Mumbai Court July 2006 Judgments

Nova Electricals Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2007)BC59; 2007CriLJ535

S.P. Kukday, J.1. Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of respective parties, matter is taken up for hearing.2. At the outset, Shri S.S. Choudhari, learned Counsel for applicant stipulates that the challenge is to the legality of the order of issuance of process and, therefore, quashing of the proceedings is not pressed at this stage.3. Respondent No. 2 Shri Vyas Dhanwarsha Sahakari Bank Limited, Yaval, had advanced loan of Rs. 3 lakhs in the category of 'hypothecation cash credit loan'. Entire loan of Rs. 3 lakhs was withdrawn by the applicant on 20th October, 2000. The loan was to be repaid on or before 20th September, 2001. As repayment was not done, applicant issued a cheque drawn on Janata Sahakari Bank Limited, Jalgaon. The cheque was presented for encashment but was dishonoured. After service of notice, as applicant failed to make repayment within stipulated period, respondent No. 2 initiated proceedings in respect of offence punishable under Section 138 of the...

Anand Pipe Industries Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC78

2. The assessee has availed CENVAT credit on the capital goods.Simultaneously, the assessee has also claimed depreciation under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the capital goods.Subsequently, the assessee rectified the mistake by filing revised Income-tax returns. This has also been confirmed by Income-tax Department. Thus, as it stands the assessee had availed CENVAT credit but not depreciation on the value of the capital goods.3. The Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Nashik who has adjudicated the show cause notice, dropped the demand but however, imposed penalty equivalent to CENVAT credit availed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 13 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.4. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee had filed and appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) for dropping the penalty. The department has filed another appeal for dropping the original demand of CENVAT credit.T...

Commissioner Central Excise Vs. Lloyds Metals and Engg. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondent in this case were issued show cause notice seeking to deny them modvat credit on certain items of capital goods which do not appear to satisfy the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The. show cause notice was adjudicated by the Addl. Commissioner who held these items as eligible items of capital goods entitled to modvat credit and accordingly allowed the modvat credit.2. In pursuance of the powers conferred under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, the Commissioner of Central Excise, called for and examined the said order in original and authorised and directed the Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise, Nagpur to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) with the prayer for setting aside the said order in original.3. The Commissioner Central Excise however, held that the appeal filed by the department is not maintainable on the ground that the Commissioner, Central Excise had directed the Asstt. Commissioner who wa...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Modison Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue referred to the Larger Bench is whether there is any need for mens rea for warranting confiscation and penalty under the provisions of Rule 173Q(1)(a), (b) & (c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.The brief facts in this case are that on 22-2-2001, officers of Central Excise division, Vapi, visited the premises of the assessee engaged in the manufacture of copper chromium billets, copper rods/flats/bars, cast copper wire bar etc. falling for classification under Chapter 74, and found 299 bundles of extruded and drawn copper bars/rods which were fully tested, packed on 13th, 16th and 21st February, 2001 and in ready to despatch condition, but not entered in the daily stock account which showed nil stock of finished goods. Duty amount involved thereon was Rs. 1,90,338.80. It was also noticed that the assessee had removed duty paid raw materials viz. 17,482 kgs. of copper waste and scrap on which credit was taken, to their sister unit, i.e. Modisun Ltd., without preparing...

Heritage Personnel Placement Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC86

2. The assessee is in appeal aggrieved by the order in Revision passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nashik. The assessee has paid service tax and the penalty amount as confirmed in the order in original No. 86 of 2004 dated 20.4.2004 under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Reviewing Commissioner having felt that the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 is too low and issued a show cause notice proposing enhancement of penalty amount.Accordingly, Reviewing Commissioner have adjudicated the notice and imposed penalty amount of Rs. 2,32,436/- (two lakh three thousand four hundred thirty six). Hence this appeal. Similar issue has been decided by this Tribunal vide its Order No. 330 to 332/III/SMC/WZB/06 dated 6.2.2006 while relying upon the Supreme Court decision in the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited .Therefore, in view of the settled position of law in favour of the assessee, I find no valid reason to uphold...

