Mumbai Court June 2006 Judgments

Nitish Bandopadhyay Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Prev.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Duty of Rs. 59,59,933/-stands confirmed against the applicant M/s.Reliance Industries Ltd., vide the impugned order of Commissioner, by denying them the benefit of notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dt. 1-3-2002 in respect of import of "Heat Exchanger Tube Bundle and Dummy Shell".In addition personal penalty of identical amount has been imposed upon the said applicant along with imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs on Shri Bundopadhyay.2. After hearing learned Advocate Shri Rohan Shah appearing for the applicant and Shri Pramod Kumar, learned S.D.R. appearing for the Revenue, we find that Sr. No. 228 of Notification No. 21/2002 grants concessional rate of duty in respect of goods specified in list 17 and required for setting up Crude Petroleum Refinery, List 17 is a long list specifying various items for grant of exemption. Heat exchanger alongwith its accessories etc. are specified against Sr. No. 10 of the said list. Further Sr. No. 45 specifies special assembly, tools, acce...

Anil Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The prayer in the application is to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 1,44,97,287/- and personal penalty of Rs. 25 Lakhs imposed upon the first applicant M/s. Anil Products Ltd. and Rs. 1 Lakh each imposed on the other two applicants.2. After hearing the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, we find that show cause notice dtd. 28-8-1997 was issued to the appellants raising demand of duties for the period August 1992 to June 1997 on the ground that Calcium Gluconate IP manufactured by them is not classifiable as medicament under Chapter 30 but the same is appropriately falling under Chapter 29 as Organic chemical. The said show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner vide his order in September 1997 who dropped the majority of the demand as barred by limitation, thus confirming an amount of Rs. 9,61,495.00 which was within a period of six months. He has not imposed any penalty upon the appellants by observing that there is no mala fid...

Seagull Cooling Pvt. Ltd., Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC53

1.1 Appellants are an assessee under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Director and a authorized signatory. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of what they term as 'components and parts' of air conditioners and had filed declarations claiming exemption under notification 6/2000 dated 1.3.2000 & 22/2000 dated 6.3.2000 for such parts and components. They cleared the goods on invoices, giving details of the product cleared.1.2 The officer on 9.8.2000 visited the factory premises, of the assessee, found a consignment of "Split Air Conditioner" comprising of out door & indoor units described on invoice No. 1162 dated 9.8.2000 as "Parts of Air Conditioners". It was classified by the assesses officers that the item did not include. "Copper Tube Piping" and 'insulation' and that was the reason to declare them as parts of Air Conditioner.1.3 The officers conducted enquiries and a Show Cause Notice dated 29.8.01 was issued proposing recovery of duty for the period March 2000 ...

Smt. Leela Nagesh Mandke and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR501

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. 2. This appeal arises from the Judgment and Order dated 26-10-2005 passed by the 9th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune on the preliminary issue relating to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain, try and decide the suit challenging the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called as 'the said Act'. 3. The appellants have filed the Suit No. 423 of 2001 for various reliefs; however, the main relief relates to declaration that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Notification No. LAQ/87 dated 26-5-1989 be declared as null and void, as also the Order dated 17-11-1992 and the Order dated 11-10-1993 in Civil Application No. 4803 of 1993 in the Writ Petition No. 4671 of 1990 be declared to have been obtained by playing fraud upon the Court and, therefore, they are non est ab initio. There are also consequential reliefs asked for. The respondents raised a preliminary issue regar...

The University of Pune Through Registrar Vs. Shri Mahadeo Sahebrao Jad ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR509; 2006(5)MhLj470

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The present appeal arises from the Judgment and Order dated 9-10-2003, passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7330 of 2002. By the impugned Judgment, the learned single Judge has set aside the order dated 4-12-2002, passed by the University Tribunal and consequently has also set aside the order of termination of services of the respondent which was passed by the appellant-University on 3-9-2002. 2. The facts relevant for the decision are that the respondent joined the appellant-University as an Internal Auditor with effect from 20-6-1996. An advertisement came to be issued on 6-5-1997 inviting applications for the post of Finance and Accounts Officer in the appellant-University. Pursuant to the application of the respondent and after having undergone the selection process and on nomination by the Selection Committee, he was appointed as the Finance and Accounts Officer under the appellant under the letter dated 30-7-1997. The respondent accept...

