Mumbai Court February 2010 Judgments

Apollo Tyres Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune - Iii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of automotive tyres and tubes. Their manufacturing plant at Pune manufactures only tubes. These tubes are cleared (on payment of duty) to the tyre manufacturing units, which use the goods captively in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts. In 2002-03, the Pune unit had cleared several consignments of tubes on stock-transfer basis to a tyre manufacturing unit, but some of these consignments were returned to the appellant (Pune unit) for what is called as 'logistical reason'. CENVAT credit of the duty paid by the appellant on the original clearances was taken by them upon receipt of the goods returned by the tyre unit. In the D-3 intimation given to the department, the appellant furnished particulars of the goods received back from the tyre manufacturing unit and also stated the purpose as 'storage'. The returned tubes, on which CENVAT credit was taken, were subsequently cleared to other tyre manufacturing unit of the same company on payment o...

Forbes Gokak Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - Ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

These appeals were filed by the assessee, all directed against the denial of MODVAT credit on inputs for the period from May, to November, 1995. Four show-cause notices were issued by the department to deny credit and impose penalty. The proposals were contested. In adjudication of the dispute, the original authority passed a common order dropping the proposal for recovery of MODVAT credit. That authority, however, imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on the assessee under Rule 173Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the ground that they had failed to instruct their suppliers for issue of proper invoices covering supply of inputs. The assessee did not appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), but the department did. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the departmental appeal by asking the assessee to pay duty equivalent to MODVAT credit taken on the inputs. In other words, the MODVAT credit in question stood denied. Hence these appeals. 2. After examining the records and hearing...

Raisoni Tyres Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

The appellant is engaged in the activity of retreading of tyres. They got themselves registered with the department in respect of the taxable service viz 'Maintenance and Repair Service', in the year 2005. However, during the period from October, 2006 to March, 2007 they committed default of service tax in respect of the transactions for the said period. Later on, they paid the tax with interest on 06/10/2007. The service tax return was filed on 22/01/2008. In a show-cause notice dated 05/06/2008, the department demanded an amount of Rs. 28/- as differential interest on service tax under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and also proposed to impose penalty of Rs. 87,003/- under Section 76 of the Act. In their reply to the notice, the party submitted that they were not liable to pay any penalty inasmuch as they had paid the service tax before the issue of the show-cause notice. In their reply, they did not object to the demand of differential interest of Rs. 28/-, which they readily p...

Mr. Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Being a ...

Court: Mumbai

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. By consent of parties heard forthwith.2. The petition arises from an order passed by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Appeal preferred by the petitioner herein has been dismissed by judgment and order dated 21st July, 2009.3. At the hearing of this petition on behalf of the respondents learned Counsel has raised two preliminary objections as to the maintainability of this petition. We may first deal with these aspects as they touch upon the jurisdiction of a Division Bench of this Court to hear and decide the petition.4. The preliminary contentions urged on behalf of the respondents are (1) That considering Chapter XVII Rule 18 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960 which hereinafter shall be referred to as the Rules, the Petition, in terms of Rule 18(3) must be heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court...

Francisquinha Das Merces Fernandes e D'Souza Vs. the Confrarias de San ...

Court: Mumbai

U.D. Salvi, J.1. Heard. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by mutual consent of the parties.2. Order dated 19.9.2009 passed by the learned CJSD, Mapusa in Special Civil Suit No. 108/2005/A refusing amendment to the plaint finds challenge in this writ petition.3. Perusal of the plaint, a copy of which is annexed to this petition at page No. 24, reveals that the petitioner/ plaintiff has instituted the said suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/ defendants from carrying out any construction on the suit access and also for a declaration that the access referred to in the plaint is access of necessity and only access available to the plaintiff's property. It is the case of the petitioner/ plaintiff that the suit property admeasuring 891 square meters of the property surveyed under Survey No. 77/1 Part situate Sirula Malim, Penha-De- Franca Village Panchayat was acquired on lease dated 13.10.1993 from the respondent /defendant No. 2- Archdiocese ...

Kishor Marotrao Raut (In Jail) Vs. the State of Maharashtra (Through P ...

