Mumbai Court May 2007 Judgments

Board of Control for Cricket in Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)11STJ39CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. Both appeals filed by the appellant as also filed by Revenue are being disposed off by a common order. The appeal No. ST/251/2005 stands filed by Board of Cricket Control in India (hereinafter referred to as BCCI) against Order-in-Appeal dt.30.06.05, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Mumbai vide which he has confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs. 11,19,61,602 (Rs. Eleven Crores, Nineteen Lakhs, sixty one thousands, six hundred and two only) in respect of amount received by the appellants towards sale of television rights, sponsorship money, and logo money holding that the same is covered by the definition of taxable service provided by the advertising agency.In addition, penalty of Rs. 22,39,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty two crores, thirty nine lakhs only) stands imposed under the provisions of Section 78 of Finance Act, of Rs. 6,000/- under Section 76 and Rs. 200/- per day under Section 76 and Rs. 5,000/- under Section 75 of the Act along with confirmation of interest...

Ksb Pumps Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(120)ECC58

1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants, M/s. KSB Pumps Limited were given a contract by Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) for manufacture and supply of large sized coolant pumps required in Nuclear Power Plant for which the orders for 32 pumps were placed under two purchase orders. The appellants accordingly developed a manufacturing facility for the above mentioned pumps exclusively for NPCIL. However, NPCIL cancelled the order for 24 pumps and entered into fresh agreement for supply of 8 pumps. Owing to the cancellation of the order for 24 pumps, the appellants and NPCIL negotiated and arrived at a short closure settlement owing to which NPCIL paid gross cancellation charges of Rs. 23.36 crores to the assessee and the deed of discharge was signed on 31.3.2000. The break up of the cancellation charges are as under: As per Revenue, it appeared that the cancellation charges received by the assessee from NPCIL was additional consideration and as such was...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. P.M. Pol

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)8STR303

1. Heard both sides. The department is in appeal aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Nasik, for having set aside the penalty amount as imposed in the order in original.2. The respondents herein Shri P.M. Pol is providing services of C&F Agent to Manikgadh cement under an agreement dated 5.7.1999. The assessee was entitled for commission ranging from Rs. 3 to Rs. 5 during relevant periods. In case of C&F Agent Commission Service 'the person responsible for payment of service tax' has been changed from September 1999 and accordingly from September 1999 assessee was liable for registration, payment of service tax and filing returns there of. The assessee failed to comply with the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 relating to payment of service tax and filing of returns up to 20.7.2003. On coming to know about the same, the assessee got registered under Section 69 of Finance Act, 1994 on 21.7.2003. The assessee assessed his own ...

Narotamdas Bhau Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 20-6-2006 of Commissioner (Appeals)-XVI, Mumbai for the assessment year 2004-05. Grounds raised by the assessee are as under : On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XVI, Mumbai (i) erred in holding that the assessee's building, "Bhau Mansion" was used for business, ignoring the fact that Bhau Mansion was let out and earned rental income which was declared and consistently assessed under the head "Income from house property" for the past 20 years, and that this classification of income consistently applied by the lower authorities could not be changed when there was no change in the facts of the case. (ii) erred in holding that the sum of Rs. 2,75,00,000 realized on the saleof the assessee's building "Bhau Mansion" attracted the provisionsof Section 50 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the said BhauMansion was a depreciable asset, ignoring the fact that Bhau Mansio...

Krishna Steel Industries and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(121)ECC94

1. Both these appeals are filed against the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Pune. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods namely M.S. round bars, cold twisted bars falling under sub-heading No. 7214.90 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Central Excise Officers of Sangli Division intercepted a bullock cart loaded with 1015 Kg. of 6 mm C.T.D. bars on 07.09.95. The consignment was not accompanied by duty paying documents. The said bullock cart was loaded in the factory premises of the appellants. Thereafter, the officers searched the factory premises of the appellants and took over certain documents. The consignment was, thereafter, seized under the panchanama. The statements of partners of the appellants were also recorded.2. Show cause notice dated 01.03.96 was issued to the appellants and their partner calling upon them to explain as to why: (i) Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 2,23,979/- as spe...

