Mumbai Court January 2008 Judgments

Gautam Weaving Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)(128)ECC115

1. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of grey woven fabrics falling under Chapters 54 and 55 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They availed cenvat credit on inputs and utilised the same towards payment of central excise duty payable on the goods. It was noticed by preventive officers of central excise that the assessees had - (a) availed cenvat credit twice on the same goods (inputs), failed to discharge duty on certain finished goods and (c) availed cenvat credit on the basis of inadmissible documents. The amount of cenvat credit availed twice on the same goods was Rs. 27,634/-. The duty liability on finished goods was Rs. 18,182/- and credit availed on the strength of endorsed invoices was Rs. 76,913/-.Show cause notice proposing recovery of the above mentioned amounts and also proposing levy of interest and imposition of penalty was issued; the modvat amount of Rs. 27,634/- was reversed on 21.6.2005 and interest thereon of Rs. 8,446/- was pai...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Maharashtra Steel Rolling Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)(128)ECC104

1. The Revenue challenges the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who has accepted the contention of the assessees herein that they had brought back duty paid goods, i.e. angles, into their factory for refining, remaking and reconditioning, and not for subjecting them to fresh manufacture, as contended by the excise authorities in the show cause notice proposing recovery of duty on freshly manufactured goods.3. I find that the show cause notice proposed recovery of duty of Rs. 57,605/- from the respondents herein on the ground that angles could not be rectified and defects could be removed only by subjecting the angles to fresh manufacture. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings initiated under the show cause notice, holding that such an averment was a bare averment not substantiated with reference to any technical material. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) the Revenue raised a fresh ground, namely, that the angles were subjected to fresh manufacture. After return ...

State of Maharashtra, Food and Civil Supplies Department Vs. Smt. Usha ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR730; 2008(3)MhLj902

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties.2. The Government of Maharashtra, who is the revision applicant before this Court, is the original defendant in RAE and R Suit No. 1 of 593/1615 of 1991 filed by the plaintiff for eviction. Admittedly, plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises being flat No. 11, admeasuring 1974 sq.ft. situated on the fourth floor in Khetan Bhuvan, Jamshedji Tata Road, Bombay. The building belongs to EK-Omkar Premises Co-operative Society. Admitted fact is that the Government of Maharashtra had taken suit premises from the plaintiff/landlady on leave and licence basis on 29-5-1970 for accommodating the office of the Chief Accounts Officers and the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra in Food and Civil Supplies Department. The period of leave and licence as per the agreement was three years. When the premises were taken by the Government, the plaintiff and two others had the membership rights over the suit premises on co-operativ...

Mr. Hassan Ali Khan Vs. Settlement Commission,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Bom)163; [2008]299ITR127(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule in all the Petitions. By consent, heard forthwith.2. All these petitions have been disposed off by this common judgment as the facts are more or less similar as also the issue involved. The petitioners are husband and wife. The petitions have been filed pursuant to the rejection of their Applications by the Settlement Commission. For the purpose of deciding the controversy the relevant facts as pleaded in Writ Petition No. 2421 of 2007 are being referred to.3. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2421 of 2007 is the husband of Petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.2422 of 2007 and 2423 of 2007. A search was conducted in the premises of the petitioner on 5th and 6th January, 2007. The petitioners filed Income-tax return on 23rd May, 2007 for the Assessment Year 2000-01 to 2007-08. On 28th May, 2007 the petitioner filed an Application for settlement before the Settlement Commission. It is the case of the petitioner that on 21st August, 2007 the 1st Respondent made an order c...

Parasmal M. Lodha Vs. Ranganath Somani and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR211

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The Plaintiff has taken out this Notice of Motion for an order directing Defendant No. 4 the escrow agent to furnish him a copy of an MOU dated 11.10.1994 and copies of share certificates and transfer deeds in respect of a company, Shreenivas Cotton Mills Limited and for an order directing Defendant No. 4 to deposit the original MOU, share certificates and transfer deeds in Court. The Plaintiff has also sought an order staying all actions on the part of Defendant Nos.1 to 3 contrary to the MOU or disposing of, parting with possession of or inducting any third party or creating any third party rights or interest in the controlling block of shares (51%) of the said company, numbering 56,978. The Plaintiff has also sought a right of first refusal for the grant of development rights in respect of the property of the company situated at Mumbai.2. Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the members of the Somani family. Defendant No. 4 with whom the said documents were kept in escr...

Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai Vs. Best Workers' Union

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR478

A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This Writ Petition takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 31st October 2007 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in complaint (ULP) No. 451 of 2007.2. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that the Industrial Court has extensively adverted to the pleadings filed by both the parties, for which reason, I do not wish to elaborate on those aspects in the present order.3. In substance, the case made out in the complaint filed by the Respondent Union is that the Petitioners have engaged and are continuing to engage in the unfair labour practices under Item 5 of Schedule II of the B.I.R. Act, 1946 and Items 3, 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 on and from 22nd October 2007. According to the Respondent Union, it was long standing practice of 50 years that the representatives and office bearers of the Respondent Union would not be transferred by the Management. The transfers of representatives of Respondent Union was effected only on req...

Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay and anr. Vs. Gwalior Oil Mills and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)MhLj250

Abhay S. Oka, J.1. The submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the last date. These appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment and order.2. First Appeal No. 86 of 1990 and First Appeal No. 93 of 1990 have been preferred by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the said Corporation) for taking an exception to common judgment and order dated 29th September, 1989 passed by the Additional Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in Appeal No. 104 of 1986 and First Appeal No. 272 of 1986. The said two appeals were preferred by M/s Gwalior Oil Mills (hereinafter referred to as the said Mills) under Section 217 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). First Appeal No. 863 of 1990 has been preferred by the said Mills for challenging the same judgment and order insofar as the Municipal Appeal No. 104 of 1986 is concerned.3. With a view to appreciate th...

Sdi Tech Services (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ccex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is filed against, the Order-in-Appeal No.AT/117/RGD/2007 dated 3.5.2007.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) after hearing the case has passed the following order: I have perused the case records. The only issue to be decided in the present appeal is whether imposition of penalty of Rs. 69,990/- was justifiable. The appellants have pleaded ignorance of requisite provisions of law. However, the ignorance could not have continued for six months, when the appellants made the payments on 25.4.2005 and 25.10.2005. As held by the CESTAT in All India Women's Conference v. CCE 2006 (2) STR (Tri-Del) failure to pay the Service Tax attracts the minimum penalty imposable under Section 76 of the Act and therefore, the penalty has to be upheld.4. It can be seen from the above reproduced order that the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly followed the law as has been laid down by the Tribunal directed the appellant to pay minimum penalty under Section 76 of the Act. The service tax payable ...

Chandramani Devraj Tiwari Vs. the Secretary, Smr. R.B. Tiwari Sanskrut ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR138; 2008(3)BomCR206; 2008(3)MhLj274

A.A. Sayed, J.1. Admit. By consent heard forthwith. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal challenges the impugned order dated 15.4.2002 of the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellant, whereby the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, dismissing the appellant's appeal, was confirmed.3. The case of the appellant before the School Tribunal was that he was duly qualified and was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the secondary section of the school of the respondent-management, which is a government aided school. He was appointed on permanent and clear vacancy with effect from July, 1995. However, he was not issued any appointment letter at the time of his appointment. He was working with the said school till his termination on 1.10.1999. According to the appellant, he was pressurised to give in writing that he was appointed in the school since 14.6.1999, and he was also pressurised to give his signatures on blank letter heads and b...

Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Ramkrishna Bhikha Dushane

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)BomCR822; [2008(117)FLR1118]; (2008)IILLJ746Bom

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard Mr. C.U. Singh, the learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Shah and Mr. Londhe i/by M/s. Sanjay Udeshi and Co. for petitioner and Mr. Bapat with Mr. D'Costa the learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. Rule. Respondent waives service. 3. By the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith. 4. The petition impugns an interlocutory order passed by the Labour Court at Daman in C.M.A. No. 109 of 2004. The said application was filed by the petitioner-company under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) seeking the approval to the order of dismissal dated 16/8/2004 passed against the respondent on conclusion of departmental enquiry into the charges levelled against him vide the charge-sheet dated 8/11/2003. The said application was presented on 16/8/2004 i.e. on the day the order of dismissal was passed. While the application was pending, the Deputy Secretary (Labour and Employment), Administration of Daman...