Mumbai Court April 2007 Judgments

Sonali Krishna Mohadikar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR712; 2007(5)BomCR257

Joshi A.H., J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable and is heard forthwith. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner, and the learned AGP for the respondents.2. Petitioner's caste certificate dated 31-7-1995 was furnished for scrutiny. In the mean while, the petitioner appeared in MAH-AR-CET 2004 Test on 11th July, 2004, and was granted admission subject to production of validity certificate of her caste (Halba Scheduled Tribe) for the Course of Bachelor of Architecture. She paid her tuition fees of Rs. 40,000/- on 7-8-2004.3. In the mean while, the petitioner had completed her first year Engineering Course in Architecture in April 2005, and thereafter, took admission in second year, and also paid the fees of Rs. 40,000/-.4. The petitioner's caste claim was invalidated by judgment and order dated 8-9-2005 by the Scrutiny Committee. When the petitioner had completed her 3 months of instructions in the Engineering College, the invalidation has attained the finality.5. We find that at present...

Dilip Anant Meher Vs. Jayamala Dilip Meher

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2007)DMC594

A.S. Oka, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. In a matrimonial petition filed under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the respondent applied for an interim maintenance under Section 24 of the said Act of 1955. The said application has been allowed by order dated 11th September, 2006. By the said order, the learned Judge of the Family Court directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per month to the respondent-wife and Rs. 1,500 each to the two minor sons. An application was made for modification of the said order on the basis of the liberty granted by this Court by order dated 20th December, 2006. In the said application, a prayer was made for modification of the order granting interim maintenance. By the order impugned dated 6th March, 2007, the learned Judge of the Family Court rejected the said application.2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that after the peti...

Oriental Rubber Industries Ltd. Vs. Somayya S. Bhandari and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR838

Kanade V.M., J.1. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing/setting aside order dated 1st October, 2004 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 651 of 1998, whereby the Industrial Court pleased to direct the petitioner herein to pay the legal dues to the complainants/respondents after declaring that the petitioner herein had committed unfair labour practice under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule 4 of MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 with further direction to provide employment to the complainants and to pay 50% back wages from the date of filing complaint till passing of the order.2. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:The petitioner company is registered under the Companies Act and prior to January 1981 was having a Factory at Bhandup and had undertaken manufacturing activity in respect of rubber products and at that time had employed six hundred workmen. On 27/10/1980, the petitioner C...

Craftway Engineers Ltd. Vs. Cc(i)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1 These are application for waiver or pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 14,88,639/- on components and parts of motor boats and Rs. 36,02,554/- in respect of two boats cleared from the warehouse by M/s.Craftway Engineers Limited along with interest and imposition of penalties Rs. 5 lakhs on M/s. Craftway Engineers Limited and Rs. 1 lakh on Shri Harminder Singh Patheja, CMD of the applicants.2. The facts of the case are that as a result of certain investigation it came to notice that the appellants imported components and parts declaring them as "ship components and parts thereof" and sought benefit of duty exemption vide Sr.No. 356 of Customs Notification 21 of 2002-Cus, dated 01.03.2002, which exempts raw materials and parts, for use in the manufacture of goods falling under headings 8902, 8904, 8905 (except subheading 8905.20) or 8906 in accordance with the provisions of Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962. It was further noticed, that these raw materials and parts were used in th...

Runanubhandh Mangal Karyalaya Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)11STJ49CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is directed against the order in Revision dated 29/09/2006 vide which the learned Commissioner has enhanced the penalty from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 88,350/-.2. The issue in brief is that the appellant was a service provider as Mandap Keeper and failed to discharge the service tax liability for the period January, 2000 to September, 2002. Subsequently the appellant discharged the service tax liability before the issuance of show cause notice. On these facts the adjudicating authority vide his order-in-original dated 26/10/2004 imposed only a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on the appellant under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik on revision found that the penalty imposable on the appellant would be equivalent amount of the service tax which has not been paid within the stipulated period. Hence he issued show cause notice under the provisions of Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 for enhancement of the penalty. After considering the argume...

Mckinsey and Company Inc. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)10STJ57CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant M/s Mckinsey India, a branch of Mckinsey, U.S.A., is engaged in providing management consultancy services to its various clients in India. They have entered into agreement with clients, prior to commencing any consignments/engagements for provision of detailed strategic consulting service and for all the project undertaken by them during the period October 1998 to March 2003 numerous expenses including Out of Pocket Expenses (OPE) for each project were incurred by them and the same were recovered from the clients.2. Since value of taxable services in relation to the service provided by management consultant to the clients is gross amount charged by such consultant from the clients for services rendered in connection with the management of any organization in any manner, it was felt that the entire amount was chargeable to service tax. However, certain OPE were considered as not liable to service tax i.e. one relating to traveling, boarding and lodging expenses, provid...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Industrial Security Service

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)10STJ274CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal dated 30/11/2005 which set aside the order-in-original vide which service tax amount was confirmed and penalty was imposed.2. Heard the learned DR. The respondents have filed written submissions. The issue involved in this case is regarding service tax liability of the respondents on the services provided by them to various government agencies. The services which are provided by the respondents are of security services. The adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of Rs. 3,80,096/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 7,60,192/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and equivalent amount of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act.3. The respondents produced before the first appellate authority certificates issued by Chartered Accountants vide which the tax liability was reduced from than what was confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that "the department has failed to...

Chakan Vegoils Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC191

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 82,00,990/-, we found that it was possible to decide appeal at this stage and hence proceed to do so after waiving pre-deposit.2. The appellants herein are registered with Directorate of Vanaspati, Vegoils & Fats with the Department of Sugar and Edible Oils, Ministry of Foods & Consumers Affairs, Government of India. They are also registered as users of solvent extraction oils with Directorate of Vanaspati and Fats. They were issued with a licence for the manufacture of edible vegetable oil. Concessional rate of duty has been prescribed in respect of crude vegetable oils under Sr. No. 31 of Notification No.17/01-Cus, read with condition No. 4 and Sr. No. 30 of Notification No.16/00-Cus read with Condition No. 4. The condition is that the importer should follow the procedure proscribed in Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for manufacture of Excisable Goods) ...

Skol Breweries Limited Vs. the Acit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)113TTJ(Mum.)61

1. The assessee has filed the above stay petition requesting the Tribunal to stay the following demand stated to be outstanding in respect of the assessment framed for A. Y. 2003-04. Tax 65,522,886 (+) Interest 21.961.047 87,483,933 (-)Amount already paid 45,601.113 Amount outstanding. 41,882,820 2. The registry had posted this stay petition for hearing on Friday the 30^th March 2007, when normally the stay petitions are listed for hearing. On 27^th March 2007, the assessee moved an emergency petition requesting the Tribunal to interfere in the matter as the department had attached all its bank accounts after the CIT rejected its petition on the same date, thereby jeopardizing the business of the assessee.The emergency petition was listed for hearing before the Bench on 27^th March 2007 itself. The learned Departmental Representative pointed out that he cannot express any opinion as regards the merits of the stay petition for the want of the stay petition itself After going through th...

Bank of Baroda, a Body Corporate Constitute Under the Provisions of th ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR42; 2007(4)MhLj829

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Opposite party has been duly served. However, none appears for the defendants when the matter is called out.2. By this motion, plaintiff prays that the order passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master on 11th December 2006, dismissing the suit for default be set aside and the suit be restored to the file. The impugned order passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master reads thus:The plaintiffs and their Advocates are absent. They were absent on the earlier occasions also. It is not known whether the Defendants have been served or not. Suit dismissed for default.2. The question is : whether the Prothonotary and Senior Master has power to dismiss the suit for default. In my opinion, the answer should be in the negative. Perhaps the only provision to which such power can be traced is Rule 986. Rule 986 reads thus:986.-Every plaint, memo of appeal, application for execution and all other applications and petitions of original nature including the petition by an indi...