Mumbai Court March 2007 Judgments

Rinkoo Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The first appellant is a company who is also an assessee under the C. Ex Act for MMF processe and .folding Contractor. The officers consequent to a search of the factory found shortage of 33368 LMT of processed MMF on which duty of Rs. 53389 was alleged to be levied and not paid. Further the officers also found certain paper chits (private records) from the residential premises of Shri Mukesh Bai A. Shah, the Folding contractor on which duty of Rs. 99564/- was alleged to be levied and not paid An . amount of Rs. 53389/- was deposited in the PLA on 22-3-96 and 29-3-96.The show cause notice 21-8-98 was issued proposing penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q and recovery of duty of Rs. 55389 + Rs. 99564 on the MMF allegedly cleared clandestinely as also confirmation of Rs. 53389 already paid vide the PLA deposits in March 1996 alongwith penalty on the second appellant herein under Rule 209A.2. The lower authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh unde...

Bpl Mobile Communications Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(119)ECC100

1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein are providers of cellular telephone services which services are covered by the definition under Section 65(74) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended. On the basis of information received by the department that they have not been including the value of SIM cards in the taxable value on which they were paying service tax, they were asked to inform the practice followed by them for payment of service tax on SIM cards, to which the appellants replied that they were not paying service tax on the value of the SIM cards. They discontinued charging activation charges from customers and payment of service tax due on the said element of taxable services w.e.f. 1.5.2001, prior to which date they were recovering activation charges from post-paid telephone connection subscribers and charging 5% tax on the same. Post 1.5.2001, they were selling SIM cards and paying sales tax on the sale proceeds, as levied by the Government o...

Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Joint Director of It

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)111TTJ(Mum.)375

1. These appeals are preferred on behalf of the assessee against the respective orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). Since common issues are involved in these appeals, these were heard together and are being disposed off by this single consolidated order.2. On scrutiny the Office has raised an objection that these appeals are time-barred by three days. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee has explained the delay in filing of the appeals and being convinced with the explanation of the assessee, we condoned the delay and admitted these appeals for hearing. In these appeals the assessee has assailed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on following common grounds. 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting the plea that remittance of US $ 65000 in favour of M/s. Purvin & Gertz Inc., Singapore (P&G) was towards rendition of commercial services and did not constitute fees for tech...

Shubham Knit Wear Pvt. Ltd. A Company Incorporated under the Companies ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR815; 2007(5)BomCR359; [2007(113)FLR560]; (2007)2LLJ905Bom; 2007(4)MhLj674

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. An order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner holding that the establishment of the Petitioner would be considered as forming part of the establishment of the Second Respondent in terms of Section 2A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and denying the benefit of 'infancy protection' under Section 16(1)(d) was challenged in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court. The petition was dismissed by a Judgment and Order of the Learned Single Judge of 19th February 1997. The correctness of the order of the Learned Single Judge has been impugned in these proceedings in appeal. The provisions of Section 2A fall for interpretation. Our conclusion, upon hearing Counsel is that the First Respondent and the Learned Single Judge are in error. The Controversy:2. The Appellant was incorporated under the Companies' Act, 1956 on 20th January 1984. The Appellant engages inter alia in the manufacture, dist...

Ganesh Trading Company, a Partnership Firm and ors. Vs. Government of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR191; 2007(2)BomCR920; (2007)109BOMLR533; 2007(4)MhLj715

C.L. Pangarkar, J. 1. This review application is filed by the applicant in Civil revision Application No. 110 of 2001.2. The facts giving rise to this application are as under The applicant/plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the Non-applicants/defendants for collection of Tendu leaves. In pursuance of the same, the applicant had deposited Rs. 22,20,000/ with the non-applicants/defendants. The non-applicants/defendants were to issue a transit pass for collection of Tendu leaves but failed to do it till 18/9/1993. Even though the installments were paid, the pass was not issued. Ultimately, the transit pass was issued for beat No. 23, 24 and others. Due to inordinate delay in issuing the pass, the applicants/plaintiffs suffered damages. The applicants sought to recover these damages by filing civil suit for recovery of Rs. 71,44,984/-. 3. In this suit, the non-applicants had put-in their appearance and had filed the written statement on 5/12/1997 vide Exh.16. The learned Civil J...