Shri Santosh Humraskar Vs. State Through Public Prosecutor, High Court ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR904; (2007)209CTR(Bom)224

N.A. Britto, J.1. Heard Shri Mulgaonkar, the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Shri B. Shirodkar, the learned Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 2. 2. In this petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (Code, for short), the petitioner against whom proceedings under Section 107 of the Code were initiated, assails the Order dated 21.02.2007, of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, upholding the Order 12.09.2006 of the learned Sub-Division Magistrate, Mapusa, by which, the learned SDM has refused to drop the proceedings pursuant to an application filed by the petitioner dated 12.09.2006, contending that the proceedings ought to have been dropped after the expiry of six months, in terms of sub-division (6) of Section 116 of the Code, which reads as follows:The inquiry under this Section shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of its commencement and if such inquiry is not so concluded, the proceedings under this Chapte...

Central Bank of India and anr. Vs. Sagdeo Towers

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom139; 2007(5)ALLMR634; 2008(2)BomCR452; 2007(4)MhLj123

A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 26-2-2004, passed by the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 254/2000, confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 187/2004 on 20-7-2005 by the 11th Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Nagpur.3. Looking to the nature of the judgment and decree, the present petition is treated as one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.4. FACTS :-- The respondent original plaintiff claiming to be a partnership firm filed a suit against the petitioners Central Bank of India for ejectment and possession in the Court of Additional Judge, Small Causes, Nagpur, which was registered as R.C.S. No. 254/2000. The respondent averred in the plaint that by registered sale deed dated 1-7-1998, it purchased the suit property in which the petitioners Bank is a tenant and, therefore on 14-10-1998 notice of attorn...

Municipal Council Vs. Sanjay Dhanraj Yenorkar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR700; 2008(2)BomCR910; 2007(4)MhLj258

A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. By the present petition, the petitioner has questioned the validity of judgment and order dated 15-4-2005 in Complaint U.L.P. No. 316/2000, passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur. This petition is treated as one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India looking to the nature of the order made by the Industrial Court.3. FACTS : -- The respondent had filed complaint before the Industrial Court under Section 28 read with Item Nos. 5, 6 and 9, Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. He averred in his complaint that he was initially appointed as a peon on 4-10-1994. On 28-2-1997 he was appointed to work as Chowkidar in the school on night duty and since then he has been working with the petitioner. Council on daily wages. On the date of filing of the complaint, he has been working as a mate. He then submitted that he completed more than 240 days of service and in accordance with Model Sta...

R.V.P.R.T. Ayurved Mahavidyalaya Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR584; 2007(4)MhLj273

A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. These petitions are treated as under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. These petitions involve common question of law and therefore they are being disposed of by this judgment. The orders made by respondents 1 and 3 are under challenge. By amending the writ petition, the petitioner has introduced prayer Clause A(1) to question the validity of communication dated 10-12-2002 issued by respondent No. 4 Annexure-E.3. Facts:The petitioner is an Ayurved College situated at Akola receiving cent per cent grants from the Government of Maharashtra for payment of salaries to all the teaching and non-teaching employees. On 30-3-2005 the first respondent made an order under the provisions of Section 7A of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the Act) directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 06,02,802/- towards the difference of provident fund amount ...

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Maharashtra S.T. Chal ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR272; 2007(4)MhLj793

A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. In all these four writ petitions, a common question of law is involved which is being decided by this common judgment.2. Facts:In W.P. No. 3168/93 the petitioner-M.S.R.T.C. has challenged the validity of the Order dated 13-8-1992 below Ex. 2 in Complaint (ULP) No. 318 of 1992 passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati, staying the effect and operation of Circular No. 6042 dated 18-11-1991 issued by the petitioner-M.S.R.T.C.3. The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation was established in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (for short the Act of 1950). The Act was brought into existence for adequate, economical and properly coordinated transport system. Section 5 of the said Act provides for a Board of Directors for the management of the business of the Corporation. The Board of Directors of the Corporation is the supreme authority and rather the authority of the Corporation entirely vests into the Board of Dire...