Mumbai Court March 2006 Judgments

Mistry Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants herein challenge the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad by which he has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 5,83,338/- against M/s. Mistry Brothers on the ground that they were liable to pay duty on the activity of manufacture of metal and wooden furniture taken up as project work for big industries, corporate offices, banks, insurance companies, Government undertaking offices etc. without following central excise procedure and evading central excise duty thereon. The demand has been worked out after allowing SSI exemption, and the period of demand is 1994.95 to 1997.98, They also challenged the penalty of Rs. 2,27,806/- imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, Rs. 3,55,532/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act (totally equal to duty amount) levy of interest under Section 11AB of the Act and the confiscation of plant, building, land and machinery with option to redeem it on payment of fine. Shri Mistry, partner of Mistry Brothers i...

Padmashree Dr. Vithalrao V. Patil Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(107)ECC637

1. This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) who had upheld the orders of the Assistant Commissioner denying Modvat credit on certain inputs.2. The appellants submit that the credit has been denied on the following three grounds. (1) The assessee has not filed declaration as required under Rule 57T(1) (2) They have failed to file intimation under Rule 57T(2) and T(4) and (3) The capital goods namely chain for rake carrier is not covered under the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q.3. The learned advocate referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut and Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Commissioner of Cus. & C. Ex., Rajkot wherein the matters were remanded back to the Commissioner for re-examination of eligibility to Modvat credit, in the light of amendment to Rule 57T and 57G of the earstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. In both these cases the declaration under Rule 57G & T we...

M.J. Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the Secretary ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)BomCR815; 2006(202)ELT583(Bom)

R.M. Lodha, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. The advocate on record for the respondents waives service. By consent, rule is heard finally at this stage. 2. In the light of the submissions advanced before us by the senior counsel and the counsel for the parties, we find that two questions arise for our consideration : one) Is M.J. Exports (the petitioner) liable to pay interest on the delayed payment of duty under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962 from 26th August, 1995 (immediately after three months of coming into force of Section 28AA) or from 14th November, 2001 (on expiry of three months from the date of decision of the Supreme Court dated 14th August, 2001)two) Is the interest in the sum of Rs.4,67,02,251/-as demanded by the respondent No.4 from M.J. Exports (the petitioner) vide communication dated 25th August, 2001 properRe : Question (one) 3. M.J. Exports Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'M.J. Exports' or 'the petitioner') imported 53 numbers of Haemodialysis Machines ...

Mumbai-pune Taxi Tourist Service Centre Vs. Pune Taximens Consumer Co- ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2006)ACC91; 2006(4)ALLMR501; 2006(5)BomCR338; 2006(3)MhLj686

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. These proceedings before the Court have been instituted by the Mumbai-Pune Taxi Tourist Service Centre, a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, in order to impugn a direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) at Pune on 30th August, 2005. 2. According to the petitioner, a dispute had arisen between taxi drivers registered in Mumbai and their counterparts registered at Pune over the operation of taxi services between the two cities. Eventually, this culminated in a meeting of 6th September, 1974 in the Chambers of the then Minister of State for Home in the State Government and an arrangement thereupon was put into place, Under the arrangement, the existing Taxi Stand near the Pune Railway Station was to be allotted to the First respondent and a new Taxi Stand near the S.T. Stand at Sanjay Gandhi Marg was to be allotted to the petitioner. It would appear from the proceedings that there have been disputes between the parties in...

Yogesh Ramchandra Naikwadi Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR453; 2006(4)BomCR321; 2006(3)MhLj726

B.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. The petitioner, who was seeking admission to the Engineering Degree course (B.E) at the relevant time approached us by challenging the order dated 29th March, 1995 passed by the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of the Tribe Claims at Pune rejecting his claim that he belongs to Mahadeo Koli, Scheduled Tribe. While granting Rule, interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioner on recording the following reasoning :.In addition to this, it is pointed out to us that the petitioner's father has filed a writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 6005/91 against the decision of the Scrutiny Committee and both these petitions have been admitted and interim orders have been passed therein.2. Under these circumstances, we grant interim relief to the petitioners in terms of prayer Clause (e). However, we make it clear that the admission, is ultimately granted, shall be provisional. We further make it clear that if, ultimately, the petitioner fails in his petition,...

