Mumbai Court August 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Khan Estate Agency Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2007
Reported in: (2007)8STR596
1. In this case, the Asstt. Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 2500/- on the assesses who were held liable to pay Service Tax under the category of Real Estate Agents under the provisions of Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 for delay of payment of Service Tax for the period October 1998 to June, 2003. The department was of the view that there was no justification for imposing such a low penalty as Section 76 provided for imposition of penalty of Rs. 100/- per day in case of failure to pay tax for every day after due date. Hence, the Revenue applied in revision to the Commissioner of Central Excise who by the impugned Older revised and enhanced the penalty from Rs. 2500/- to Rs. 53,034/-. This order was upheld by the Tribunal vide Order No.A/2034/C.IV/SMB/WZB/2006 dated 20.11.06. The assessees carried the matter further before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court which by its order dated 28.6.2007 in W.P. No. 3051 of 2007 set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case for fresh de...
Shri Vivek Mukund Modhe Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2007
Reported in: (2008)9STR98
1. The above appeal arises out of the Order-in-Revision passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, who has revised and enhanced the penalty of Rs. 1000/- imposed upon the appellant herein under the provisions of Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 to Rs. 17,127/- which is equal to the Service Tax demanded from him.2. I have heard the ld. SDR and perused the records as none appears for the appellant in spite of notice. There is no dispute that the appellant is liable to service tax as he was rendering service of Tour Operator. There is also no dispute that penalty is justified for the reason that there was delay in payment of service tax and filing of ST 3 returns. However, having regard to the fact that although earlier the appellant was running a second hand taxi, in March 2003 he sold the taxi and surrendered Service Tax Registration and paid the tax amount together with interest, penalty as imposed by the Asstt. Commissioner, is sufficient. I am satisfied that no ground exists f...
Zf Steering Gear (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2007
Reported in: (2008)9STR105
1. This stay application is directed against confirmation of demand of son/ice tax Rs. 4,07,352/- and equivalent penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. Considered the submission made by both sides and perused the record.The demand of service tax has arisen on the ground that the appellants have availed services and remitted the amount as technical fee to the collaborators. The Revenue is seeking to tax this amount which has been remitted as technical fee. The appellants have entered into a Terminal Development Agreement with the collaborators for giving licence for manufacture of final products in the factory premises of the appellants. The issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellants by series of judgments of the Tribunal. The Tribunal in the case of IFFCO v. CCE, Bareilly (U.P)-2007 2007 (5) STR 281 has held otherwise.Since series of decisions in an identical issue, are in favour of the appellants, we find that the appellants have made out a prima facie case f...
Mr. Vajidali T. Kadri Vs. D.D. Shah and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR312]; (2008)ILLJ790Bom; 2007(6)MhLj650
Ranjana Desai, J. 1. The appellant was employed by the respondents as the security in charge of their factory. The respondents dismissed him from service vide letter dated 27/9/1990. The appellant filed Complaint (ULP) No. 6 of 1991 in the IInd Labour Court, Thane, challenging the respondents'action. In the complaint, it is his case that the respondents have indulged in unfair labour practices under items 1(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (for short, 'the MRTU & PULP Act'). According to the appellant, he was discharged without conducting any inquiry in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice. No chargesheet was served on him. It is his case that the respondents have discharged/dismissed him by way of victimization, not in good faith but in colourable exercise of the employer's rights for patently false reasons. 2. Admittedly, no chargesheet was served on the appellant....
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ishwarsharan Kedarnath Bhargava,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR150; 2008(3)MhLj331
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. In the year 1963-64, the Government of Maharashtra took a decision to acquire the lands on eastern and western sides of Thane- Belapur Road for a public purpose viz. development and utilisation of the same in Thane Harbour Panvel and Trans Thane Creek, for industrial, commercial and residential development. This project was to be named as New Bombay City Project. In furtherance to this public purpose, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', was issued for acquiring different lands belonging to different land owners out of Gat Nos. 14, 28, 35, 39, 166, 170 and 285 of village Rabale in Thane District during the period 13th September, 1968 to 2nd December, 1972. The Land Acquisition Officer, vide his awards of different dates, awarded compensation to the claimants at Rs. 5.40 per sq.metre for acquisition of their respective lands. Different amounts were claimed by the owners of the land in Land Acquisiti...