Union of India (Uoi), Through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR125; 2006(5)MhLj463

V.M. Kanade, J.1. By this Petition, petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (For short 'CAT') whereby a direction was given to the Union of India by the CAT not to recover any excess amount paid to the respondent and with further direction that if any amount has already been recovered in consequence of the orders passed after refixation of the respondent's pay-scale in the scale of Rs 1320-2040, the same shall be refunded to the respondent. 2. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this Writ Petition are as under:3. Respondent was appointed as a Laboratory Technician on ad-hoc basis with petitioner No.3 Institute with effect from 3/5/1984 and his services were regularized with effect from 28/9/1984 in the pay-scale of Rs 380-560. After the Fourth Pay Commission Report was submitted and during the implementation of the said Fourth Pay Commission Report, according to the petitioners, there was a genuine error of interpretation...

Devidayal Rolling Mills Gupta Mills Estate and Sumanbala Aggarwal Vs. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR117; (2006)204CTR(Bom)38; [2006]285ITR514(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. This petition is filed to challenge the validity of the notice dated 26th March, 1992 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 31, Mumbai with a view to reopen the assessment for A.Y. 1981-82 in the case of M/s.Devidayal Rolling Mills -the petitioner No.1 herein. This petition was admitted on 12th August, 1992 and further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice dated 26th March, 1992 were stayed. 2. The facts relevant for the present petition are that : M/s. Devidayal Rolling Mills -first petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') was engaged in the business of converting copper wire bars into copper rods or coils. The process of converting copper wire bars into copper rods or coils is known as 'hot rolling process' and involves heating of bars in a furnace to a very high temperature and thereafter feeding the red hot bars through various roll...

Anant Bhagwan Kamble Vs. Principal, M.L. Dahanukar College of Commerce ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR338; 2007(3)BomCR929

Karnik D.G., J.1. Both these petitions are directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd September, 2004 passed by the Mumbai University and College Tribunal, Mumbai, (for short the Tribunal). Writ petition No. 792 of 2005 is filed by the employee and Writ Petition No. 2690 of 2004 is filed the management of the college respectively challenging parts of the order against them. Since both the petitions are directed against the same order they are disposed off by this common judgment.2. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 792 of 2005 is hereinafter referred to as 'the employee', and the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2690 of 2004 are hereinafter referred to as 'the college'3. By virtue of the powers conferred by the Bombay University Act, 1974, the Poona University Act, 1974, the Shivaji University Act, 1974, the Marathwada University Act, 1974, the Nagpur University Act, 1974, the Shreemati Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women's University Act, 1974, and the Amravati University Act, 1983...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sarika Chemicals and Adhesive

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondents herein are manufacturers of paints falling under subheading 3210.90. They claimed classification of the product Bituminous Black under chapter heading 27.15 of the schedule to the .As the department was of the view that the product fell for classification under Chapter heading 32.10 as per HSN Explanatory note thereto, demand show cause notices were issued which were confirmed by the Asstt.Commissioner. The Commissioner(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the manufacturer by accepting their claim for classification under Chapter heading 27.15; hence this appeal by the Revenue.2. We have heard the ld.SDR and perused the records as none appears for the respondents in spite of notice.3. As per the HSN Explanatory notes, bituminous mixture are generally used for road surface and further bituminous paints and varnishes falling under Chapter heading 32.10 have been excluded if they differ from certain mixtures of Chapter heading 27.15, for example, greater fineness of filler, ...

Amratlal Valji Since Deceased Hemant Amratlal Valji and anr. Vs. Dr. G ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)BomCR390; 2006(5)MhLj560

ORDERD.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Small Causes Court tried two suits. The first was a suit instituted by the petitioner in December, 1973 claiming a declaration of tenancy. The second was a suit instituted by the respondent in March, 1979 for possession, under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882. The suit instituted by the respondent was decreed. The suit instituted by the petitioner came to be dismissed. The judgment and order of the Trial Judge was delivered in November 1991 and was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court on 17th April, 1996. These petitions under Article 227 impugn the correctness of the judgment of the Appellate Bench. The two writ petitions arise out of the proceedings in the declaratory suit on the one hand and the suit for eviction on the other.2. The premises in the present case comprise of Flat No. 5 situated on the first floor of a building known as Sagar Mahal at Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai 400 006. The First res...