Mumbai Court January 2008 Judgments

Sakharam Parasharam Ghaste Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihanmumbai a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR329; 2008(2)BomCR839

A.A. Sayed, J.1. Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.2. The petitioner is an employee of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation. He retired from service w.e.f. 1-08-1998 on attaining superannuation.3. The petition is filed for directions to the respondents to pay him interest at the rate of 18% on his delayed retiral dues from the date on which they became due to the actual date of payment.4. At the time of retirement of the petitioner, there was one preliminary and two departmental inquiries pending against him. By letter dated 26-06-1998, respondent No. 2, the Municipal Commissioner, informed the petitioner that as he is retiring form service w.e.f. 1-08-1998, his pension shall be subject to provision of Rule 14 of The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Pension Rules 1953. The petitioner replied to the said letter vide his letter dated 27-07-1998 and informed respondent No. 2 that the alleged inquiries were pending due to failure of administration of the responden...

Suhas Ambadas Bobade Vs. Ccex and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)10STR373

1. This stay application is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.GOA/CEX/MP/82/2007 dated 17.8.2007. The Commissioner (Appeals), while allowing the appeal against the order-in-original, has upheld the penalty under Section 76 and set aside the penalty under Section 77.She has not recorded any findings on the penalty under Section 76.2. After hearing both sides for some time on the stay application, I find that the issue involved in this case is already settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay. Hence, after granting the stay, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) while setting aside the penalties imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 held as under: I have carefully examined the records of the case and the submissions made by the assessee. I see in this case the assessee has in fact paid the dues before the issue of the show cause notice and in fact what stands out is that they did so without any communication from the d...

Wns Global Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)13STJ156CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. These are three appeals against order of Commissioner (Appeals).Since the issue involved in all the three appeals is one and the same they are being decided in a common order. The appellants are engaged in providing business auxiliary services and the export of the said services. They were availing benefit of Cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 in respect of input services used by them in the export of auxiliary services. Since the appellants were unable to utilise the Cenvat credit in respect of the input services availed by them they filed refund claim in respect of un-utilized credit for the period April 2005 to June 2005 July 2005 to September 2005 and October 2005 to December 2005 respectively as per provisions of Notification No. 4/2006 dated 14.3.2006 by which Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was substituted. Since Rule 5 prior to its substitution by Notification No. 4/2006 dated 14.3.2006 did not provide for refund of un-utilized credit to the producer of ou...

Akar Enterprises Vs. Ccex and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This stay application is filed by the applicant against the Order-in-Revision No. 151/NSK/06/819 dated 29.1.2007. After hearing both sides for some time on the stay application, I find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this juncture. After granting the waiver of pre-deposit of the amount, I take up the matter for disposal.2. The issue involved in this case is regarding the enhancement of penalty on the appellant. The adjudicating authority has imposed penalty of Rs. 100/- only upon the appellant under Section 77, while the Commissioner in a show cause notice issued to the appellant seeks to impose penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. After hearing the appellant, the Commissioner has imposed equivalent amount of penalty of Rs. 17,929/-. I find that the issue involved in this case is regarding the discharge of service tax liability in respect of the service provided by the appellant. The entire amount of service tax, which was due, was paid on 12.7.2004. The ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Mahindra Sona Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue in dispute in these three appeals is common and the appeals are, therefore, heard together and disposed of vide this common order. The Revenue is aggrieved by the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that output catering services provided in the factory of the respondents herein is an input service and that the respondents are eligible to take credit thereof. (i) used by the provider of taxable service for providing an output service or (ii) used by the manufacture, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products from the place of removal, and includes service used in relation to setting up modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory, premised of provider of output service and office relating to such factory of premises, advertisements or sales promotions, market research, storage up to the place of removal, procurement of inputs, activities relating to business, such as accounting, auditing, fi...

Jayram Rajgopal Poduval Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the CIT(A) dt. 2nd July, 2004 in relation to asst. yr. 2001-02.2. The main grievance projected through the various grounds is against treating the residential status of the assessee as "resident and ordinarily resident" (hereinafter called ROR), which was claimed by him to be "resident but not ordinarily resident" (hereinafter called RNOR).3. Briefly stated the factual matrix of the case is that the assessee received interest on term fixed deposit from bank which was claimed as exempt under Section 10(15)(iv)(fa). The reason for exemption was stated to be the assessee's residential status as RNOR. The interest income accrued on term deposits in dollars deposited in the bank, which investment was at $ 52,250. On being called upon to prove the status as claimed, the assessee furnished a chart showing his stay in India in the preceding years as under:A.Y. 1992 93 15 days (9.12.91 to 11.12.91 & 19.3.92 to 31.3.92)A.Y. 19...

