Mumbai Court July 2006 Judgments

Commissioner of Cen. Excise Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC408

1. The respondents herein manufactured excisable goods falling under Chapter 27 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985. Show cause notices were issued to them for recovery of duty of Rs. 4,89,47,305/- and Rs. 2,12,75,458/- on the ground that they had availed excess (additional) modvat credit of 5% in addition to the regular modvat credit @ 10% Adv.on Special Cut Naphtha purchased from M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. during the period 17.9.97 to 31.1.98 and Feb.98 to March, 98. By the Order-in-Original No. 102/99-2000 dated 30.11.1999, the Dy.Commissioner confirmed the above mentioned demands together with interest and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 7 crores upon the notice.The Commissioner(Appeals) vide his Order-in-Appeal dated 26.6.2000 set aside the levy of interest and imposition of penalty holding that the respondents were under the bonafide belief that they were entitled to avail credit @ 15% Adv. for the reason that duty at this rate has been charged from them by M/s. BPCL and...

i.G. Petrochemicals Vs. Commissioner of Customs and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide his impugned order Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 52,55,31,509.00 (Rupees fifty two crores fifty five lakhs thirty one thousand five hundred nine only) against M/s. I.G.Petrochemicals Ltd. along with imposition of penalty of identical amount. In addition personal penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs (Rupees twenty five lakhs only) stands imposed on Shri J.K Saboo, Executive Director of the Company.2. Arguing on the stay application Shri Mohan Jaikar Ld. Advocate submits that the said demand stands confirmed against the appellant, who is 100% EOU by denying them the benefit of Notification No.23/2003-CE dated, 31-3-2003. In terms of Serial No. 3 of the Table annexed to the said notification, a 100% EOU is allowed to clear the finished goods/bye-products waste at concessional rate in DTA subject to the condition that the said finished goods sold in DTA are wholly manufactured out of the indigenous raw materials. The adjudicating authority has held that inasmuch as, the ...

Commissioner of Cen. Excise Vs. General Industrial Controls

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC406

1. The respondents herein manufactured Time Delay Relay/Delay Timer of different voltage ratings and versions ie. electronic/electromechanical and their parts. They claimed classification under CET sub-heading 8536.90 and paid duty at the rate applicable thereunder till March, 1998 and subsequently, they filed classification declaration for re-classification of the product under CET subheading 9107.00 with effect from 9.3.1998 and started paying lower rate of duty applicable thereunder. A show cause notice dated 22.9.98 was issued proposing classification of the goods under CET sub-heading 8536.90 and demand show cause notices dated 24.9.98 and 26.2.99 for recovery of differential duty of Rs. 10,06,073.30 for the period April to August, 1998 and Rs. 11,98,259.29 for the period from September 98 to Jan. 99 were issued. Notices dated 3.8.99 and 1.9.99 covering the period from Feb. to June, 1999 and July 1999 to August, 99 respectively were also issued, wherein demands for differential d...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Foam Home (i) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC501

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner, Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri U.H. Jadhav appearing for the Revenue and Shri D.M. Mishra Ld. Advocate appearing for the Respondent.2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Polyurethane Foam, Sheets, Mattresses, Pillows, Sofa Seats, and Cushions etc. and during the relevant period were availing the benefit of Small Scale Notification No. 1/93 dt. 28.3.93, as amended. Their factory was visited by the Central Excise Officers, who conducted various checks and verifications. As a result, final goods worth Rs. 15.48 lakhs were found to be in excess and excisable goods valued at Rs. 1.50 lakhs involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 37,733.50 were short found. The Revenue entertained a view that the various goods manufactured by the assessee were actually articles of Polyurethane Foam and were not entitled to the benefit of the said notification. They further entertained a view that since the final ...

Jhaveri Industries Vs. Majethia Masala

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(34)PTC548(Bom)

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The Plaintiffs have filed the present Suit contending that the Defendants have infringed their trade mark by using the word Rajwadi. The Plaintiffs also contend that by using the word Rajwadi, the Defendants are passing off their own products as these of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have therefore sought an injunction against the Defendants from using the mark 'Rajwadi' or using the word 'Rajwadi' on any of their products. The Plaintiffs have also claimed for injunction against the Defendants for passing off their goods by using deceptively similar mark, 'Rajwadi'.2. The Plaintiffs are a partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacturing Indian spices, condiments and masalas for cooking. The Plaintiffs contend that they are owners of a trade mark 'Badshah Rajwadi' in India. They have an annual sale in respect of these brands of Rs. 28,63,04,813 in respect of these brands. The Plaintiffs have claimed in the suit that they have a registered trade mark beari...

