Mumbai Court August 2006 Judgments

Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. Vs. Cristiano D'Souza

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR29

Kakade P.V., J.1. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the record.2. The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the District Judge, South Goa, Margao, allowing the respondent's claimant's reference partly under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and holding that, the market value of the acquired land admeasuring 1225 square meters coming to the share of the claimant was fixed at Rs. 100/ per square meter. The claimant was also held to be entitled to other statutory benefits under the law.3. Vide notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, published in the Official Gazette dated 11/5/1987, the State acquired the land from Davorlim Village for the purpose of Salaulim Irrigation Project. This included an area of 2450 square meters of Bharad land from survey No. 81 of Davorlim Village. By award dated 31/1/1989, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 15/ per square meter. The comp...

Dattu Mahadu Labade Vs. Rangnath Baburao Bodake (Since Deceased) Throu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR76

Bhosale D.B., J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.11.1998 rendered by the District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 140/1986 by which the respondent-landlord's appeal has been allowed and the suit for recovery of possession on the ground of arrears of rent as provided for under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act came to be decreed and the petitioner-defendant has been directed to be evicted and deliver possession of the suit premises to the respondent or before 1st January, 1989. The petitioner was also directed to pay to the respondents Rs. 540.60 Ps. as claimed and cost of the suit and appeal. The suit was filed by the respondent-landlord for eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent and nuisance. The trial Court, however, by its judgment and order dated 19.9.1985 dismissed the suit holding Rs. 15/ - as the standard rent. In appeal, the learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord did not press decree on the ground of nuisance. Similarly, the is...

Manohar Gajanan Koshe Vs. Sadashiv Mahadeo Pardeshi Since Deceased by ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR62; 2006(6)BomCR58

Radhakrishnan S., J.1. By this petition, the petitioner-tenant is challenging the judgment and order of the Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khalapur, District Raigad dated 28th September, 1984 and also the judgment and order of the learned Additional District Judge, Raigad dated 24th October, 1990, confirming the judgment of the trial Court, in an Appeal. The petitioner-tenant, aggrieved by both the aforesaid judgments, has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The brief facts are, that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in a suit premises which includes a room and a tin shed. In the said room, two walls were of tin sheets. The area of the tin shed was 9' X 9' and the area of the room was 14'X 14'. The monthly rent of the suit premises was of Rs. 3/-.3. It appears that the petitioner-tenant had approached the respondent-landlord to carry out certain repairs in the said suit premises and ultimately, the petitioner-tenant informed the landlord t...

Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. RFC Employees' Union and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)ILLJ939Bom

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. This proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has arisen out of an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected an Application filed by the Management, questioning the maintainability of a Reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The ground taken in the application was that the appropriate Government under Section 2(a) is not the Central Government (which made the reference), but the State Government.2. The controversy in the present case involves the question as to whether the Central Government is the appropriate Government, under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in relation to Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. The Company is the petitioner before the Court and has submitted: that the appropriate Government in its case under Section 2(a) is not the Central Government, but the State Government and that consequently, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal was in e...

Krishak Bharati Co-operative Vs. Cce and C

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC627

2. The demands in this case are in respect of treated water, de-mineralized water and inputs used in the production of steam. The de-mineralized water and steam are supplied to the Heavy Water Plant which has been set up by the Department of Atomic Energy. The learned Advocate relies on the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of MEPC Agro Foods Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore 2001 (135) ELT 1352 (T-Chennai) and in the case of CCE, Cochin v. Kerala State Drugs and Pharma Ltd. and submits that the notice dated 03.01.2002 was issued on the same ground but was dropped by the previous Commissioner.3. We find that the inputs used on de-mineralized water is manufactured thereof is well settled and the Commissioner's findings on differentiating the settled position cannot be upheld on the issue of steam generated and supplied has been exempted vide Sl.No. 24 to Table of Notification No. 6/2003 and for past period the matter appears to be under active consideration of Ministry of Atomic Energy and M...