Sanjay Gandhi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, a Society Registered Under Soc ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR45; 2007(2)BomCR760; (2007)109BOMLR717

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This revision is preferred by defendant against whom a finding has been recorded on preliminary issue of jurisdiction by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Washim. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision are as under The plaintiff is a teacher and the defendant is the Management of the School. The plaintiff instituted three Civil Suits bearing Nos. 165 of 1996, 178 of 1996 and 224 of 1996. Before adverting to the reasons, it would be necessary to know the facts in each suit and reliefs claimed. 3. In Civil Suit No. 165 of 1996, the plaintiff has sought declaration and injunction. Paragraph No. 6 of the plaint in this suit reads thus Thus, in fact it was mandatory on the part of defendant No. 1 to rejoin the plaintiff as Headmaster. However, the defendants in collusion had conspired to terminate the plaintiff from his service. That on 2/8/1996 the plaintiff received one registered packet issued by the defendant No. 1. In the said packet the defendant No. 1 sent the conclu...

Madhav S/O Tukaram Kulal and Ramdas S/O Tukaram Kulal Vs. Kisan S/O Ay ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR49; 2007(2)BomCR923

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This revision is filed by the original defendants/applicants against the order passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Risod on an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision are as under The non-applicants/plaintiffs had instituted civil suit No. 104 of 1991 in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Risod for possession of field S. No. 124/1 of village Wakad. The suit came to be decreed on 9/3/1994. Being aggrieved by that decree in civil suit, the defendants i.e. present applicants filed Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1994. The said appeal was partly allowed and decree of the trial court was set aside with respect to mesne profits and a Second Appeal was also preferred by the defendants/applicants before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the said appeal. 3. The non-applicant/plaintiff thereafter filed an execution proceeding before the trial court. Subsequently, the non-applicants moved an application under Section...

Sanjay S/O Jagannath Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR871; 2007(6)BomCR439; 2007(4)MhLj210

Naresh H. Patil, J.1. Heard.2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith.3. Petitioner sought appointment on compassionate ground in Class III category on account of death of his father who was working on the post of Forest Guard. The petitioner is qualified upto B.Sc. On 26-10-1993 the petitioner was given appointment as Forest Guard in Class III category. The petitioner joined his service on the said post. Thereafter the petitioner made representation to the respondent No. 3 to accommodate him on the post of Forester or Accountant. By a communication dt. 29-7-99, the petitioner was informed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Newai Forest Division, Taloda that his request could not be considered. By communication dt. 2-11-2001, the petitioner requested respondent No. 2 for appointing him on the post of Forester or Accountant. The petitioner pointed out that in six cases of compassionate appointments made in Dhule forest circle, four persons were appointed as Accountants and one person was ap...

Suresh Prabhu Vs. Bombay Mercantile Co-op. Bank Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR232; 2007(3)ARBLR476(Bom); 2007(5)BomCR205

Karnik D.G., J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent No. 1. None present for the other respondents.2. By this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (for short the Arbitration Act') the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the interim award dated 8th May 2006 and the final award dated 31st July 2006 passed by the learned arbitrator under Section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002.3. The respondent No. 2 is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act 1956. The petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were the directors of the respondent No. 2 company. Respondent No. 2 approached the respondent No. 1 bank, which is a Multi State Co-operative Bank, for loans. Accordingly, the respondent No. 2 was granted two term loans, one for Rs. 77 lakhs and another for Rs. 40 lakhs subject to the condition that petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 5 stood as guarantors for the repayment of one of the...

Vitthal S/O Ramrao Talegave and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR114; 2007(6)MhLj47

P.V. Kakade, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.P. This is an application challenging the order passed by S.L.A.O., dated 29-9-1995 rejecting the claimant's application for condonation of delay and thereby rejecting reference filed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, consequent upon the award passed under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The award came to be passed and declared on 24-2-1995 in respect of agricultural land bearing Field Survey No. 107 admeasuring 83 R for the purpose of submerging area of Manar Project. The notice as required under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the S.L.A.O. to the claimant/land holder which is, according to S.L.A.O., served upon the landholder on 25-3-2005. The reference was rejected on the ground that the provisions of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act require that whoever is aggrieved by award made in respect of acquisition of land under Land Acquisition proceedings,...