Shatrughan Sinha Vs. Gurudev Singh Mann and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR546; 2006(6)MhLj213

Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties,2. Admit. Matter is made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mrs. Wagle waives notice for respondents 1 to 4. Mrs. Joglekar waives notice for respondent No. 5.3. As short question is involved, Appeal from Order is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent.4. This Appeal from Order takes exception to the judgment and Order passed by the Bombay City Civil Court dated December 21, 2004 in Notice of Motion 4502 of 2004 being L.C. Suit No. 5289 of 2004.5. The respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs filed suit against the appellant/defendant No. 1 and respondent No. 5/defendant No. 2 for the following reliefs:(a) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant leave under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure;(b) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the defendant No. 1 by order of permanent injunction from covering the suit passage, which is shown in green colour boundary in the rough sketch at Exh. A hereto;(c) this Hon'ble Court...

Anand S/O Vasudeo Abhyankar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR860; 2006(6)MhLj285

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By way of present Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 15-5-1993/24-5-1993 passed by the respondent, rejecting the application of the petitioners for grant of exemption of their lands on the ground that the said lands are being used for cattle breeding and hence stands exempted in view of provisions of Section 472(b) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. This Court has, while admitting the matter, on 18-3-1994 granted interim stay, thereby the possession of the petitioners over the lands, for which the said exemption has been claimed, is protected.2. Heard Mr. S.A. Gordey, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. A.D. Sonak A.G.P. for the respondent.3. Advocate Gordey points out that survey Nos. 294 and 296 admeasuring 7.40 hectare belonging to Smt. Sarojini Abhyankar and survey No. 266, 267 and 268 admeasuring 8.50 hectare belonging to Smt. Yogini Abhyan...

Handmaids of the Sacred Heart of Jesus Society and anr. Vs. Spl. Distr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR141

Rebello F.I., J.1. Heard. Rule heard forthwith.2. The petitioner No. 1 is Trust registered finder the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The petitioner No. 2 runs a School which imparts education to mentally handicapped students. In para 2, the petitioners have set out that on 19.8.1971, the petitioner No. 1 was established by Roman Catholic Trustees professing and practising Christianity as their religion and the founding Trustees of the petitioner No. 1 were Roman Catholic priest and nuns. It is also set out that ever since the inception, the Trustees of petitioner No. 1 have been priests and nuns who practise and profess Christianity as their religion. The names of the past Trustees of petitioner No. 1 have been set out as also of the present Trustees. The dominant aim and objects of the Petitioner Trust are to provide education to the mentally handicapped children. The management and control of the society is vested in the governing body which necessarily includes Superior, Vice Superi...

Hargovind Pannalalji Kasat Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR659; 2006(6)MhLj616

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The present appeal arises from the order dated 31-1-1995 passed in Writ Petition No. 252 of 1995 whereby the petition filed against the order of the Additional Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' has been dismissed.2. Few facts relevant for the decision are that in exercise of powers under Section 21 of the said Act, the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal (SLOT), Murtizapur by its order dated 9-4-1987 had declared 12.03 acres of land of the appellant being surplus with the family unit of the appellant. The appeal against the said order by the appellant was dismissed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur by its order dated 27-11-1987. In the said appeal, the respondent-State had filed cross-objections but as late as on 14-8-1987, though the respondents were served with the notice of the said appeal on 12-5-1987. In August, 1...

Kiran Tulshiram Ingale Vs. Anupama P. Gaikwad and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ4591

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard advocates for the petitioner and Respondent No. 1. Petitioner is the husband and Respondent No. 1 is the wife. A case was instituted against the petitioner under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. He came to be convicted by the trial Court. The matter went in appeal. Before the appellate Court, the matter was settled between the parties. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 obtained divorce by mutual consent. Respondent No. 1 agreed not to press for the petitioners conviction. The appellate Court maintained the conviction of the petitioner and gave him benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders' Act.2. Firstly the petitioner has filed Criminal Revision Application No. 255 of 2004 against the order of the Sessions Judge because no appeal was maintainable. When this Revision Application came up before learned single Judge, Justice Khanwilkar passed an order referring the Revision Application to a larger Bench.3. Thereafter, apprehending that the Judges ...