Mumbai Court August 2006 Judgments

State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Nivruti G. Ahire

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR320; 2006(6)MhLj466

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. The petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 18th June, 1999 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 108 of 1995. By the impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal while allowing the Original Application has quashed the charge-sheet dated 30th November, 1994 issued against the respondent herein.2. Few facts relevant for the decision are that the respondent was employed in the Sales Tax Department of the Government of Maharashtra as a Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax for a period from 31st March, 1989 to 26th November, 1993, and in that capacity, he had administrative control of the Division under his jurisdiction, apart from the other duties attached to the said office. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Assessing Officers and Tax Officers were subordinate to the post of Deputy Commissioner held by the respondent. During the said tenure, the respondent was required to pass orders relating to refund of...

Premachand S. Bansode and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ142

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence for offence punishable under Section 307, r.w. Section 34 of the I.P. Code in Sessions Case No. 95/1992, the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 have come up in appeal. By the impugned order, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, convicted both the appellants for offence punishable under Section 307, r.w. Section 34 of the I.P. Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four (4) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, I.D., to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months.2. The prosecution case, stated briefly, is that on December 12, 1991, PW1 Satish Tanaji Bansode (complainant) went to an eatery styled as 'Cafe Gullstan' which is also known as 'Islamic Khanawal' (Islamic inn) situated near the S. T. Bus stand at Osmanabad. It was around midday that he ordered a dish of Biryani for the lunch. He was eating the food when in all seven (7) persons, Including the present appellants, entered the premi...

Smt. Indira Vinayak Sawant and ors. Vs. Vijayendra Umakant Shety and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008ACJ896; AIR2007Bom87; 2007(1)ALLMR181

ORDERV.C. Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the Order dated 25th February, 2003 passed in Claim Petition No. 75/2001 rejecting application dated 31-10-2002 filed by the petitioner/claimant praying therein that Mr. Vasant Yeshwant Kamat, brother of the deceased be brought on record as legal representative of the deceased respondent No. 2.2. It appears from the material available on record that the respondent No. 2 was made party to the Claim Petition being owner of the vehicle which was involved in the accident. He left for heavenly abode on 28-1-2000 much before filing of the Claim Petition. It is not in dispute that the respondent was married and had become widow within four years of her marriage and that she died issueless.3. Mr. Vasant Yeshwant Kamat is the brother of the deceased respondent No. 2. As such the said Vasant was sought to be impleaded as party defendant/respondent to the claim petition. The said application came to be rejected by the Tribunal by the impugned...

Chhotelal Badriprasad Yadav Vs. Union of India (UOi) thro' General Man ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2007(112)FLR392]; (2007)2LLJ85Bom

D.D. Sinha, J. 1. Heard Mr. R.S. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. U.R. Tanna, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The instant writ petition is directed against the part of the order dated March 20, 1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby the Original Application No. 1160/1993 filed by the petitioner against the order of termination though came to be allowed, back wages are not granted to the petitioner. The grievance made in the petition by the petitioner pertains to non-grant of back wages.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the instant case the petitioner was working as Monthly Rated Casual Labourer with the respondents since 1986. The service of the petitioner was terminated by the respondent by order dated April 3, 1993 on account of unauthorised absence from duty. On October 19, 1993 the petitioner filed above referred application before the Tribunal and by the impugned judgment and order dated March 20, 1997 the Tr...

Priya Laxmi Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC568

2. This appeal is filed by the appellants against the Order-in-Appeal No. VP/110-111/SRT-I/2005 dated 01.03.2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Surat-I.3. M/s. Priya Laxmi Prints Pvt. Ltd. Surat was engaged in the manufacture of Man Made Fabrics (Processed) falling under Chapter Heading No. 54.06 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. A team of Central Excise Officers have visited the shop premises of Shree Karni Textiles, Surat and carried out search in presence of two independent Panchas and Shri Surendra Ladha, Proprietor of the Shop. They found the stock of Processed Printed Fabrics in the form of Sarees and Cut Pieces. It was noticed that there was no identification mark on the same. On being asked about the Duty paying documents of the same, some Central Excise invoices were produced which shown payment of duty. During further search the officers recovered some Kachha Delivery Challans. On enquiry, it is revealed that the Proprietor of the Shop,...