Subhash R. Acharya Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through the Dairy Commiss ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR683; 2007(6)BomCR100; (2007)109BOMLR1847
Swatanter Kumar, C.J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 21st August 2004 passed by the Section Officer, Government of Maharashtra, whereby the contract for recovery of entrance fee from vehicle drivers, who enter from three check nakas of Goregaon, Powai and Marol respectively in Aarey Milk Colony has been extended for a period of 3 years with effect from 17th February 2005 by increasing the contract amount by 5%. The petitioner contends that the said order is arbitrary, discriminatory, is in colourable exercise of power, denying fair competition and the same is also entirely to the disadvantage of the State, besides causing huge loss to the public exchequer. It is averred that respondent No. 6, Minister for Dairy Development Agriculture and Animal Husbandary, acted contrary to the kno...
Sarva Shramik Sanghatana a Trade Union Registered Under the Trade Unio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)BomCR498; (2008)ILLJ1067Bom
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Simple and short but a question of some public and legal importance arises for consideration of the Court in the present writ petition:Whether withdrawal of an earlier application for closure would operate as a bar in law for entertainment of a subsequent application filed within a year of such withdrawal.3. Necessarily, such question has to be answered with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case in which such a question arises. The petitioner is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Nearly 230 workers out of a total of 275 workers of respondent No. 3 are members of the petitioner Union. Century Industries Textiles Limited, a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, respondent No. 3 herein, is the employer of these workmen. On 13th February, 2007, the Company made an application to the Commission...
international Airports Authority of India Now Known as Airports Author ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2007
Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR1757
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. The appeal is preferred by the original petitioner challenging the order in the judgment dismissing the Arbitration Petition filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 to set aside the award dated 27th October, 1994 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator.2. Admitted facts are that the petitioner/appellant is International Airports Authority of India, now known as Airports Authority of India. The petitioner is the owner of 29,000 sq.mtr. of land situated at Sahar, Bombay in the vicinity of international airport. The respondent was promoted by one Leela Scottish Lace Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Promoter Company), which held 3219.5 sq.mtrs. of land adjoining the land of the petitioner. The said Promoter Company requested the petitioner for grant of 9,000 sq.mtrs. of land on lease and remaining 20,000 sq.mtrs. of land on licence The land sought on lease was proposed to be used for construction of flight kitchen and hotel while the la...
Priyadarshini Education Trust Through the Secretary Shri Subhash Sarda ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR238; 2007(6)BomCR79; (2007)109BOMLR1663; 2007(6)MhLj667
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. The appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, impugns the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge of this High Court on 13.2.2004 in Writ Petition No. 3912 of 2000 filed by present Respondent No. 1, thereby allowing the same. 2. The factual matrix of the litigation can be described as follows. Respondent No. 1 (henceforth, referred to as 'the teacher' for brevity's sake) was appointed as teacher by present appellant, on 15.6.1987. That appointment was only for one academic year and on temporary basis. She was similarly appointed on temporary basis for the academic years 1988-89 and 1989-90 and she worked (according to the appellants) upto 17.2.1990. It is the claim of the appellant-management (henceforth, 'management' for the sake of brevity) that the teacher was again appointed for one academic year, i.e. 1992-93, so also for next academic year 1993-94. Here, the teacher makes a conflicting claim. According to her, she was appointed in the year 1992,...
Wyeth Employees Union Vs. Araine Orgachem Pvt. Ltd.,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR580; [2007(115)FLR580]; (2008)ILLJ1035Bom; 2008(2)MhLj66
Ranjana Desai, J. 1. Rule. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner is a recognized union under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, 'the MRTUP Act') for the undertaking of respondent 2. It appears to be the case of respondent 1 (M/s. Araine Orgachem Pvt. Ltd.) and respondent 2 (M/s. Wyeth Limited) that respondent 2 the erstwhile employer of the members of the petitioner, sold its manufacturing facility at 146, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai to respondent 1 as at the close of business hours of 30/8/2004. According to respondents 1 and 2, from that day the ownership and management of the said industrial establishment stood transferred to respondent 1. 3. The petitioner addressed a letter of demand dated 14/11/2005 to respondents 1 and 2 making a demand of reinstatement of 143 workmen with continuity of service an...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »