Mumbai Court April 2006 Judgments

National Appliances, Shri Lalit Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC89

1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants M/s National Appliances is a proprietary concern of Lalit Jani. Mr. Jainarayan Agarwal is a Managing Director to M/s Jaipan Domestic Appliances Ltd. (in short M/s J.D.A.L.). M/s J.D.I.L. were the owner of the trade mark 'Jaipan' for goods falling for various goods like Grinder, mixer, blender, juicer mixer grinder etc. These goods were manufactured by them and their turnover was between 10 to 12 crores. However, as per their say there was labour problem in their factory, and to overcame the problem and keeping the brand name in tact in the market they assigned the trade mark Jaipan to M/s National Appliances vide deed of assignment dtd. 14.09.1997 for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- only. However, on the very next day the appellants M/s National Appliances allowed M/s J.D.A.L. to produce the same goods. Thereafter Shri Lalit Jani also allowed M/s Alka Domestic Appliances and M/s V.K. Engineering Co. and M/s Jaipan Appliances Ltd., Daman and ...

K.K. Mehra Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,91,64,960/- confirmed against M/s. Drishti Inds. Ltd. together with penalty of an equal amount and personal penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs each on the two Directors of the company arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II. The demand has been confirmed as a result of holding that M/s. Drishti Inds. Ltd. have manufactured and cleared Bolting Cloth falling for classification under Chapter Heading 59.11 and not under Chapter Heading 54.06 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and not eligible to the benefit of exemption under different Notifications as claimed by the assessee.3. We find that the issue had come up earlier before the Tribunal, wherein third Member held that the goods in dispute were Grey Fabric Cloth and not Bolting Cloth, since no heat setting was carried out, which was required to be undertaken to prevent deformation by use. The majority order of the Tribunal considered t...

Sm Energy Teknik and Electronics Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109TTJ(Mum.)34

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), pertaining to the asst. yr. 1996-97 on the following grounds: (a) assuming that the definition of the term 'export' is to be determined with reference to Customs Act, 1957. (b) holding that for claiming deduction under Section 80HHC, the appellant should show that the goods should be exported out of India and goods should be cleared by the Indian customs station. (c) assuming that the definition of words 'export out of India' under Expln. (aa) of Section 80HHC is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. (d) assuming that the ratio of Bombay High Court decision in the case of Bombay Buimah Trading Conon. Ltd. v. CIT is not applicable to the appellant's case as the issue considered was whether goods were exported out of India for the purpose of deduction under Section 35B of the IT Act, 1961. Therefore concluding that the export of goods made by the appellant under Clause 154D of Import and Expo...

The Thane Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Sales Tax,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR186; [2006]132CompCas823(Bom); 2006(4)MhLj594; [2006]70SCL319(Bom); [2006]148STC32(Bom)

R.M. Lodha, J. 1. On 5th December, 2005, the court observed that considering the controversy involved, and that may arise in other matters as well, writ petition needs to be heard and disposed of at the admission stage. We, accordingly, heard the counsel for the parties for final disposal of the writ petition. 2. The Thane Janata Sahakari Bank Limited is a scheduled cooperative bank incorporated under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and is in the banking business. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the petitioner as `the Bank' hereinafter. One M/s.Charishma Cosmetics Pvt.Ltd. (for short `the company') had credit facilities with the Bank. According to the Bank, as on 30th June, 2004, the company was indebted to the Bank in the sum of Rs. 2,32,00,000/- against the cash credit facility and Rs. 10,00,000/- towards the working capital term loan. For availing the credit facilities, the company had mortgaged factory, land and building by way of equitable mortgage in ...

Satish Namdeo Awghade Vs. the Education Officer and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR137; 2006(5)BomCR226; 2006(3)MhLj730

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. By this petition, the Petitioner herein has put forth claim for recovery of salary allegedly due and payable from 14th June, 1999, till date of the petition excluding two months - March and April, 2000. He seeks direction to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for release of his salary due withheld by them. 2. Briefly stated, case of the Petitioner is that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Respondent No. 3 - School as per recommendation of Respondent No. 2 -Management in a vacant post, vide appointment order dated 5th March, 1999. There was a backlog of reserved vacancy and as such he was appointed on the post in the D.Ed. Scale w.e.f. 14th June, 1999 since he is a member of Scheduled Caste. Initially, his appointment was approved by the Education Officer Respondent No. 1 and, therefore, Respondent No. 3 submitted a supplementary pay bill for release of his salary for the period between 14th June, 1999 to 29th February, 2000. The supplementary pay bill was not honour...

