Mumbai Court February 2007 Judgments

Narmada Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)8STR154

1. As per facts on record, the appellant is engaged in man power recruitment service and erection, commissioning and installation service and was required to pay service tax on the same. Their premises were visited by anti evasion squad on 03/12/2004 and scrutiny of their records revealed that the appellants have failed to pay tax on the above services. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against them for confirmation of demand of service tax and for imposition of penalty. The Deputy Commissioner vide his impugned order confirmed the demand along with interest (which already stands paid by the appellants even before the issuance of the show cause notice) and imposed penalty of Rs. 61,600/-under Section 76 of the Finance Act and of Rs. 4,32,851/- under Section 78 of the said Act. The appellants filed an appeal there against before the Commissioner (Appeals) praying for reduction in quantum of penalties on the ground that they were not aware of levy of service tax during the period ...

Girish Foods and Beverages (P) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC284

1. Both the appeals one filed by the appellant M/s. Girish Foods and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and the other filed by the Revenue against the same order-in-appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order and same set of facts and circumstances.2. Appellant M/s. Girish Foods and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of packaged drinking water under the brand name "Manikchand Oxyrich", belonging to other person. As their factory was situated in rural area, they availed the benefit of small scale exemption notification No. 8/03 dt. 1.3.03. It is seen that upto the period 25.3.03, appellant cleared the said product without payment of duty. However their factory was visited by their Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner Central Excise, who entertained a view that the appellant was not entitled to exemption and accordingly directed them to pay the duty. Accordingly appellant paid the differential duty of Rs. 8, 132/- i...

Triumph Nuclear Medicine and Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)(223)ELT74Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Applications is for condonation of delay of around 5 years (two months less) in filing appeal No. C/3342/06. The impugned order was passed by Commissioner on 27-2-02, vide which he confiscated the various hospital equipments imported by the appellant on the adjudication of violation of conditions of exemption Notification No.64/88-Cus dt. 1-3-1988. However, an option was given to the applicant appellant to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1.50 lakhs. In addition, Commissioner vide his impugned order also confirmed duty of Rs. 58,94,913/- and imposed personal penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the applicant. The said order was not appealed against by the appellant till December 2006.2. The appellant's contention, duly presented through their Advocate Shri Anil Balani is that the said confiscated goods were not redeemed by them and as such they were under the bona fide belief that confirmed demand of duty is also not required to be paid by them, it was in these circumsta...

Bharat Cosmetics Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeals arise out of a common order-in-appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), involving common issue and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order. The issue in dispute relates to method of valuation of lipsticks/eyeliners in multi-packs.The weight of each individual lipstick is 4.3 ml and the weight of each individual eyeliner is 9 ml. In other words, the weight of both products is below 10 ml. In these circumstances, the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in CCE, Mwnbai v. Urison Cosmetics Ltd. , holding that quantities of cosmetics weighing less than 10 gms., even though contained in multi-packs, will be exempt under Rule 34 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged) Commodity Rules and consequently Section 4A of the Central Excise Act will not have any application to such multi-packs, will be directly applicable to the facts of the present case. Following the ratio of the Larger Bench decision cited supra, we hold that the provisi...

Vasant Raghu Bhingardive and ors. Vs. Nagori Muslim Misgar Jamat Trust ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR504; (2007)109BOMLR299; 2007(4)MhLj216

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. This is defendants appeal against eviction decree rendered by first appellate Court. 2. Subject matter of the suit is an agricultural land bearing S.No.127 situated at village Kedgaon, which is in the outskirts of Ahmednagar town, comprising two (2) acres area as indicated in plaint map. 3. Nagori Muslim Misgar Jamat Trust, is a religious trust and owns the suit land. The Trust is duly registered under provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act. The competent authority has granted exemption certificate on 21.12.1968 under provisions of Section 88 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1954 (for short B.T. and A.L. Act) to the Trust. S.No.127 was leased out by the plaintiff Trust to Raghu Shankar Bhingardive, on annual rental basis. The agreed rent was of Rs.25/-per year. The lease transaction took place way back before commencement of the B.T. and A.L. Act, as well the Bombay Public Trust Act. Original tenant Raghu Bhingardive died, leaving behind him hi...

