Mumbai Court July 2006 Judgments

Maroti Sansthan Vs. Gulab Haribhau (Dead) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR668; 2007(2)BomCR875; 2006(6)MhLj367

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-trust has challenged the order of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 31-3-1992, by which Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has held that the tenancy of public trust is heritable and has relied upon the ruling of this Court reported in Khanqah-Kadria Trust (Wakf), Balapur v. Shevantabai wd/o Raoji Shivaji, 1989 Mh.L.J. 891. It, therefore, allowed the revision preferred by present respondent and set aside the order of Sub Divisional Officer, whereby the Sub Divisional Officer held that tenancy is not heritable and. there fore, passed orders under Section 120, restoring the possession to the present petitioner by ejecting the respondents.2. Mr. Chandurkar, Advocate has filed application for consequential amendment and the same is rejected being belated. Mr. Chandurkar, while arguing the case for the petitioner has stated that the Sub Divisional Officer had relied upon the ear...

Lakhanpal Limited. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC451

1. The appellants manufacture Portable Torches under the Brand name "NOVINO". M/s. Lakhanpal National Ltd. (LNL) are the owners of the Brand name. The appellants are required to pay royalty @ 2.5% to LNL.About 50% of the impugned goods are sold by the appellants themselves and another 50% is sold by the appellants through LNL. The sale of the Novino torches is effected by the appellants in half of the country and LNL sells Novino torches in other half of the country. The MRP for the torches is the same for the consumers through out the country.2. For Excise Duty purpose, the appellants have shown much lower value for their sale to LNL compared to the price at which they themselves are paying duty for transfer of the torches to their own Depots, for subsequent retail sale. The Adjudicating Commissioner has ordered assessment of sales to LNL at the same price at which the appellants themselves have cleared the impugned goods for transfer to their own depot. The appellants are in appeal ...

Bpl Mobile Communication Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC69

1. The appellants are engaged in providing Cellular Mobile Telecom Services in Mumbai, Navi Mumbai and Kalyan Telephone district. They have manufactured transmission apparatus which is used by them as Base Transceiver Station (BTS) relay station for voice and data transmission between the Mobile Switching Centre and Mobile Phones within a specified area. Thee were considered to be dutiable falling under Chapter Sub-heading 8525.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 ad since the appellants were not paying duty on the same, they were issued show cause notice seeking to demand duty demand amounting to Rs. 43,87,713/- and sought to impose penalty under Section 11 AC, 173Q etc.alongwith M/s B.P.L. and its officer. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner who confirmed the duty and imposed penalty of an equivalent amount on M/s B.P.L. under Section 11AC and also of the same amount under Rule 173Q, a penalty of Rs. 2 Lakhs on Shri Vinod Giri, Head Commercial and Rs. 2 La...

Vishuddha Rasayanee Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The prayer in the application is for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 1,39,80,166/- confirmed as Customs duty and of Rs. 2,76,868/- confirmed as Central Excise duty and with personal penalty of Rs. 1,92,57,034/- and of Rs. 10 Lakhs.2. After hearing the applicant duly represented by Shri S.S. Deshpande, learned advocate and Shri Umashankar, learned S.D.R., we find that the said duty stands confirmed against the appellant on the ground that in respect of the imports made by them in 1999 by availing the benefit of exemption notification No. 53/97-Cus. corresponding exports have not been effected even within the extended period granted by the Development Commissioner.3. We find that the export obligation was required to be made by the applicant by 03.06.2002. The said period was further extended by the Development Commissioner till 31.03.2005. The Commissioner has observed that appellant has neither resume production nor undertook any export till 31.03...

Virendra K. Mehta Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)106ITD437(Mum.)

1. These three appeals have been filed by the assessees against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) arising from the order of assessing officer passed under Section 143(3) for the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02. Appeal in ITA No. 2992/Mum/2003 had been heard before us on 21st June, 2003 and appeals in ITA Nos. 5450 and 5451/Mum/2004 have been heard by us on 29th June, 2006. Authorised Representative and departmental Representative submitted that the arguments in the appeal in ITA No. 2992/Mum/2003 may be considered in the other two appeals also, the issue being the same. The solitary effective ground urged in the three appeals is the same; to the effect that the Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the action of assessing officer in disallowing the claim for depreciation under the provisions of Section 32 in respect of motor car and/or motor cycle used for the purpose of business, by the appellants who are partners of the same firm. Authorised Representative sou...

