Mumbai Court June 2007 Judgments

Central Cables Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(121)ECC101

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No.SVS/443/NGP-1/2005 dated 29/11/2005, which denied modvat credit to the appellants.2. The issue involved in this case is regarding the denial of modvat credit of Rs. 1,64,179.03 to the appellants on the ground that the appellant had not declared the inputs before availing the modvat credit. The second issue involved in this case is regarding denial of modvat credit of Rs. 22,735.48 on the ground that there are no duty paying documents available for availing such credit.3. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the matter against the appellants on the following finding: In this case other charge is of the inputs not declared and the credit denied is Rs. 1, 64,179.03. The Circular No. 441/7/99-CX dated 23/02/99 and the Hon'ble Tribunal's decision in the case of Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd., v. CCE, Meerut are relevant. The circular refers to the Notification No. 7/99-CE (NT) dated 09/07/99 which amends Modvat Rules so as to empower th...

Zycus Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The assessee has filed both the appeals. They relate to assessment year 2001-02. While ITA No. 8854/ Mum./2004 is directed against the assessment of income, the other appeal, i.e., ITA No. 5641/Mum./2006 is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the penalty levied by the assessing officer under Section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act as a result of the aforesaid assessment of income. We therefore find it convenient to dispose off both these appeals by a consolidated order. 1.1 The Id. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer (i) by not giving sufficient proper and effective opportunity of being heard to the appellant, and (ii) by failing to appreciate that the assessing officer had framed the assessment order without giving proper, effective and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 1.2 It is submitted that the appellate order requires to be held bad and illegal as the same is passed in violation o...

Shree Satyanarayan Investment Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dated 3-2-2004. 1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred, both in law and facts, in holding that the order passed by learned assessing officer under Section 154 of the Act was not bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred, both in law and facts, in confirming the charging of tax on income computed under Section 115JA of the Act at normal rate of tax in spite of the fact that total income included long term capital gains' and provisions of Section 115JA(4) read with Section 112(1) of the Act should have been applied. 3.That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) haserred, both in law and facts, in confirming charging of interest undersections 234B and 234C of the Act on income determined under Section 115JAof the Act.3. ...

Narendra S/O Gotu Pardesi Vs. Mayor, Dhule Municipal Corporation,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom195; 2007(5)ALLMR52; 2007(5)BomCR674; (2007)109BOMLR1402; 2007(6)MhLj216

S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith.By an order dated 12.1.2007 the parties were put to notice that the petition was likely to be decided finally at the stage of admission. With the consent of counsel we heard the Petition finally.2. The petitioner who belongs to the Shiv Sena party has claimed two distinct reliefs. Firstly he has sought an order quashing a letter dated 28.12.2006 addressed by respondent No. 1, the Mayor of the Dhule Municipal Corporation recognising respondent No. 2 as the Leader of the Opposition. Secondly he has sought an order directing respondent No. 1 to recognise him as the Leader of the Opposition of respondent No. 3, Dhule Municipal Corporation.3. We have granted the first prayer but rejected the second.We will summarise our approach after setting out Section 19(1)(AA) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, which reads as under:19-IAA. The Leader of Opposition -(1) An elected Councillor who is, for the time be...

Patel Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra Shramik Sena and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR1451; [2007(114)FLR1066]; (2008)ILLJ4Bom

D.G. Karnik, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10th January 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the Writ Petition No.2364 of 2002 filed by the appellant.2. Appellant is a private limited company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the manufacture of aluminium extruded products and aluminium circles and has its factory at Goregaon, Mumbai. First Respondent is a Trade Union representing the workmen employed by the appellant. The workmen of the appellant were paid salary and allowances in accordance with the settlement entered in the year 1990, which expired in the year 1993. On 12th August 1993, the respondent submitted a Charter of Demand for revision of payscales and twenty other demands. As no agreement could be reached in conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') by the Government of Maharashtra by an order dated 17...

