motion are sought in respect of various non-medicated toilet preparations including soaps, shaving cream, shampoo, cosmetics and allied goods, for the purpose of the present notice of motion he is restricting his claim to passing off only in respect of tooth paste.2. Some of the material facts of the present ca...

The Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(107)ECC598

1. Vide the impugned order the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 9,90,957/- on 373 bales of processed fabrics seized at the assessees SMP godown on 04.06.1998, confiscated the above quantity of goods with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 5 Lakhs, confirmed the demand of Rs. 9,68,525/- on 532 bales of finished goods cleared from the assessee's factory at Roha without payment of duty under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 19,59,482/- (equal to the duty amount) under Section 11AC read with Rule 9(2) and/or Rule 173Q and/or Rule 229 of the Central excise Rules.He has also ordered the assessee to pay interest at the appropriate rate on the duty confirmed under the provisions of Section 11AB of Central Excise Act.2. The case begins with the interception of a vehicle loaded with man made grey fabrics at the factory gate of the assessee by the officers of the Central Excise (...

Vicco Laboratories Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides in the application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the amounts confirmed by the Commissioner on classifying the subject goods of the assessee as cosmetics when they claimed the same to be ayurvedic medicaments and preparations.2. We find that on similar goods manufactured and cleared by the appellants from their factory under the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur. Apex Court vide their order reported in 2005 (4) SCC 70 had held that without change in the nature and use of the product or a fresh interpretation of the tariff heading, change in the classification was not justified and rejected the Revenue's appeal without an order as to cost leaving it open to the department to take such tests if otherwise so entitled in respect of the products for the purpose of classifying the products under the appropriate tariff heading as they may be advised.3. A perusal of the impugned order does not bring out as to what was the 'new test' ...

Viacom Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All the three stay petitions are being disposed off by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Vadodara, vide which he has confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 16,47,74,592/- (Rupees sixteen crores forty seven lakhs seventy four thousand five hundred and ninety two only) as differential duty against M/s. Viacom Electronics Pvt Ltd., along with imposition of personal penalty of identical amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In addition, an amount of Rs. 10,20,000/-(Rupees ten lakhs twenty thousand only) stands confirmed against the said applicant by rejecting the modvat credit in terms of provisions of Rule 571(5) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 along with imposition of personal penalty of identical amount under Rule 571(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. In addition, personal penalties of varying amounts ranging from Rs. 1 crore to Rs. 5 crores have been imposed upon the other applicants under the provisi...

Guala Patents B.V. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of Service tax of Rs. 18,97,270.60 and penalty of Rs. 1,09,600/- covering the period June, 1999 to February, 2002 arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Goa.Service tax has been levied on the applicants herein who are provider of services to M/s. Guala Closure India Pvt. Ltd. under the category of "Consulting Engineers".2. We have heard both sides. We find that the demand consists of tax on Royalty as well as Technical know-how/technical assistance rendered by the applicants who are a company registered in Holland. Submission of the Id. Counsel that (b) Service tax is not leviable on technical know-how, cannot be prima fade accepted in toto for the reason that although prima facie ground for waiver of service tax on royalty exists since technical assistance has also been provided as seen from the agreement between the applicant and M/s. Guala Closures (India) Ltd. prima facie tax would be leviable on technical assistance rendered by the fo...

Marathwada Radio Communication Systems Vs. D.G.M. Bsnl and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR696; 2007(1)CTLJ271(Bom); 2006(3)MhLj373

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited issued a tender notice on 10th August, 2005 for carrying out the work of 'earthing' in various Telecom Exchanges in Ratnagiri. The object of earthing is to ensure inter alia, the safety of operational and maintenance personnel and of the users of facilities against hazardous voltages. Earthing also protects power supply, and switching, transmission and subscriber equipments against destructive voltages. Earthing is also used to facilitate the protection of mains against high frequency currents generated by rectifiers. The tender notice inter alia provided the following criteria of eligibility, namely:(i) An experience certificate of an officer not below the rank of DGM of minimum two years' of experience in execution of earthing work for a minimum of forty exchanges in DOT/BSNL/MTNL with effect from 1st April 2000; and(ii) A minimum turnover of Rs. 10 lakhs in the previous two financial years.2. On 1st September, 2005, the petitioner ...

Bhikku Mahapanth Vs. Deputy Director of Education and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR303; 2006(3)MhLj599

D.D. Sinha, J. 1. D.D. Sinha, J. : Heard Shri Malode, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Loney, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5. 2. The petition is directed against the communication dated 12-7-1995 addressed to the respondent No. 3 by the Deputy Director of Education whereby it was informed that appointment of the petitioner on the post of Head Master made by the respondent No. 3 Management was de hors of the procedure prescribed in Rule 3(l)(b), 3(2) and 3(5) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 and, therefore, same may be cancelled in view of Rule 3(6) of the said Rules of 1981. 3. Shri Malode, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that appointment of the petitioner on the post of Head Master was made on 20-9-1990. It is submitted that since there was no other candidate available in the School with the teaching experience mentioned in Clause (b) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rule...

Veena S. Bajaj Vs. Maharashtra State Distribution Co. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom200; 2006(4)BomCR324; 2006(4)MhLj234

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. The petitioner impugns electricity Bills dated 24th November, 2000 and 18th July, 2001 and action of respondent No. 1 causing disconnection of electricity supply.2. One deceased Smt. Padma Kirpalani was consumer of respondent No. 1 - Maharashtra State Electricity Board. The electricity supply was being provided to her residential premises through Meter No. 9100020034. She demised on 15th April, 1980 and was survived by son Prakash Kirpalani who continued to use the residential premises. He was a divorcee and demised as such on 29th April, 2000. He is said to have bequeathed the properties in favour of his sister - petitioner -Smt. Veena Bajaj.3. The petitioner received a supplementary Bill dated 24th November, 2000 showing dues of Rs. 75,142.78 p. for a period of 50 months prior. She further received an Electricity Bill dated 18th July, 2001 purporting to claim arrears of huge amount towards electricity consumption charges. Since there were no details shown in the...

Sureshchandra Agarwal and ors. Vs. Div. Joint Registrar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR244; 2006(4)BomCR298

Kamdar S.U., J.1. The present petition is challenging the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai dated 22.12.2005 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 3.12.2005 passed by the respondent. No. 2 Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies under Section 8-A of the Maharastra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 is only modified by substituting the single admission by Board of Administrators. 2. The proceeding arise out of a show cause notice issued on 12.1.2005. The charges which are mentioned in the show cause notice are that the bye-laws copy is not submitted to the Registrar, the auditor who has been appointed for the year 2003-04 has been continuously auditing the accounts of the said society, the bonds are not filed within the period of 15 days as prescribed under the provisions of the Act and that permission under Section 0-D of the Act is not obtained before opening the bank accounts. There are also charges th...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Matsyodari Steel Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the present appeal the respondents have taken over the unit and given an undertaking that they will take over all the liability of the company taken over. A show cause notice issued to the earlier company was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner after the company was taken over by the present management. In his order, he has confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Rule 96ZO(3) read with Rule 173Q. The Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty on the ground that the present management cannot be held liable for the irregularity committed by their predecessor relying on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Marcandy Prasad Radhakrishna Prasad Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Cal.-II , wherein it was held that "Penalty - Present management is not responsible for illegal activities carried out during time of previous management - Penalty not imposable - Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944." The other ground on which the penalty has bee...