Mumbai Court September 2006 Judgments

Laxmi Board and Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(114)ECC63

2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Waste paper based kraft paper and Baggasse of Kraft paper, falling under Chapter 48 of the schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act. They claimed exemption under Notification No. 48/91-CE dated 25.07.1991 for the period June, 1992 to January, 1994 and on according approvals, they effected clearances at NIL rate of duty. The officers concerned being under the belief that the appellants have wrongly availed exemption under said notification, have searched the premises of the appellants on 12.12.1996 and during the course of investigation, the appellants were directed to pay amount of Rs. 10,42,008/- and accordingly they have deposited the sum on 01.01.1997. A Show Cause Notice dated 26.06.1997 proposing to recover the duty amount amongst other proposals and also sought to appropriate the amount of Rs. 10.42 Lakhs paid by them towards duty liability. The notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III, vide his Ord...

Madhukar S.S.S.K. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)8STT156

2. The issue in this appeal relates to the liability to pay any Service Tax by a person receiving services from goods transport operators.3. The appellants herein is having Sugar Factory and engaged the services of the goods transport operators for transporting the sugar canes to its factory during the period 16.11.1997 to 01.06.1998. A Show-Cause-Notice dated 09.03.2001 was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise & Customs (Service Tax) Jalgaon alleging that they have contravened the provisions of Section 68, 69 & 70 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) in as much as they failed to pay the Service Tax on the transportation charges paid during the period in dispute, fail to get a Registration under the Finance Act and non-furnishing the returns. The Show-Cause-Notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Jalgaon Division who has confirmed the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 5,69,204/- and directed them to make ...

Saipem Uk Limited Vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)108ITD545(Mum.)

1. These cross appeals arising from the Order dated 30^th March 2005 of CIT(A)-XXXI, Mumbai are disposed of by this common order as under: 2. The grounds of appeal accompanying Form No. 36 were not in consonance of Rule 8 of the ITAT Rules and therefore, the assessee has filed revised and concise grounds of appeal vide letter dated 21^st September 2005. The grounds of appeal challenging the validity of the order dated 28^th March 2002 passed by the Assessing Officer Under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 and 163 of the Income Tax Act.3. The relevant facts briefly stated are that: The assessee company is incorporated under the laws of United Kingdom. Its operations in India pertain to execution of certain contract works awarded by certain Indian companies. In order to execute these contracts, the assessee company entered into various sub-contracts, which include the sub-contracts with M/s. Valentine Maritime (Gulf) LLC, UAE (for short "Valentine"). It appears that the assessee company as well as...

A.S. Shirsat Vs. State of Maharashtra and 12 ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR273; 2007CriLJ548

R.M. Lodha, J.1. Mr. A.S. Shirsat is a practising Advocate. He practices in the Jalgaon Courts. By means of this Public Interest Litigation, he has raised the grievance concerning the appointment of respondent Nos. 3 to 13 as Government Pleader / Public Prosecutor / Assistant Government Pleader / Additional Public Prosecutor. According to him, the appointment of these persons is arbitrary and merit has been the casualty in appointing them.2. At the outset, Mr. Ravi Kadam, the Advocate General submitted that insofar as appointment of respondent Nos.4 to 13 as Government Pleader / Public Prosecutor / Assistant Government Pleader / Additional Public Prosecutor is concerned, their tenure has come to an end and the fresh process for the appointment of Law Officers in the concerned areas has started as per the provisions of Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointment, Conditions of Service & Remuneration) Rules, 1984 (for short 'Law Officers Appointment Rules'). He also submitted that presently re...

Sheshrao S/O Bhaurao Sable Vs. Ganesh S/O Mahadeorao Sable and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)MhLj728

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Considering the nature of controversy, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Shri Chandurkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Tajne, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1.2. The petitioner-original defendant has questioned the order dated 13-2-2006 passed below Exh. 77 in Regular Civil Suit No. 18 of 2004 passed by 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akot, refusing him permission to amend written statement with a view to incorporate counter-claim.3. The suit as filed is for declaration and perpetual injunction and in it the trial Court has granted temporary injunction in favour of respondent No. 1-plaintiff. The case of the petitioner is that under the garb of that order, respondent No. 1-plaintiff has dispossessed him and he sought leave to amend written statement to point out such subsequent events and to incorporate counter-claim. By relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ganu Kisna Buradkar v....

