Mumbai Court February 2008 Judgments

Victor Gaskets India Ltd., Bosch Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)10STR369

1. These appeals have been filed by M/s. Victor Gaskets India Limited, M/s. Bosch Chassis Systems India Limited and M/s. Bajaj Electricals Limited against Order-in-Appeal No. P-I/BBP/72/07 dated 18.7.2007, No.P-I/BBP/73/07 dated 18.7.2007 and No. PI/BBP/55/2007 dated 28.06.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-I.3. Since the issue involved in all the three appeals is common, these are being taken up together for disposal by a common order.4. In Appeal No. E/1240/2007-Mum relating to M/s. Victor Gaskets India Limited, the inadmissible Cenvat credit involved is Rs. 96,912/- for the period from January, 2005 to August, 2006. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Gasket falling under chapter sub heading 84.68 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.5. In Appeal No. E/1235/2007-Mum relating to M/s. Bosch Chassis Systems India Limited, the inadmissible Cenvat credit involved is Rs. 3,83,283/- for the period from September, 2004 to May, 2006. The appellants ...

Nirmala P. Athavale Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)117TTJ(Mum.)353

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee and directed against the order of CIT(A)-XVII, Mumbai dt. 8th Dec., 2004 for asst. yr. 2001-02.2. We have heard both the sides and have also perused the materials placed on record and applicable legal position.3. In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the decision of learned CIT(A) in confirming the gifts of Rs. 1,22,70,795 received by the assessee on his 80th birthday as his income from business and profession.4. Ground No. 2 is argumentative in nature in support of ground No. 1, hence, no specific decision thereon would be given as the same would be dealt with ground No. 1.5. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual who filed return of income showing income from other sources. As borne out from the assessment order, it is noted that assessee is a well known social reformer and philosopher and lacs of followers are spread all over the world. The AO from the note enclosed with the computation of income chart (found) that...

Bharti Rajesh Pahuja Vs. Mr. Rajesh Choitram Pahuja

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR584; 2008(4)BomCR686

A.A. Sayed, J.1. This appeal impugns the judgment and order dated 16-10-2004, passed by the Civil Judge, S.D., Kalyan, whereby the suit under Section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act of the appellant-wife seeking maintenance and residence has been partly decreed and the appellant-wife has been granted maintenance of Rs. 10,000/-per month from 1/11/1999 onwards and her prayer for separate residence is rejected.2. By this appeal the appellant-wife is seeking enhancement of maintenance with effect from 24th December, 1996 at the rate of Rs. 2 lac per month with interest and separate residence at Ulhasnagar with all modern amenities. The case of the appellant wife is that she got married to respondent-husband on 21-7-1996. At that time, the respondent-husband was serving in St.Marten, North America as Manager on contract for a period of three years and that he agreed to take the appellant-wife alongwith him after marriage. According to the appellant-wife, her parents had given to h...

Sajid Dilawar Khan Vs. the State of Maharashtra,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR772

Bilal Nazki, J.1. This is a petition filed by the brother of the detenu, who has been detained by order dated 16th August, 2007 in terms of provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. Though the order was passed on 16th August, 2007, it was executed on 22nd October, 2007. The grounds of detention were served thereafter. The Order of Detention has been challenged on various grounds. 2. The respondents have filed their counter-affidavit. We have gone through the record and heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Essentially, there is only one ground of detention on which the detention has been ordered, and that relates to an incident of 3rd April, 2006, when the detenu arrived by a flight from Dubai, and on search, it was found that he was carrying -(1) Ladies dress material - 06 Takkas of 35yards each, (2) Bluetooth - Sony Ericsson HBH608 (without charger cord) 25 Nos., (3) AC/DC Adapter -06 Nos., (4) Bluetooth - Nokia type ...

Moh. Azhar Khan S/O Moh. Akbar Khan Vs. Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Commi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR539; 2008(4)MhLj454

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties, for final disposal.This writ petition was filed for seeking threefold remedy as per prayer Clauses (B), (C) and (D) which read as follows:B. By issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature the order dt. 26.6.2007 passed by R.No. 1 Committee at Exhibit 'E' negating the claim of the petitioner may kindly be quashed. C. By issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature the order dt. 14.7.2007 passed by R.No. 2, M.S.R.T.C. at Exhibit 'F' terminating the services of the petitioner may kindly be quashed. D. By issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature Respondent No. 2 may kindly be directed to reinstate the services of the petitioner as per the law laid down in the case of Panjab National Bank v. Vilas Bokade 2007 (3) M...