Padmakar S/O Dattatraya Wangikar Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR457; 2006(3)BomCR555; 2006(3)MhLj833

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The Government of Maharashtra by following the recommendations of the Indian Council of Agriculture and Research (for short 'ICAR') and the University Grants Commission (for short 'UGC') issued the impugned G. R. dated 17th March, 1989 for revision of the pay scales of the academic staff in the Agricultural Universities all over the State. The ICAR had by its letter dated 1st February, 1998 communicated to the Government of Maharashtra that if it adopts the UGC pay scales for the academic staff in the agricultural universities in the State, the Central Government would provide assistance to the State Government to the extent of 80% of the additional expenditure involved in giving effect to revision of the pay scales with effect from 1st January, 1986 till 31st March, 1990 and remaining 20% of the expenditure would be borne by the State Government from its own resources without passing any liabilities to the universities. The State Government, therefore, decided to...

Sanjay S/O Mahadeo Kelo Vs. Vidya W/O Sanjay Kelo

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR265; 2006(6)BomCR398; 2006(4)MhLj805

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Mr. Srirang Bhandarkar, learned Counsel for the Applicant and Mr. A. S. Kilor, learned Counsel for the Respondent.2. The civil revision application is directed against the order dated 22-4-2002 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, whereby application moved by the applicant Under Section 25 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, came to be rejected.3. learned Counsel for the applicant states that the non-applicant had filed Special Civil Suit No. 114/90 against the applicant for recovery of post and future maintenance and 'Stridhan'. The claim made in the said suit was for Rs. 1,58,000/-. In that suit, non-applicant alleged that she has no independent source of income to support her livelihood and therefore, she claimed maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month.4. learned Counsel for the applicant further contended that the applicant filed written statement and opposed the claim of the non-applicant for maintenance. It is contended that as the non-app...

Vimalashram Gharkul of Amprapali Utkarsha Sangh Vs. Jyoti Banson Josep ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR254; 2006(4)MhLj692

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Mr. D. K. Dubey, learned Counsel for the Applicant. Counsel for the Respondent absent.2. The civil revision application is directed against the order dated 11-2-2002 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, whereby application of the applicant under Order 7, Rule 11 is rejected.3. Mr. Dubey, learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the non-applicant (mother) has filed an application for custody of minor children Under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The applicant filed an application for rejection of the said application filed by non-applicant Under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, on the ground that the District Judge does not have jurisdiction to entertain the said application in view of the provisions of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.4. The learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that a suit or proceedings in relation to the guardianship of a person or custody of or access to any minor...

indus Agro Products Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR468; [2006(111)FLR743]; (2006)IIILLJ598Bom; 2006(44)MhLj136

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent and at the request of Counsel, taken up for hearing and final disposal.A purchaser in a sale conducted by the State Financial Corporation has challenged an attachment levied under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The issues that have been canvassed before the Court here relate to (i) the meaning and extent of the first charge statutorily created by Section 11(2) of the EPF Act, 1952; (ii) whether, as the petitioner contends, the charge cannot be enforced in the hands of a purchaser in a sale conducted under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951; and (iii) whether the charge and the priority created by Parliament in the payment of PF dues is confined to insolvency and winding up alone. We have declined to accept the line of argument pressed before us. The first charge on the assets of the establishment created by Parliament while enacti...

Gulab Khavale Vs. Hiraji Ghuge and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ3451

ORDERS.P. Kukday, J.1. The petitioner has impugned the order of acquittal passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No. 166/1995, acquitting Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 337, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Atrocities Act).2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the petitioner belongs to 'Hindu Mang' caste. He is engaged in selling milk to the milk dairy run by a cooperative society and is a member of that society. On 5.6.1995, the petitioner went to the dairy for selling the milk. However, respondent No. 1 refused to accept the milk. There was an altercation between them, during which, respondent No. 1 insulted the petitioner by referring to his caste. While the petitioner was about to leave the dairy, respondent Nos. 1 and 4 assaulted him with stones...