Sheshrao Bhaurao Sable Vs. Ganesh Mahadeorao Sable and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR549

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. Considering the nature of controversy, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Shri Chandurkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Tajne, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1.2. The petitioner - original defendant has questioned the order dated 13-2-2006 passed below Exh. 77 in Regular Civil Suit No. 18 of 2004 passed by 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akot, refusing him permission to amend written statement with a view to incorporate counter claim.3. The suit as filed is for declaration and perpetual injunction and in it the trial Court has granted temporary injunction in favour of respondent No. 1 - plaintiff. The case of the petitioner is that under the garb of that order, respondent No. 1 - plaintiff has dispossessed him and he sought leave to amend written statement to point out such subsequent events and to incorporate counter claim. By relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ganu Kisna Burad...

Mohammed Nisar Riyaz Khan and Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ562

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. These appeals can be disposed of by common Judgment. I intend to do so because both the appeals are filed against the self-same judgment and order passed by the Second Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar, dated 6th June, 2003 in Sessions Case No. 32 of 2002. The appellants before this Court are accused No. 2 and accused No. 1 respectively. The appellants were charge-sheeted and tried for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366A and 376 r/w. 34 of LP. Code along with four other accused. The other accused have been acquitted. The accused No. 1 has been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366A and 376 of LP. Code, whereas appellant accused No. 2 has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 363 r/w 34 of LP. Code only.2. For the arguments that I am called upon to consider and would be sufficient to dispose of both the appeals by his common judgment, it is not necessary to advert to the factual matrix of the case in extenso. Suffice...

Sunil Rajya Kale and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ526

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This Appeal has been preferred by the appellants who had been convicted under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. They have also been convicted under Section 394, r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment. Appellant No. 1 has been found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has been convicted to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. Both the appellants have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23-3-1998 between 1 and 1.30 at night, the appellants assaulted one Balu Kute, fatally. They also assaulted one Govind Maharaj, leading to a loss of his eye sight. After the assaults on these two persons who were sleeping in the courtyard outside the house, the appellants entered the house and robbed the wife of Balu Kute by snatching her Man...

Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (i)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for waiver of pre deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 3,91,77,115/- demanded by the Commissioner in his impugned order.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. are inter alia engaged in manufacture of various types of steel wires and their licensed capacity permitted them to manufacture 9600 MT of stranded wires viz. high tensile stranded normal relaxation wire (HTSNRW). The total licence capacity of all the products manufactured was 77,110 MT. They approached the Ministry of Industries for substantial expansion of capacity to manufacture prestressed concrete wires from 9,600 MT per annum to 20,000 MT per annum with simultaneous reduction of capacity of other wires to the same extent. The necessary permission was granted by the Ministry of Industries vide their letter dated 4-12-1992 in which the applicants were allowed to increase/produce high tensile stranded low relaxation wires (HTSLRW) to the extent of 10400 tonnes in addi...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shree Khemisati Processors

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has referred the present appeal.2. After hearing both the sides, we find that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of fabrics. In terms of the provisions of Rule 96 ZQ read with Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998, the Commissioner fixed their Annual Capacity of Production vide his order dt. 15.7.1999. The said capacity was fixed by taking into account the length of the galleries. The said order of fixation was challenged by the respondents before Tribunal, though they continued to discharge their duty liability in accordance with the ACP so fixed. The Tribunal vide its order dt. 19.6.2000 set aside the ACP fixed by Commissioner and remanded the matter for re-determining the annual capacity and consequent duty liability of the said assessee, after consulting the technical expert and the evidence on record.3. As the order fixing ACP was set aside ...