Smt. Rekha Bharat Chheda Vs. Acit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)110TTJ(Mum.)933

Rs. 3,80,302/- Dividend from Indian Companies not allowed as exempt Under Section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequently reduced carried forward losses by considering such dividend as business income. i) On facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the learned C.I.T. (Appeal)-XXIII, erred in confirming dis-allowance of Rs. 3,80,302/- made by the Assessing Officer ACIT 23(3) being dividend from Indian Companies as exempt Under Section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequently reducing carried forward losses by considering such dividend as business income. ii) Considering the above facts & legal position, your honour is requested to allow the dividend income as exempt Under Section 10(33) of the income Tax Act 1961 2. Briefly stated, the facts are these: The assessee was engaged in the business of purchase and sale of shares. She declared business loss of Rs. 40,94,017/- and speculation loss of Rs. 3,83,00,505/- for the Assessment Year under c...

Surendra Gyanchand Chawla Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ3694

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard advocate Mr. Talekar, appearing for the appellant - original accused and learned APP Mr. Hingorani, appearing for the State in Chamber.2. By this appeal, the accused has challenged his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default R.I. for six months, imposed upon him by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gr. Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 1033 of 1995.3. The facts giving rise to the prosecution case are as under:Deceased Seema was the wife of accused. She was the first wife. Charge against the accused was that the accused killed his wife deceased Smt. Seema Surendra Chawla by strangulation. The accused had two children by name Kamlesh and Lalit. They were aged about 20 years and 12 years respectively at the time of incident. The accused, deceased Seema and their two sons were living at Room No. 1, Chawala Chawl, Irani Wadi, Road, No. 4, Kandivali (W). Even according to the prosecution, the...

Balawantgir Ganpatgir Giri Through His Lrs. Nanibai Wd/O Balwant Giri ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR109; 2007(1)BomCR212; 2006(44)MhLj306

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Admit. By consent heard forthwith.2. The appellants challenge the judgment dated 21-3-2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 149 of 2005. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has held that document dated 3-3-2000 executed between the parties is a mere agreement for sale without any understanding for delivery of possession prior to the execution of the sale deed and that, therefore, the same cannot be considered as conveyance within the meaning of the said expression under Explanation 1 of Article 25, Schedule-I of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred as 'the said Act').3. The facts relevant for the decision are that the respondents herein have filed Special Civil Suit No. 9 of 2003 against the appellants for specific performance of an agreement stated to have been entered into between the respondents and the predecessor of the appellants in relation to the property bearing survey No. 88/1 situated at mouza Lohara...

D.P. JaIn and Co. and ors. Vs. Green Earth Asphalt and Power Pvt. Ltd. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2007)BC640; 2006(5)MhLj705

K.J. Rohee, J.1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicants seek to quash Summary Criminal Case No. 72/2005 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Achalpur.3. Non-applicant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Complainant') is a company duly registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, It is engaged in the business of construction. Its registered office is at Achalpur Camp, District -Amravati.4. Applicant No. 1 is a partnership firm which is also engaged in the business of construction. It has its office at Nagpur. Applicant Nos. 2 to 4 are the partners of applicant No. 1.5. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the applicants alleging therein that the complaint provided plant and machinery on rental basis to the applicants. Towards...

State of Maharashtra and anr. Vs. Baliram Girdhar Patil

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)MhLj82

S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. These First Appeals arise out of two common judgments delivered by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, in two groups of Land Acquisition References. First group was consisting of Land Acquisition References No. 206/84, filed by Mr. Baliram Girdhar Patil, No. 208/84 filed by Mr. Manohar Dhansingh Patil, No. 209/84 filed by Mr. Shriram Atmaram Patil, and No. 210/84 filed by Ramkrishna Dhansingh Patil. In this group of Land Acquisition References, common judgment is delivered in Land Acquisition Reference No. 206 of 1984. In second group, Land Acquisition References No. 211/84 filed by Pandurang Chintaman Patil, No. 212/84 filed by Mr. Digamber Vithal Patil, No. 213/84 filed by Mr. Shankar Bhaurao Patil, were considered. In the second group, common judgment was delivered in Land Acquisition Reference No. 211 of 1984. Both these judgments were, however, delivered on one and the same date. Common evidence was recorded in only one Land Acquisition Ref...