Dr. G.V. Iyengar and Shri Mohanlal Sukhramdas Gogia Vs. Shri A.R. Samp ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR352; 2008(4)BomCR673; 2008(3)MhLj621

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 2. To state in brief, the plaintiff, who is respondent No. 1 in the present Appeal, claims to be nephew of Dr. Gopal Ayengar, who was the member of The Mysore Co-operative Housing Society, respondent No. 2. As a member, the plot No. 73 was allotted to Dr. Gopal Ayengar by the Society on which he had constructed a bungalow. Admittedly, Dr. Gopal Ayengar died in September 1992 leaving behind only his widow Mrs. Rajalakshmi. She also died in the year 2002. The present appellant No. 1/defendant No. 5 claims to be a distant nephew of Rajalakshmi Ayengar. Appellant No. 2/defendangt No. 6 claims to be the power of attorney holder for the defendant No. 5 who is residing in U.S.A. The plaintiff claims to be in possession of the said bungalow and also claims to be nephew and the legal heir of Dr. Gopal Ayengar. He filed BCCC Suit No. 2023 of 2005 seeking several reliefs. The appellants/defendants Nos. 5 and 6 raised the...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Jubilant Organosys Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)BomCR843

Rebello F.I., J.1. Revenue had preferred this appeal on the question of law as formulated in para 4 of the appeal Memo. At the hearing of this appeal learned Counsel, however, has submitted the reframed question which reads as under:Whether it is open to an assessee to apply for amendment of a document under Section 149 of the Customs Act after final order of Assessment has been made under Section 70 of the Customs Act, 1962.The case of the respondents is as under:2. The respondents had filed Bill of Entry No. 70 dated 6th August, 2004 for warehousing of the imported goods. The warehouse Bill of Entry was provisionally assessed and 70% of the goods were allowed to be cleared pending receipt of the test report. The respondents filed exbonded bill of entry for clearance of 70% of the goods for home consumption which were also provisionally assessed pending test report of the Deputy Chief Officer. The respondents on execution of provisional duty bond cleared 70% of the imported goods on p...

Jayant Hansraj Shah Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR474

Rebello F.I., J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The petitioners approached this Court to seek clearance of the goods imported unconditionally without any deposit or bank guarantee and pay the amounts of container detention and demurrage charges incurred on the goods. Alternative relief is sought by way of certiorari to set aside the order/decision of respondent No. 3 dated 30th March, 2007 detaining the goods in the interest of justice and consequential relief by way of mandamus to direct the respondent No. 2 their officers, subordinates, servants and agents from implementing and/or giving any effect to the order dated 30th March, 2007 of respondent No. 2.3. According to the petitioner the consignment of Cosmetics was imported vide bill of lading dated 31st January, 2007 and as per the import document received from the overseas suppliers. The Bill of Entry dated 14th February, 2007 was filed based on the document received from the overseas supplier. The 1st respondent duly assessed the bil...

In Re: Kirtilal Kalidas Diamonds Exports P. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2009]148CompCas607(Bom)

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The sanction of the court is sought under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, to a scheme of amalgamation of Kirtilal Kalidas Diamonds Exports P. Ltd., and Kirtilal Kalidas Ornaments Exports P. Ltd., and Kirti Ornaments P. Ltd., and Dimexon Exports P. Ltd., and NK Polishers (transferor companies) with Dimexon Diamonds Ltd., the transferee company and their respective shareholders/partners.3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners have stated that they have complied with all the requirements as per directions of this hon'ble court.4. The only contention raised by the Regional Director in his affidavit in reply is that the petitioner-company may be directed to furnish an undertaking as regards compliance with Accounting Standard 14 issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. It is further stated that save as aforesaid the scheme is not prejudicial to the interest of creditors and shareholder...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. S.N. Traders

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order-in-appeal of Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the order-in-original of the Jt. Commissioner.2. The dispute relates to wrist watches bearing brand name 'Classic'.The respondent is said to be engaged in the manufacture of assembling of wrist watches during the period under dispute. During 1998-99 they assembled 11146 pieces of watches and cleared them without payment of duty. A show cause notice was issued calling upon the respondent to pay duty of Rs. 1,46,268/- including Rs. 25,032/- which had already been paid. The Joint Commissioner confirmed the demand to the extent of Rs. 1,11,608/- with interest in terms of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act. He also imposed penalty equal to the amount of duty of Rs. 1,11,608/- under Section 11AC of the Act. The Jt. Commissioner held that the items are covered by chapter sub-heading 9102.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On appeal by the respondent, the C...