Chandrabhaga Damodar Vanjari, (Deceased Through L.Rs.) Sou. Chhabutai ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR956; 2006(6)MhLj447

S.B. Mhase, J.1. Heard. Rule returnable forthwith with the consent of parties.2. The petitioner has approached to this Court invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. Special Civil Suit No. 209 of 1994 was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik. In the said suit, there were three defendants, Defendant No. 1 was minor represented by his next friend -mother, who was defendant No. 2 in the said suit. Apart from this, Balasaheb Sukhdev Pakhale was also a party as defendant No. 3, who is respondent No. 2 in the present matter. It appears that original defendant No. 2 -Kamal died during the pendency of the suit and since she was defendant No. 2 and next friend of defendant No. 1, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik passed order that the suit is abated as against the defendant Nos. 1 & 2. Validity of the said order is not subject matter of the present petition. However, the fact remains that the suit survives as against ...

Bhagyashreeraje W/O Shivajirao Dhanwatey and anr. Vs. State of Maharas ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)BomCR219; 2006(44)MhLj350

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellants challenge the judgment dated 3-3-1994 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1828/93. The only ground on which the impugned judgment is sought to be challenged is that the learned Single Judge as well as authorities below failed to take note of the fact of existence of natural tank in the land of the family unit of the appellants while ascertaining the total area available as the surplus land for the purpose of declaration under Section 21 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 and considered the land occupied by natural tank as forming part of the land available at the disposal of the appellants.3. Few facts relevant for the decision are that the appellants herein filed their return in terms of Section 12 of the said Act on 5-12-1975. The S.L.D.T., Bhandara passed its order under Section 21 on 5-4-1976 declaring 92.91 acres of land as the surplus land. ...

Purushottam S/O Janbaji Langote Vs. President, Magaswargiya GramIn Mah ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR236; 2006(44)MhLj347

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Admit. By consent heard forthwith.2. The appellant challenges the order dated 5-8-2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 1090 of 2005 and the order passed by the School Tribunal, Nagpur on 30-11-2004 in Appeal STN No. 17 of 2001.3. By the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, the writ petition filed by the appellant against the said order of the School Tribunal has been dismissed on the ground that the appellant had failed to disclose sufficient cause for delay in approaching the School Tribunal, The School Tribunal on its part has also dismissed the application for condonation of delay on two grounds firstly that the appellant and his counsel were absent, and secondly, that the appellant had approached the School Tribunal beyond the period of 30 days without disclosing sufficient cause for the delay.4. The facts which are not in dispute are that the appellant, whose services were terminated by the respondents 1 to 3 on 19-8-19...

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Government of Maharashtra and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2007(113)FLR476]

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The demands made by respondent No. 3 on the petitioner under the provisions of Bombay Labour Welfare Funds Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as The Labour Welfare Act) are the subject of the present petition. The petitioner is a Government company, registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner is engaged in various activities including drilling of oil from mines in the high seas in areas popularly known as 'Mumbai High.' According to the petitioner, they have assets both onshore as well as offshore. The petitioners have various offices located in Mumbai and Nhava, a research institute at Panvel and also a factory located at Uran. These will be known as the establishments, in respect of which the demand has been made by the respondent No. 3, Offshore assets are not the subject-matter of any demand. The petitioners contend that apart from factory at Uran, none of the office staff of the petitioner working in the establishments are involved...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Essen Plastic Industries and Ace

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC472

1. These two appeals and two cross objections are taken up for hearing together as a common issue is involved. Heard Shri Vimlesh Kumar Ld.SDR for both the appeals filed by the applicant Commissioners and heard Shri Ravindra Narain Ld. Advocate for the respondents M/s. Essen Plastic Industries No one appeared for the respondents M/s. ACE Plastics Pvt. Ltd. despite notice and there is also no adjournment request from them.2. In both the cases, the dispute relates to durability of the impugned product "tooth-brush handle" made of plastic. In the case of M/s. Essen Plastic Industries, the lower appellate authority has held the impugned goods to be classifiable under Heading 96.03 as essential part of the brush and hence chargeable to nil duty under his order dt. 3.8.99. In the case of M/s. ACE Plastic Pvt. Ltd. the lower appellate authority under his order dt. 31.8.99 has followed the lower appellate authority's aforesaid order dt 3.8 99 in respect of M/s. Essen Plastic Industries and ha...