Mumbai Court January 2008 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Poona Forge Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue in dispute in the present case, namely as to whether interest is payable on account of delayed payment of duty on supplementary invoices, stands settled against the Revenue by Tribunal's order in India Forge & Drop Stamping Ltd v. CCE, Pune, Order No A/1900/06/C-IV/SMB, dated 11-10-2006 and the Tribunal's decision in CCE. Aurangabad v. Rucha Engineering Pvt. Ltd 2006 (206) E.L.T. 278 (Tribunal) : 2006 (77) RLT 335 (CESTAT-Mum), holding that in the absence of any order of determination of duty under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, there can be no direction for levy of interest. I also find that the decision of the Tribunal in Rucha Engineering Pvt. Ltd has been upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on 3-4-2007 2008 (223) E.L.T. 161 (Bom.) by disposing of the first appeal No. 42/2007 filed by the Revenue.2. In view of the above I hold that this is not a fit case for admission and accordingly dismiss the appeal as not admitted. The cross objection filed...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Manugraph India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of printing machinery and parts thereof falling under Chapter 84 of the First Schedule to the CETA, 1985. It was noticed that they had availed Cenvat Credit of duty paid on inputs and sent these inputs to their job workers for further processing under the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; that during the course of processing of inputs by the job worker, scrap of iron and steel and aluminum is generated and in turn the inputs received back from the job work was short to that extent (to the extent of the weight of waste and scrap). The department was therefore of the view that Cenvat Credit involving such quantity was reversible in the light of the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Two show cause notices dated 29.6.2006 and 26.9.1996 were issued for recovery of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 3,86,658/- and Rs. 1,51,620/- together with interest and the notices also proposed penal action against ...

Shri Sanjay Marutirao Patil Vs. Union of India (Uoi),

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR471; 2008(6)BomCR208; [2008(117)FLR459]; 2008(4)MhLj758

Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The petitioner joined the Indian Army as a Sepoy in the year 1990. He was promoted to the post of Naik in the year 1994-95. He was served a chargesheet setting out three charges of misconduct against him on 31.8.1999.2. These three charges were framed against the petitioner under Section 63 of the Act. Section 63 reads thus:63. Violation of good order and discipline. Any person subject to this Act who is guilty of any act or omission which, though not specified in this Act, is prejudicial to good order and military discipline shall, on conviction by courtmartial, be liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years of such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.The charges were that the petitioner incorrectly prepared certified Receipt Convoy Note of others and for having furnished false information of not having received buckets of steel unloaded on 27.2.1996. The petitioner was called upon to face a Summary Court Martial in respect of th...

Kohinoor Planet Constructions Ltd., a Company Incorpated Under the Pro ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR320; 2008(2)BomCR705; 2008(3)MhLj811

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. This petition is filed to challenge the validity of the directive issued by the State Government on 27/9/2006 under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ('MRTP Act' for short) and also the notices dated 11/12/2006 and 22/12/2006 issued by respondent Nos.1 & 2 seeking to restrain development of the lands belonging to the petitioners situated at Kurla inter alia on the ground that Premier Ltd. from whom the petitioner No. 1 had purchased the immovable properties at Kurla, had not obtained No Objection Certificate (N.O.C.) from the State Government for development of the said lands.3. The petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of development of immovable properties in Mumbai and elsewhere. Petitioner No. 2 is a Director and shareholder of...

The State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. S.P. Kalamkar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR649; 2008(2)BomCR575; (2008)110BOMLR512; 2008(4)MhLj553

J.N. Patel, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. We propose to dispose of the three petitions by a common judgment and order as it raises common issues, the facts are not much disputed and it raises identical questions for decision. 3. The State of Maharashtra has impugned the orders passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 512 of 1994 filed by Mr. Vinayak Raosaheb Patil, Ex. Inspector of Police and Original Application No. 590 of 1994 filed by Mr. Suhas P. Kalamkar, Ex. Inspector of Police which has been disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 3rd December 1997. The third one relates to an order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 280 of 1996 filed by Ashok Hari Khedkar, Ex.Inspector of Police which came to be disposed of by a judgment and order dated 27th March 1997. 4. The then Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, in the case of all the three Police Officers, who were at the relevant tim...