Smt. Malati Appu Pachore Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR879; 2008(2)BomCR551; [2008(118)FLR137]; 2008(3)MhLj509

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The petitioner -teacher has brought in question the judgment and order dated 6/8/1993 rendered by the School Tribunal, Pune Region at Pune thereby dismissing Appeal No.173 of 1992 which she had filed seeking directions to promote her to the post of Head Mistress of the Girls' High School i.e. Kanya Prashala, Kavathe Mahankal run by the present Respondent no.2 - Ambika Shikshan Mandal, Kavathe Mahankal in place of the present respondent no.3.2. Admittedly the petitioner possessed the qualifications of B.A., B.Ed. and for the first time in response to her application dated 29th May 1986 she was appointed as Assistant Teacher by the respondent no.2 with effect from 16/6/1986 as an Assistant Teacher in the Girls' High School in the pay-scale of Rs. 365-15-500-20-660-Extn 20-760 and the said appointment was on temporary basis upto 15/5/1987. In the next academic year she was issued another appointment order from 15/6/1987 till 14/5/1988 in the same pay-scale. However, ...

Parke-davis (India) Ltd. Vs. Shri Mahadev Bhiku Jadhav and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR677; 2008(2)BomCR559; (2008)IIILLJ85Bom; 2008(3)MhLj823

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. Writ Petition No. 1003 of 1996 has been filed by the Company challenging the order of the Industrial Court dated 19.12.1995. Writ Petition No. 6385 of 1996 has been filed by the workmen impugning the same order insofar as it does not grant certain reliefs to them. The Industrial Court has declared that the company has committed an unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The company was directed to confirm all the workmen in service as permanent workmen w.e.f. the date they were actually provided work as permanent workmen. The Company was also directed to pay the difference in wages to the workmen which they were entitled to as permanent workmen together with all other allowances and benefits, whether monetary or otherwise, enjoyed by the permanent workmen. The company was directed to provide work to these workmen and to treat them as permanent in service.2. Although Writ Petition No. 6385 of 1996 has been filed 18 workmen w...

Dr. Avinash D. Deshmukh and Vs. Central Bank of India Through Its Bran ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR748; 2008(2)MhLj415

K.J. Rohee, J.1. Heard Mr. C.G. Madkholkar, Senior Counsel with Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate and Mr. Shantanu Khedkar, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. M.D. Samel, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3/Bank. None appears for respondent No. 4. 2. In O.A. No. 81/2001 (which was previously Special Civil Suit No. 111/1991) the present petitioners, who were defendant Nos. 7 and 8, filed an application for direction to the respondents-Bank to accept the proposal given by them for One Time Settlement (OTS) in accordance with the guidelines of RBI. The learned Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur, by order dated 6.7.2006, rejected the application on the ground that those guidelines are issued to the Public Sector Banks and that the Debt Recovery Tribunal is not a party to such type of settlement. The said order is under challenge. 3. It is not disputed that on 29.1.2003 the Reserve Bank of India issued revised guidelines for compromise settlement of chronic non-perform...

Venubai Wd/O Wasudeo Rambhad (Since Dead Through Lrs. Bablu S/O Wasude ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2008Bom130; 2008(2)ALLMR550; 2008(3)BomCR154; 2008(3)MhLj195

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Heard Shri Deopujari, learned Counsel for the appellants. Nobody has appeared for respondents on 10th, 14th & 15th January & thereafter today.2. By this Second Appeal, the widowed daughter-in-law has challenged the judgment and decree concurrently passed against her, ordering her eviction from house property having Corporation House No. 176/0+1 situated in old Ward No. 44, Jagnath Road, Teen Nal Chowk, Nagpur. Regular Civil Suit No. 1325 of 1978 filed for eviction from that house by her father-in-law and his brother came to be decreed on 30.8.1984 after holding that the present appellant had taken forcible possession of part of it and licence to occupy its remaining part was duly terminated. The widow then filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 584 of 1984 and said appeal came to be dismissed on 30.1.1989 by 8th Additional District Judge, Nagpur. The appellate Court also found that though widow was claiming right to occupy that house by contending that her father-in-la...