Ccex and Cus. Vs. Modison Ltd. and Odyssey Aircon

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals have been filed by the department. Heard the learned SDR for the department. Shri V.S. Sejpal, learned Advocate appears for M/s Modison Ltd. There is no representation for other respondents M/s Odyssey Aircon Pvt. Ltd. 2. In both the cases, the lower appellate authority has set aside the confiscation and reduced the penalty on the ground that mere non-accountal in RG-1 Register is not enough, the department must show proof of their intention to evade payment of duty. The issue as to whether intention to evade payment of duty is a necessary condition for taking action under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of non-accountal of goods was referred by the learned Single Member hearing these two appeals to the Larger Bench, and the Larger Bench has since decided the issue vide Order No. M/241 & 242/WZB/2006/SMC/C-IV dated 12.7.2006, holding that mens rea is not an essential ingredient to warrant confiscation and penalty under the provisions of ...

Jai Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The appellants were allowed the impugned refund by the Tribunal order dated 24.11.2003. Shri Anand Nainawati, leanred C.A.appearing for the appellants, states that subsequent to passing of this order, the appellants have filed a refund claim in proper form and the amounts have been refunded to them within a period of three months from the date of such filing. However, the claim of the appellants for interest on the refund amount with reference to the original dates of refund claim has been rejected. Hence, this appeal.2. The learned C.A. places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of J.K. Cement Works v. Asstt.Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs in support of his case. Shri R.B. Pardeshi, learned DR appearing for the department opposes the claim for interest stating that the refund amount has been paid within three months after passing of the Tribunal order. He also states that the decision in J.K. Cement (supra) is on ...

M.R. Bhagat and Associates Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)8STR531

2. The appellants have deposited the confirmed service tax amount of Rs. 29,814/- and interest of Rs. 3,439/- pertaining for the period from April 2002 to September, 2003 under Sections 73 and 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. This amount was paid on 30-12-2003. The Order-in-Original imposed penalty of Rs. 2,500/- under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 for the delayed payments of service tax and Rs. 500/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, for delay in filing the returns. These amounts were also paid. After passing the impugned order, thereafter the Commissioner (Revisional) has reviewed the Order-in-Original enhanced the penalty amount to the tune of Rs. 29,814/- which is now assailed before this Tribunal.3. The Id. Counsel for the appellants relied upon the decision of Catalyst Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-IV in which it is held "where there exists no mala fide intention in making delayed payment, the penalty is waived sufficient cause shown." Therefore, basing on the said ...

C.C.E. Vs. Herbert Brown Pharma and Research

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)9STR177

1. Heard both sides. Revenue is in appeal. The respondents are manufactures of bulk drugs, drug intermediates, specially chemicals etc. for the last 15 years and also research and development department which is recognized by the Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, Government of India.2. On 6/7-8-2001 audit was conducted and the officers pressurized to pay service tax on the consultancy services under the head Consulting Engineers Services. On 8-8-2001, the appellants have paid service tax under protest on the amount received as consultancy charges at Rs. 72,784/- being 5% on Rs. 14,34,166/-. With effect from 16-7-2001 service tax introduced on scientific and technical services and the Paper Articles were published.3. On 24-12-2001, the appellants have filed application for refund of service tax which was paid under protest. The order, on 26-10-2002, was passed by rejecting the refund claim on the ground that consultancy charges falls within the meaning of consulting engine...

Simplex Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The referral Bench of its Order No. A/1798-1800/WZB/2004/C-I, dt.29-12-2004 expressed its disagreement with the earlier majority decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai v. Coats Viyella (India) Ltd. reported as and referred the matter to the Hon'ble President for constitution of the Larger Bench.2. After hearing both the sides, we find that the Tribunal's decision in the case of Coats Viyella (India) Ltd. was challenged by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and stands decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in favour of the assessee, when the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as reported in 2006 (198) E.L.T. 482 (S.C.).Inasmuch as, the Coats Viyella (India) Ltd. decision stands approved by the Supreme Court, the reference to Larger Bench stands answered in terms of the said decision. The appeal papers are being returned to original Bench for passing appropriate orders....