Siemens Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. There is no dispute that the impugned goods are machinery items, being Bar Code system and parts, which are used for keeping track of raw materials in the appellants' factory. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the appellants' factory uses numerous items in the production of finished goods, the Bar Code system is used for keeping track of the inventory without which smooth production or manufacture is impossible. He also states that in the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the expression "Capital goods" appearing in Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is to be interpreted liberally in view of the language used. By adopting a liberal approach, it can be said that the Bar Code system is being used in production and manufacture of the finished goods.2. Accordingly, 1 am of the view that the Modvat credit in respect of the impugned goods cannot be denied. Hence the impugned order i...

Commr. of Service Tax Vs. Gamma Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)14STT20

1. The respondents are not present. Heard the learned DR for the applicant Commissioner. The department's appeal is against the waiver of the penalty amounts and reduction in penalty amount by the lower appellate authority under Sections 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 94.2. 1 find that the lower appellate authority has given the following findings in support of his decision : I find that there is a reasonable ground for the failure on their part for non-submission of service tax returns and delay in crediting the Service Tax. Under the provisions of Section 80 of the Act, they are entitled for wavier of the penalty. I also find that under Section 80 of the Act, which reads as under. "Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of Section 76, Section 77, Section 78 or Section 79, no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred to in the said provisions if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause...

Forbes Sea Consortium India Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC648

1. Heard both sides. I find that the appellant had initially filed an IGM dated 11.4.2005 showing a consignment of Cigarettes consigned to M/s. Forbes Sea Consortium (I) Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently they sought an amendment in the name of the consignee as M/s. Senior Manager Duty Free Shop ITDC, India. The learned advocate appearing for the appellants states that the initial mistake in writing the wrong consignee's name in the IGM was on account of receiving an incorrect Bill of Lading from their principals based in Singapore which was corrected only on 14.4.05 subsequent to filing the IGM on 11.4.05 He prays that the wrong name of the consignee was inadvertently recorded in the IGM filed and therefore he prays for setting aside the impugned order which has confiscated the goods apart from imposing a penalty of Rs. 30,000/-. He also states that redemption fine and penalty have already been paid for securing provisional clearance of the goods.2. Heard the learned DR who supports the impugned...

Sanghani Steels P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for sometime on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 15,74,375/-and penalty of equal amount, we find that it was possible to dispose off the appeal at this stage and hence proceed with the consent of both the sides after granting the prayer for stay.2. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of Wire and Bright Bars of Carbon and Alloy Steel falling under Chapter Heading No.7215, 7217 and 7228 of CET Act, 1985 and they were clearing products on payment of Central Excise duty by availing exemption under Notification No. 9/2003-C.E., dated 1.3.2003 for the financial year 2003-04. They have availed Cenvat credit on the ground that the activity did not amount to manufacture. Show cause notice was issued, adjudicated upon by the Addl. Commissioner disallowing wrong Cenvat credit and imposing penalty; the order of adjudication was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals); hence this appeal.3. We find on hearing both sides that by virtue of Tax...

Mr. Habibullah Khanyari, Ahmed Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)108ITD321(Mum.)

1. These two appeals filed by the assessee which pertain to the same block period and which are interconnected, are disposed of by this common order as under: 2. This appeal is against the Order dated 11^th March 2005 of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, Mumbai passed Under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax, vide the above order has held that the Assessing Officer's order passed Under Section 158 BFA(2) dated 30^th January 2004 levying penalty of Rs. 4,13,873/- was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is an individual, carrying business of trading of diamonds, gold jewellery and other items in the proprietary names of (a) M/s. Ahmed Joo and (b) M/s. Artistic. A search was carried out on 29^th June 2001 Under Section 132, following which notice Under Section 158BC was issued. Return of income for the relevant block period was filed by the assessee on 22^nd February 2002 declaring undi...