Mumbai Court May 2006 Judgments

Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appellants have filed a Bill of Entry No. 103393 dated 15.1.2000 under the EDI Scheme for clearance of 2000 kg. of Seamless extruded pipes which was assessed to duty and the duty was paid by the appellants in Mumbai Custom House. Subsequent to payment of duty, the appellants were informed that the goods have gone to CFS Mulund where the system of Electronic Processing of documents was not available. As such, the appellants filed a fresh manual Bill of Entry bearing the same No. and date as advised by the Customs authorities and paid the duty amount for the second tune in cash. The impugned refund claim is in respect of the first payment made in Mumbai Custom House since the goods were not available for clearance from the said Customs House. The Asst Commissioner has sanctioned the refund claim of the appellants but the lower appellate authority has ordered that the refunded amount should be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund after applying the principle of unjust enrichment....

Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service tax of Rs. 10,26,7317- and penalty of Rs. 500/- under Section 57A, Rs. 200/- per day under Section 76, Rs. 2000/- under Section 77 and Rs. 20,50,000/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The case of the department for confirming the Service tax demand is that the applicant herein is a commercial training or coaching center, as defined under Section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994, imparting commercial training or coaching as per Section 65(26) of the Act.2. We have heard both sides. We find that no prima facie case has been made on the merits of the demand, as they are rendering training/coaching to anyone who wishes to have the benefit of any training or coaching and fees are also being charged for such training/coaching. The contention of the applicants' counsel that since the applicant is Bombay Stock Exchange, it cannot be considered to be commerc...

B.K. Chakraborty Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)10STR497

1. This is an appeal against the Order of Assistant Commissioner seeking to demand Rs. 28,888/- (Rs. Twenty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Eight Only) within seven days from the date of receipt of the Order failing which excisable goods, plant machinery etc. of the appellants were liable to be attached with and disposed in terms of Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since the Order was issued by the Assistant Commissioner the learned advocate for the appellants was asked as to how the appeal can lie to Tribunal against the Order of the Assistant Commissioner. The learned advocate submitted that the last line of the Order states as under: - This Order is issued with the approval of the Commissioner Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate.He also referred to the CEGAT decision in the case of Indian Sugar and General Engg. Corporation v. Collector of C. Ex. where an Order of Collector but communicated by Superintendent on direction of Assistant Collector was held to be an O...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hollandsche Aanneming

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)107TTJ(Mum.)268

1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dt.28th Sept., 1998 of the learned CIT(A)-XVII, Mumbai pertaining to the asst. yr. 1995-96. Grounds raised in this appeal are as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that Rule 115 of IT Rules, 1962 applies for the purpose of computing depreciation in the assessee's case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that depreciation should be calculated on the actual cost of the assets based on the rate prevalent on the last date of the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration without considering the Hon'ble Court's decision in the case of CESC Ltd. v. CIT holding that depreciation is required to be calculated by applying prescribed rate on WDV of the block of assets with actual cost of the asset determined at the rate of exchange prevailing on the date of acquis...

Shri Dnyaneshwar @ Deepak Vithal Khulpe Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ3667

Ranjana Desai, J.1. The appellant (for convenience 'the accused) was tried in the sessions court at Satara in Sessions Case No. 860 of 1999 for offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short). By his judgment and order dated 4/9/2000, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for six months. The accused was also convicted of the offence punishable under Section 201 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for two months. The substantive sentences were to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the accused has preferred this appeal. 2. It would be advantageous to give the gist of the prosecution case. Deceased Pushpanjali was the daughter of PW 3 Kondiba Pandurang Dingale. She was married to one Pradee...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Sanjay Sadu Alias Bhau Dalvi and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ3440

D.G. Deshpande,J.1. These two appeals are arising out of a judgment dated 4th November 1988 passed by the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Thane where original accused No. 6 Ajit Mukund Joshi was found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- i/d to suffer S.I. for six months. Other accused were acquitted of the offences under Sections 120-B, 364 r/w 34, 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, so also the original accused No. 6 was also acquitted of all those offences. Therefore, the State has filed Appeal vide Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 1989 against acquittal of the accused and, Original Accused No. 6 filed Appeal vide Criminal Appeal No. 985 of 1988 against his conviction under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, on the basis of which the aforesaid impugned judgment came to be delivered, is as under :One Shri D.L. Marathe was the person who ca...