Somnath Tulshiram Galande Vs. Presiding Officer, Iind Labour Court and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR628; 2008(5)BomCR865; [2008(117)FLR149]; (2008)IILLJ767Bom; 2008(4)MhLj163

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of the learned single Judge dated 13th August, 2007, passed in Writ Petition No. 7300 of 2003, whereby the learned single Judge, while dismissing the petition, has observed that the decision of the Labour Court need not be interfered with under writ jurisdiction as there is no perversity in the conclusions drawn by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has held the appellant not to be a workman. 2. The necessary facts are that according to the appellant he was appointed as Quality Assurance Incharge vide letter of appointment dated 25th April, 1994, in furtherance to which the appellant joined the post in the pay scale of Rs. 1850170270020037002504950. According to the appellant, he was working in the Quality Control Department and was doing inspecting job and related technical and clerical work. However, the services of the appellant were terminated by the management vide its letter dated 8th September, 1995. This action of...

Genu Bhivaji Rao Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Executiv ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR419; 2008(3)MhLj772

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. By this common judgment, we will dispose of 165 appeals filed by the State, 80 appeals filed by the claimants, 45 Cross objections filed by the claimants in State Appeals and 330 connected Civil Applications. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'the SLAO'), while exercising his power as Collector, published a notification on 5th May, 1994, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), clearly stating the intention of the Government to acquire the land from the revenue estate of village Mukane, Tal. Igatpuri, District Nashik, for a public purpose viz. Mukane Dam Project. In furtherance to this, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 7th July, 1994, which was published in the official gazette on the same day. The SLAO, after complying with the requirements of the provisions of the Act, published his award dated 20th October, 1995, under Section 11 of the Act. The SLAO classif...

Shaikh Mohammad Miran Mohammad Ibrahim Vs. State of Maharashtra (Servi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR619; 2008(5)BomCR225

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed by Shri Shaikh Mohammad Miran Mohammad Ibrahim who retired as Assistant Police Inspector on 31st October, 2006, praying that the police sepoy recruitment examination held from 10th September, 2007 to 28th September, 2007 be quashed as it was conducted in a very arbitrary manner and without following guidelines. It is stated in the writ petition that on 10th September, 2007, test of running was held of hundreds of candidates. They were made to run on the streets of Mumbai. Many of them fell down on the streets of cement concrete roads, rough surface roads. One of the candidate vomited blood, several of them were admitted in various hospitals. An article in this regard was published in local Marathi newspaper `Navakal' in its edition of 11th September, 2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Additional Commissioner of Police, Arms Division under whose supervision the test was conducted, did not bother to tak...

The State of Maharashtra Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)BomCR876; 2008(5)MhLj363

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. By this common judgment, we will dispose of 357 First Appeals/Cross Objections, wherein the following questions of law arise for determination. Questions of law:(i) Whether the claimants, on the basis of the evidence adduced, documentary and oral, are entitled to higher compensation (claimed at the rate of Rs. 100/per sq.mtr.) as the learned Reference Court has failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the claimants in its correct perspective? (ii) What ought to be the rationale and legally acceptable date for determination of fair market value of the land in terms of Sections 23 and 231(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Acquisition Act')? (iii) Has the learned Reference Court fallen in error of law in determining the date for Section 23 of the Acquisition Act as 20th August, 1981 and for the benefit under Section 23 (1A) of the Acquisition Act as 5th February, 1976?(iv) Whether the appeals of the claimants, whose petition...

Pushpakunj Cooperative Housing Society Limited Vs. H.S.B. Construction ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR703; 2008(6)BomCR373

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This Appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code challenges Judgment and Decree dated 19/1/2001 delivered by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yavatmal in Special Civil Suit 113/1987. Said suit was filed by present Respondent for recovery of amount of Rs. 6,12,130.93/- claiming the same towards unpaid price for work of construction carried out by it for present Appellant/original Defendant -Cooperative Housing Society. Though the Appeal is of year 2001 only, earlier bench has on 22/11/2007 passed order that the appeal shall be finally heard on 28/11/2007 by dispensing with paper book. Thus the Appeal is listed for hearing before me. In my order dated 12/12/2007 I pointed out how hearing of matter was rendered difficult as complete records were not available and also as Exhibits on record of Lower Court were not arranged in sequence. It also became apparent that some of the Exhibits were not at all available on original record & though both learned Counsel decl...