Mumbai Court April 2007 Judgments

N.B. Mulani Vs. Inspector General, S.W.S. Central Industrial Security ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR594; 2008(3)BomCR493; [2007(115)FLR311]; 2007(5)MhLj76

R.M. Savant, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who was working as a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force is challenging the order dated 13-9-1995 dismissing him from service.2. The factual matrix involved in the petition is set out thus:The petitioner was appointed as a constable on 9-11-1981 in the Central Industrial Security Force. The petitioner was detailed for duty to guard the properties of Administrative Building of MGCC at Nagothane. The said property was guarded by the Central Security Force which is a paramilitary force constituted under the provisions of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968. The petitioner was detailed for duty on 20-1-1991 in the CIFS Unit at MGCC, Nagothane and was deployed on patrolling beat in 'C' shift between 21.00 hours to 5.00 hours. The petitioner accordingly reported at gate No. 5 of the premises of the said Company. On the said day and during the duty hours of the pe...

Manjit Singh Obhan Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ3865

ORDERJ.H. Bhatia, J.1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Sorankar, learned Counsel for the applicant, who seeks leave to prefer an appeal against the acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.2. According to the applicant, he had advanced an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the respondents as they needed the same for repairing their vehicle which had met with an accident. Some amount was repaid and for repayment of the balance amount, the respondents, who are accused Nos. 1 and 2, issued three cheques, one for Rs. 68,500/- and two cheques of Rs. 1,00,000/- each. First cheque was honoured and remaining two cheques were dishonoured. In spite of notice, the respondents failed to make payment and therefore the complaint was filed. The respondents contended that the complainant/present applicant and P.S.I. Ravindra Shinde had utilised services of accused No. 1 as Estate Agent and complainant paid Rs. 68,500/- as brokerage to him. However for some reasons, the Sale Agr...

Mukesh H Mehta Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is filed against the order-in-appeal dated 23/12/2004, which upheld the order-in-original that imposed penalty on the appellant under Section 76 & 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The facts are undisputed inasmuch as the appellant was providing the services as an architect. The appellant had not got registered himself under the belief that he is not liable to pay Service Tax since he has entered into a contract with the Government of Maharashtra. The appellant's contention is that he was not aware of the service having been brought under the Service tax net. Subsequently, on being informed by the authorities, the appellant took registration certificate and paid the service tax liability along with interest. Show cause notices were issued to the appellant for imposition of penalty under Section 76 and 77 for non payment of Service tax and non filing of the return. The appellant contested the show cause notice on the ground that there was a bona fide belief on his part ...

Shri D.D. Gandhi, Al Hadi Impex and Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(120)ECC302

1. All the three appeals are being disposed together as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. Vide its impugned order Commissioner has held that the goods covered by the 14 shipping bills under which the same were exported by 1^st appellant M/s. Al-Hadi-Impex are liable to confiscation. Inasmuch as the goods were not available, having been exported, penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs has been imposed upon the said appellant under provisions of Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1944. In addition he has ordered for denial of DEPB benefit against the said shipping bills. Personal penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs has been imposed on the 2^nd appellant Shri Sadiq Hussein Yusuf Ali Pattawalla and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed upon Shri Divycsh Gandhi under the provision of Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1944.2. We have heard Shri M.L. Grover and Shri A.K. Chatterjee, LD.Advocates appearing for the appellants and Shri K.L. Bablani, Jt. CDR for the revenue.3. As ...

Balu Shankar Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)MhLj663

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Heard Mr. Murtaza Najmi advocate appointed for the applicant, Mr. Kumbhakoni the learned Associate Advocate General and Mr. Adsule, the learned APP for the State.2. Whether the proviso added to Section 428 Cr.P.C. by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, which came into force with effect from 23-6-2005 is retrospective in operation is the important question of law raised in this application submitted by the applicant through jail. 3. To state in brief, the facts of the case are that the applicant was arrested on 7-1-1997 and was in custody as undertrial prisoner in murder case. Sessions Case No.30 of 1997 was registered before the Sessions Court and after trial by the judgment and order dated 27-4-1998, he was convicted for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Thus, he was in custody as undertrial prisoner from 7-1-97 till 27-4-1998 when he was convicted. By this application, he has requeste...

Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Vrajlal Thakker and Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)13STT294

1. This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal dt. 20^th July 2006 vide which Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the appeal filed by the respondent.2. The respondent is absent despite notice nor there is any request for adjournment.3. Heard the Ld. SDR and perused the records. It is seen from the record that the issue in this case is of refund of Service Tax paid by the respondents in excess to the authorities. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) has allowed the appeal of the respondent on the following findings: Appellants have pleaded that the payable service tax was Rs. 3,82,496/- whereas they have paid more tax i.e. Rs. 4,36,013/-. They had claimed refund for the quarter Oct. 2003 to Dec. 2003. They had adjusted the amount for the next quarter i.e. Jan. 2004 to March 2004. They submitted a refund claim for the quarter Jan. 2004 to March 2004. The appellant submitted a refund claim which was within the prescribed time limit. Appellants have pleaded that they could not attend hear...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bapu Transport

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)10STJ281CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-appeal dt.28.4.06 which set aside the penalty imposed on the respondents under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent nor there is any request for adjournment. Since the issue involved in this case is narrow compass, the appeal is taken up for disposal in the absence of the respondent.3. Heard Ld. DR. It is the submission of the Ld. DR that the respondent has started business in 2000 but despite this they did not pay service tax under the category of "C & F Services". It is the submission that the respondent is correctly penalized by the adjudicating authority under Section 76. He submits that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) order invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 to set aside the penalty is not correct in this case.4. The issue involved in this case is regarding the setting aside penalty under Section 76 by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent in...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. B.G. Chitale

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)11STJ63CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal dt. 17.7.2006. Vide which the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order-in-original which rejected the refund claim filed by the respondents.2. Considered the submissions made in detail by both sides and perused the records. The issue involved in this case is regarding the refund claim filed by the respondent of Service Tax paid by them on services received from goods transport operators. The said amount was paid by the respondents on 14.11.2003 "under protest". The respondent's contention before the lower authorities was that they are not liable to pay the amount of service tax as a recipient of goods transport operators on the ground that they are small scale industries.Notification No. 43/97-ST dt. 5.11.1997 granted exemption to small scale industries from payment of service tax as recipient of services of goods transport operator. The perusal of the records shows that this contention of the was accepted by the lower authoriti...

P.D. Kothari and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)10STJ278CESTAT(Mum.)bai

2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice nor there is any request for adjournment. Since issue involved in this case is in a narrow compass, the appeal is taken up for disposal in the absence of the appellant or his representative.3. Heard the Ld. DR and perused the record. On perusal of record, it is seen that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order came to the conclusion that the appellant is eligible for refund of the amount and the final order has directed the refund sanctioned should be deposited a consolidated fund. The finding of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) are as under: There was no such service in the name and style of Business Auxiliary Service prior to its Notfn. In the Finance Act until then, there would be no legal sanctity to confirm any demand pertaining to business auxiliary service. There being no force of law, because no statutory provision existed which authorized the field officers service tax on these services. Only after 10.09.2004 B...

Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Empire Audio Centre Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)11STJ59CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal dt. 24^th July 2006 which set aside the order-in-original that rejected the refund claim of the respondent.2. The Ld. SDR submits that the impugned order is contradictory. It is his submission that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) has sought to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority while the final portion of the order seems to indicate that the appeal has been allowed with consequential relief.3. Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the respondents had in fact sought a remand order on the ground that they would like to satisfy the lower authorities as regards the genuiness of the refund claim. It is his submission that in fact the lower authorities have initiated the hearing of the issue in de novo proceedings which is evident from the letter dt. 19.1.2007. It is his submission that they have filed a cross-objection only to say that they are ready for a de novo proceeding.4. Considered the submi...