Sukhdeo Ambuji Bahakar and ors. Vs. Savita Gajanan Kalne

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)BomCR515; 2006(4)MhLj384

ORDERA.H. Joshi, J.1. Heard Advocate Mr. V.M. Deshpande for the appellants and Advocate Mr. S.P. Kshirsagar with Advocate Mr. S.D. Khati for the respondent.2. In support of the appeal, learned Advocate Mr. Deshpande has pressed two grounds though many are written in the memo of appeal.3. First ground is based on facts namely whether the branch of Shaligram s/o Ambuji Bahakar is sought to be represented by arraying only Maroti, one amongst sons of Shaligram when it is an admitted position that other legal representatives who are having share are alive.4. Second ground urged by the learned Advocate Mr. Deshpande is that Subhadra is one of the sisters of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and Shaligram and upon partition effected in 1974 her share as successor of her father Ambuji was liable to be calculated which would be 1/56th and not1/49th and consequently the share of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 5 shall be increased by1/56th and will be 6/49th + 1/56th.5. As to non-impleadment :- Accord...

Madhukar Bhausaheb Mhaske Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ3700

ORDERS.P. Kukday, J.1. Petitioner came to be convicted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar of the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days for commission of offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and he is further sentenced to suffer S.I. for three months and is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer S.I. for one month for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.2. The matter was carried in appeal. Criminal Appeal No. 116/1992 came to be dismissed by order dated 22-7-1998 by learned Sessions Judge, upholding the order of conviction and sentence passed-by the trial Court. These two orders are impugned in the present petition.3. The facts, in nutshell, are that : Aasaram Ghodke (P.W. 1) was servin...

Vinod Kumar M. Gadia and anr. Vs. Sicom Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008]141CompCas171(Bom)

1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and the respondent.By this appeal the appellants are seeking to challenge the order dated April 25, 2005 SICOM Ltd. v. Prabhudayal B. Chamaria : 2005(3)MhLj1026 , passed by the learned single judge in the petition under Section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporations Act. The main grievance of the appellants is that in view of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the above proceedings could not have been proceeded with against the appellants who were only guarantors.2. We have perused a Division Bench judgment of our High Court in Dewal Singhal v. State of Maharashtra [2001] 106 Comp Cas 587, wherein the Division Bench of our court has in unequivocal terms held that the only proceeding against the guarantor of a loan granted to an industrial company which has been declared sick under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, which is barred under Section 22 of the Act, is a 'sui...

Core Healthcare Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In both the applications for rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's Order Nos. A/1492 to 1497/ WZB/05/EB/C-II, dated 30-11-2005 [2006 (195) E.L.T. 170 (Tri. - Mumbai], and in Order No.A/1727/WZB/2005/C-II(EB) the appellant's contention is that certain circulars issued by the Board and referred to by them have not been taken into consideration. It has also been contended by ld. Advocate that there submission that Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory v. Commissioner of Central Excise , does not apply to their case, has not been properly appreciated.2. After hearing ld. SDR Shri M. K. Srivastava and after considering the grounds for rectification of mistake, we find that the Tribunal has passed a detailed order after taking into consideration the various Rules, Section, and the provisions of law and has accordingly come to a finding against the appellant. The appellant's contention of non-consideration of some of the circular raised by them cann...

Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Shrijee Heavy Projects Works Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing Shri C. Lama ld. JDR and Shri S.B. Awate ld.Consultant, we find that the dispute in the present appeal of the Revenue is as regards the classification of big crystal sugar/sugar candy.2. Both the authorities below have held the said product sugar candy as falling under Heading 1701.39, as against the Revenue's claim of classification under Heading 1704.90. While dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue, Commissioner (Appeals) observed as under : - The submission and the goods for review have been considered by me carefully. In view of Deputy Chief Chemist, Mumbai's Test Reports No. CEX/17-AD-64/95/11, dated 6-3-96, the product Sugar Candy/Bura Sugar satisfies the definition of the Note (2) to Chapter 17 which explains sugar means any form of sugar in which the sucrose content if expressed as a percentage of the material dried to constant weight at 1058 would be more than 90. As explained by the respondents, process of manufacturing contains only disolving of sugar i...