The Secretary, All India Biodynamic and Organic Farming Association Vs ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR1; 2006(3)BomCR867

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The genesis of these proceedings is an alarming occurrence of suicides by cultivators in diverse parts of the State of Maharashtra. All India Bio Dynamic and Organic Farming Association addressed a letter to the Chief Justice expressing serious concern over suicides by farmers in the District of Jalna. The Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) was impleaded as a party to these proceedings and was requested, to submit comprehensive report dealing with the causes of suicide by farmers in the State. The State Government and the Union Ministry of Agriculture were called upon to respond to the serious issues which are raised in these proceedings.2. On 11th January 2005, the Chief Secretary to the State Government stated before the Court on affidavit that between 1st January 2004 and 31st December 2004, there were reports of 294 cases of suicide by farmers. Of them, the largest number - 109, was from Yavatmal, followed by 39 in Buldhana, 37 in Washim and 35 in Amrav...

Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage and Ors., Vs. the ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR415; 2006(4)BomCR672

ORDERH.L. Gokhale, J.1. Notice of Motion No. 64 of 2006 is taken out by the Petitioner Trust whereas Notice of Motion No. 200 of 2006 is taken out by Respondents No. 7 and 8 to the petition. Notice of Motion No. 226 of 2006 is taken out by Respondent No. 20 to the Petition.2. Writ Petition No. 1650 of 2005 is filed by the 1st Petitioner Charitable Trust (and two Ors.), which Trust is interested in protection, preservation and enhancement of architectural material and natural heritage. The 2nd Petitioner is the Convenor of the Mumbai Chapter of the 1st Petitioner and expert in heritage architecture. The 3rd Petitioner is a renowned journalist who has extensively written on the textile mills in the city of Mumbai. The present petition is filed with a view to protect and preserve structures with heritage value within the textile mills in the city of Mumbai. The Petitioner Trust seeks support from Regulation 67 of the Development Control Regulations framed for the city of Mumbai.3. There a...

R. Piyarelall Import and Export Ltd., a Company Incorporated Under the ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR637; [2006(3)JCR181]; 2006(6)MhLj123

R.M. Lodha, J.1. The petitioners in this writ petition seek to challenge the constitutional validity of the Destructive Insects and Pests (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Validation Act, 1992). The challenge is on the ground that the Parliament has no competence to overrule a binding judicial pronouncement between the petitioners and the respondents.2. The first petitioner M/s. R. Piyarelall Import and Export Limited is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the first petitioner as 'the company'. The second petitioner is the Director and Shareholder of the company.3. The company carries on business inter alia in the imports and sale of pulses. Around the month of September, 1991, the company imported consignments of pulses, in particular 699.668 metric tonnes of toor whole crop F.A.G. The company also imported several other consignments during the period October, 1989 to February, 1992...

Gladhurst Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Dr. (Mrs) V.B. Shah and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR426; 2006(4)BomCR97

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. These matters are directed to be heard together as they involve common question of law and fact. Accordingly, they were heard together and being disposed of by this common Judgment.2. W.P.1812 of 1987 invokes this Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India to challenge a judgment and order of Maharashtra State Coop. Appellate Court dated 19th February 1987 in Appeal No. 468 and 469 of 1986. A copy of this judgment and order is annexed as Annexure 'K' to the petition.3. The first appeal is directed against a judgment and decree of City Civil Court, in L.C. Suit No. 3005 of 1985. This judgment and order is dated 24th April/2nd May 2002.4. Petitioner in Writ Petition is also appellant in the first appeal. The petitioner is appellant No. 9. It was original defendant No. 5 in the above civil suit. It would be convenient to refer to the facts in the first appeal for appreciating rival contentions.5. The above suit was filed by the original plaint...