Court: Mumbai

A.P. Bhangale, J.1. The present appeal stems from judgment and order dated 12th September, 2008 passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha-1 in Sessions Trial No. 7/2008, convicting the present appellant/accused for offence punishable under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-; in default, to suffer R I for one year. It was further directed that after realization of the amount of fine, the sum of Rs. 7000/- shall be paid to first informant Asha Gujar after the period of appeal is over.2. The prosecution case filtering out unnecessary details are these: It appears that Asha Yadavrao Gujar (PW 4) has lodged a FIR bearing No. 264/2007 which was registered at Pulgaon Police Station, District Wardha on 22nd December 2007 for offence punishable under Section 436 of the IPC, alleging that the present appellant had come to her hut on 21st December 2007...

Rakesh Harsukhbhai Parekh Vs. State of Mah. and Niti R. Parekh

Court: Mumbai

ORDERRoshan Dalvi, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith.2. The Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are husband and wife. They married on 20.5.2005. They started living separately since 19.5.2006. The Petitioner-husband filed a Petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce on the ground of cruelty of Respondent No. 2 on 12.6.2007. After part evidence was recorded in the Petition, the parties settled their dispute. They withdrew allegations against one another and filed Consent Terms on 16.12.2009 with regard to the grant of divorce for withdrawal of the allegations and the grant of lump sum alimony to the wife. Thereafter they made a joint application for waiver of the 6 months period for acting upon the Consent Terms and obtaining a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act on 14.1.2010. Their application has come to be rejected on the ground that the period cannot be waived and that the Petition has to be adjourned for 6 months.3. Section 13 of the...

Rajesh Chheda, Prop. of Shubham Plywood Vs. Shubham Plywood Park Throu ...

Court: Mumbai

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The plaintiffs' Suit is for preventing the infringement of trademark 'Shubham' and passing off against the defendants, who alleged to have been using the word 'Shubham Plywood' and 'Shubham Plywood Park'. Admittedly, the registered mark is 'Shubham' in Class 35 in the name of M/s. Shubham Plywood, Service Providers and Merchants of the Plaintiffs, who is dealing with sale and purchase of plywood, veneers, block board, flush doors, etc. The word 'Shubham' is in use since 1998 and accordingly placed on record the sales figures.2. It is clear that the plaintiffs registered trademark/word 'SHUBHAM' is registered along with the symbol of swastik at the right side. The word 'plywood' is not there. The averment that registered trademark is 'Shubjam Plywood' is not correct. The plaintiffs unable to place material on record to substantiate the case except photographs of the shop name 'Shubham Plywood' and one visiting card. There are innumerable shops selling the plywood un...

Manhar Auto Stores, a Partnership Concern Through Its Partners (Shri L ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(3)MhLj331

R.C. Chavan, J.1. RULE. Made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.2. This petition by tenant is directed against judgment of learned District Judge3, Amravati allowing Regular Civil appeal No. 148 of 2008 before him, whereby he set aside judgment of the learned Civil Judge in Regular Civil Suit No. 16 of 2007, dismissing the suit, and granting decree of petitioner's ejectment.3. The facts, in the context of which this petition has arisen and which are material for deciding this petition and about which there need not be any serious dispute, are as under:The petitioner was inducted as a tenant in respect of shop premises situated on ground floor of SavitaSadan, Morshi Road, Amravati by respondent's grandfather Dr. Hansrajbhai Shah over thirty years ago. The petitioner runs a Auto Parts Shop in the said premises. Dr. Hansrajbhai Shah executed a registered Will in respect of his properties and bequeathed the shop to respondent. Dr. Hansrajbhai Shah died on 20th September, 1998. ...

Sudhakar S/O Ramakantrao Chandorikar Vs. Sonamata Shikshan Sanstha, Th ...

Court: Mumbai

Shrihari P. Davare, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.2. By the present Petition filed by the petitioner herein under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prayed for appropriate writ to set aside the order dated 14.11.2008 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad in Appeal No. 4/2007 on delay condonation petition, requesting to condone the delay of 53 days caused to prefer appeal No. 4/2007 and to direct the School Tribunal to hear and decide the appeal in accordance with provisions of law.3. According to the petitioner, he possesses the qualification of B.Sc. B.P.Ed. and he was appointed on the post of Physical Instructor/Teacher with the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 School on 12.06.1995. His appointment was approved by the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad vide letter dated 14/18.12.1999 Exhibit P...