N.J. Lawankar, Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. Akola Division, Vs. A ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2007(115)FLR25]; 2007(4)MhLj214

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. By this application the applicants seek to quash the criminal proceedings before the Labour Court Akola.2. Few facts may be stated thus: Applicant No. 1 is the Divisional Controller of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Akola, applicant No. 2 is Chairman & Managing Director of M.S.R.T.C. Mumbai, applicant No. 3 is Regional Manager, Amravati and applicant No. 4 is the Mechanical Engineer, M.S.R.T.C. Divisional Workshop Akola. Non applicants are the employees working with Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. It is alleged that on 03.04.07 at about 3 P. M. the non applicants went to the house of applicant No. 4 and forcibly entered into his house. They abused him in a filthy language and even assaulted him. He was forcibly brought in the Division Workshop of M.S.R.T.C. since one person had fallen down in the said workshop and had sustained injuries. Since the applicant No. 4 was assaulted he lodged a report with the police, upon which offence has be...

Smt. Jaidevi Ganesh Bind and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008ACJ412; 2007(5)ALLMR783; 2007(6)BomCR329; [2007(114)FLR1061]; 2007(4)MhLj121

Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Railway Porter filed their claim before the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Judge, First Labour Court, Mumbai, who held that the deceased was not a workman in the impugned judgment dated 10th August, 2006. 2. The learned Commissioner and Judge in the impugned judgment has held that was not a licensed Porter. 3. That Judgment is challenged in this Appeal. 4. The substantial questions of law that arises in this Appeal are:(i) Whether a railway Porter/Hamal is a workman under Section 2(1)(n)(i) of Workmen's Compensation Act r.w. Section 2(34) of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 ' (ii) Whether being run over by a train perse shows death in the course of employment' (iii) How is a license receipt issued by the Central railway required to be proved in evidence ' (iv) How is a licensee with the Central Railway required to be proved in evidence ' 5. The entire record is produced before this Court. Hence, th...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Godrej Industries Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR827; 2007(5)MhLj50

F.I. Rebello, J.1. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing and heard forthwith.2. A learned Judge of this Court on 22nd July, 2005 was pleased to pass a judgment against the appellants and in favour of the respondents under Order 8, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A few facts may be set out which will be necessary for the purpose of considering the appeal. It was the case of the Respondents that the appellants under the provisions of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Exports (Control) Order 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Order) granted cash compensatory support to exporters for exporting certain items. One of such item was of De-oiled Rice Bran which the Respondents exported between the period 1st April, 1977 till 31st March, 1978. The exports were subject to certain terms and conditions. The respondents contend that the appellants informed the S.E.A. and through it, its members which inclu...

Ramesh Samhari More Vs. Registrar, District Court and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR472; 2007(6)MhLj426

F.I Rebello, J.1. Rule in all the petitions. As the Petitions raise a common question of law they are being decided by this common judgment. All the petitioners herein pursuant to the test conducted by the Committee headed by the District Judge were promoted. The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 3641 of 2007, 3643 of 2007 were promoted to the post of Assistant Superintendent. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3642 of 2007, 3644 of 2007 and 3645 of 2007 were promoted to the post of Senior Clerks,2. The selection procedure for promotion for these posts is governed by Clause 580 of the Civil Manual. The relevant clause for our purpose is Clause (ii)(b) which reads as under:The District Judge may, if for reasons to be recorded in writing, considers it to be so desirable, appoint a Committee to subject the employees within the Zone of consideration to an appropriate test, and may also consider the result of such test.For the purpose of setting the procedure for filling in the vacancies,...

Mahalakshmi Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2007(115)FLR304]

V.M. Kanade, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging order dated 18.11.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Labour, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, under Section 25-O(5) and Order dated 8th May, 2007 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 64/2006 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.Facts:2. The petitioner is the company registered under the Companies Act and was engaged in manufacturing glass containers of various shapes and sizes at its factory at Mahalaxmi.3. It is the case of the petitioner that on account of rise in prices of Light Diesel oil and Furnace oil which is used, in the said manufacturing of glass containers and also on account of high operational costs, it was not possible to carry out the manufacturing Activity and the company could not generate enough income and, therefore, the company became financially unviable and in the financial year ending 31.3.2006, the petitioner inc...