Raghunath Fulaji Jadhav and Manohar Shankar Jadhav Vs. Shri Rajendra D ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR265; 2007(2)BomCR256; (2007)109BOMLR383

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. Challenge in this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'C.P.C.') is to the judgment rendered by the learned Vth Addl. District Judge, Solapur in Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1988 reversing the Judgment and order passed by the trial Court by which the suit was dismissed. 2. Brief facts, encompassing the details, which lead to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: The dispute is regarding land Gat No. 132 situate at Mouje Bhalvani, Taluka Kamala, District-Solapur admeasuring 3 Hector 43 Ares (for short, 'suit property'). The suit property is admittedly the ancestral property of deceased Bhimrao Krishnaji Kulkarni. Bhimrao sold the suit property by an agreement dated 12th December, 1967 to respondent No. 1 for a total consideration of Rs. 2500/-. The consideration was paid by respondent No. 1 in the form of earnest money of Rs. 150/-and two subsequent instalments of Rs. 1850/- paid on 30th September,1968 and Rs. 500/- paid on 5th No...

Dinesh Shah Vs. Ravi Sharma

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom111; 2007(2)BomCR601; (2007)109BOMLR474; 2007(3)MhLj261

R.S. Dalvi, J.1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by the applicant/Intervener Bank for raising the attachment levied by the plaintiff over the mortgaged property which is gala No. 301-C, in Viren Light Industrial Premises Cooperative Society Ltd. on plot No. 408 Mogul Lane, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016. The Intervener claims to be the secured creditor of the defendant under a mortgage decree by deposit of title deeds with them. The Intervener has produced the title deeds deposited with the Intervener enumerated in a Memorandum of Understanding. These are contained in:(a) an agreement on an adhesive stamp paper of Rs. 5/- for the aforesaid property showing receipt by the vendor who was the earlier owner of the said gala for Rs. 30,500/- received from the defendant by cheque No. 384607 of United Commercial Bank Matunga, Mumbai. The agreement further shows the declaration of the vendor that he has not created any lien or entered into any agreement an the same unit and that the defendant in the ...

Laxmidas S. Shetty and anr. Vs. Vinodkumar V. Kanabar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR273; 2007(2)BomCR599; 2007(4)MhLj436

R.S. Dalvi, J.1. This chamber summons is for allowing the defendants to withdraw the money deposited by the plaintiffs with the Court Receiver together with interest, if any accrued thereon.2. The suit is filed for declaration that an agreement/transfer deed dtd. 1-8-2000 executed between the parties for transfer from the plaintiff to the defendants of flat No. 18, 1st Floor, Santacruz Mansion No. 3 Co-op. Housing Society, Nehru Road, Near Post Office, Santacruz (East), Mumbai is bad in law. The defendants have filed counter-claim for specific performance of the suit agreement and for possession of the suit flat.3. The suit has been filed on 8-9-2000. The plaintiffs' possession came to be protected by an interim order until the defendants followed due legal process for recovery of possession in respect of the suit flat.4. Thereafter in the Notice of Motion No. 1485 of 2000, an ad-interim order came to be passed on 20-7-2001 that the plaintiff would deposit Rs. 15.00 Lacs within three m...

Ramdas Abbasaheb Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR276; 2007(2)BomCR615

S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith and heard.2. The petition challenges an order dated 3-3-2005 passed by respondent No. 2, the Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune.3. It would be appropriate to preface this judgment by noting that the order was passed without any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have learnt about the same only when he sought to contest the bye-elections for the Zilla Parishad. That however is not the only infirmity in the impugned order.4. The petitioner was elected as a member of the Zilla Parishad, Solapur from 20-Mandave, Z.P. electoral division. The applicant, who had filed the Case against the petitioner, was elected from the Zilla Parishad, Solapur from 26 Yashwantnagar, Z. P. electoral division. The petitioner and the Applicant were elected from the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP). The petitioner had also contested the election in 225 - Malshiras Assembly Constituency which was held on 13-10-2004 on the ticket ...

Maharashtra Engg. Plastic and General Kamgar Union Vs. Chamundi Petrol ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2007(113)FLR156]; (2007)IILLJ779Bom

1. Heard. This appeal arises from the judgment dated June 12, 2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 678/2005. The grievance of the appellant is that though the petrol pump industry formed part of the constitution, it was wrongly held by the Labour Court as well as by the Industrial Court and the Learned single Judge that the appellant-union has no authority to file complaint under the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 on the date on which it was filed, and therefore, it was not maintainable. It is also the grievance of the appellant that the claim for permanency was also not duly considered by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court and the said aspect was overlooked by the Learned single Judge while disposing the writ petition.2. It is undisputed fact that on the date of filing of the complaint under the said Act, the petrol pump was not included in Schedule-A to the constitution of the appellant and that there is concurrent finding in that regard by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court as we...