Mumbai Court February 2010 Judgments

Shree Steel Castings Pvt Ltd and Another Vs. Commissioner of Central E ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In adjudication of a show-cause notice dated 27.2.2007, the original authority demanded service tax and education cess totaling to Rs 2,70,352/- and interest thereon from the assessee. The amounts already paid by the assessee were appropriated towards this demand. The adjudicating authority also imposed penalty on the assessee under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. In an appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) vacated the penalties and sustained the rest of the Order-in-Original. Today, the department is in appeal against the dropping of penalties, while the assessee has come up against the demand of service tax. 2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I find that, though the assessee had filed a reply to the show-cause notice, the same was not considered by the adjudicating authority. The reply was filed on 18.4.07 and the same was duly acknowledged by the Divisional Office of Central Excise, Nagpur. However, the adjudicating authorit...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai I Vs. Godrej Foods Ltd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against Order-in-Appeal No SDK (475-76)175-6/1999 dated 31.3.99. An earlier appeal filed by the department (appeal No E/2524/99) was partly allowed by the Tribunal, vide Order No C-III/1510/WZB/03 dated 30.10.03. The present appeal filed by the Revenue as a supplementary appeal is on an issue which was not a part of the subject-matter of the earlier appeal. The application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of the supplementary appeal was allowed by the Bench. At that stage, the Counsel for the party had raised a preliminary objection and had submitted that the appeal was not maintainable on account of merger. The Bench, however, left the issue open. This issue has been raised, in the first instance, by the learned Counsel today. The learned SDR has, on the strength of case law, submitted that the doctrine of merger is not applicable to the present case. After considering the submissions and the case law cited by the learned ...

S.B. International Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import), Nhava Sheva

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant had filed a Bill of Entry on 22.9.2008 for clearance of 145.65 MTs of what was declared to be Heavy Melting Scrap (HMS for short) and valued at USD 400 per MT. The consignment was imported from Kuwait, from where the goods were shipped in 8 containers. The containers were scanned at the Indian port, whereupon suspicious images were found, which made the Customs authorities refer the case to SIIB (Import). On physical examination of the goods under SIIB’s supervision, 310.5 kg of plastic scrap was found alongwith HMS. The SIIB (Import) reported that the plastic waste/scrap found in the above containers was a hazardous waste listed under the Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 and that import of such waste from any country to India was not permissible as per Rule 11 (1) of the said Rules. It was also reported that the above import of hazardous waste without prior permission of the Government amounted to illegal traffic under Rule 15 of the said Ru...

Tata Motors Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune I

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles. During the period of dispute (April 2000 to March 2003), they had sent iron castings under cover of challans to their job workers for the purpose of machining and the machined castings were returned within the period 180 days prescribed under Rule 57AC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, the scrap generated at the job workers premises was not so returned. This material was disposed of by the job workers themselves. In the show-cause notice issued, the department demanded from the appellant differential duty equivalent to CENVAT Credit of the duty paid on the input contained in the scrap. This demand was raised under Rule 57AH of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rule 12 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001, as also under Section 11A (1) of the Act. Interest on such duty was also demanded under Section 11AB of the Act. Show cause notice also proposed penalty on the appellant under Rule 210 of the erstwhile Cent...

Shri Vasant Mahadev Tikekar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR1119

ORDERRoshan Dalvi, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The Petitioners have purchased the lands, inter alia, under Survey No. 239, bearing old Survey No. 144 (Part) admeasuring 5 Acres and 30 Gunthas at village Malad, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai, from one Anandibai, the widow of one Budhiya Bhikhu Gadak. Budhiya was declared as tenant/purchaser of the said lands under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Tenancy Act). Budhiya died on 14.3.1968. A certificate under Section 32N of the Tenancy Act was issued in the name of Budhiya on 23.8.1969. Mutation Entry No. 1269 came to be made in that respect in the name of Anandibai, his widow on 10.1.1971. Permission for sale under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act was granted to the widow on 25.7.1971. She entered into a conveyance with the Petitioner's predecessor-in-title for a part of the land of her husband Budhiya, admeasuring 2 Acres 26 Gunthas on 25.5.1971. Mutation Entry No. 1282 in that behalf came to be mad...

Prashant S. Joshi Vs. the Income-tax Officer and Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR1017,(2010)230CTR(Bom)232,[2010]189TAXMAN1(Bom)

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, by consent made returnable forthwith. Counsel for the respondents waive service. With the consent of counsel, both the petitions are taken up for final hearing.2. The principal challenge in these proceedings is to the notices issued by the first respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 proposing to assess the income of the petitioner for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 on the ground that there is reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, within the meaning of Section 147. By a deed of Partnership dated 5th May, 2003, the petitioner entered into a partnership with two other persons. The business of the partnership consisted of developing real estate. The petitioner retired from the partnership on 11th March, 2005. Under the Deed of dissolution, the petitioner to the first Writ Petition (W.P. No. 2287 of 2009) agreed to receive a sum of Rs. 50 lacs, in addition to the balance lying to his credit on the capita...

Balaji Property and Developers, a Partnership Firm, Registered Under t ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(2)BomCR527

U.D. Salvi, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties.2. One M/s. Balaji Property and Developers purchasers of the property bearing Survey No. 224/1, 224/2 and 224/3 admeasuring about 44147 square metres situate at village Jua, Tal. Tiswadi, Goa under registered sale deed dated 10.07.2007 have invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 22.5.2009 passed in Civil Suit No. 48/2008 by the Court of District Judge- III at Panaji. According to the petitioner, the said property was duly purchased by it from the respondent Nos. 5- Jose Fonseca, 6- Araci Fonseca, 7- Edgar Fonseca. The said property, the petitioner further reveals, was the subject matter of Inventory Proceedings bearing No. 42/73/B filed in the Court of CJSD, Panaji by one Luis Bonaparte Fonseca - father of the respondent No. 5 Jose and 7 Edgar and father-in-law of respondent No. 6 Araci w/o Jose in relation to the assets of his deceased wife Odela Da Fo...

Panduronga Timblo Industries, a Partnership Firm Duly Registered Under ...

Court: Mumbai

U.D. Salvi, J.1. Heard. Rule, returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing with consent of the parties.2. The petitioners / original respondents in the applications for eviction under provisions of Section 22(2)(f) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the common order dated 18.11.1996 passed in Case No. BLDG/3/ARC-II/91 and Case No. BLDG/4/ARC-II/91 by the Rent Controller- IV, Margao and the common order dated 23/09/2008 passed in Eviction Revision Application Nos. 25 and 26 of 1997 by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa, Panaji, Goa.3. The respondents therein- owners of flat Nos. 11 and 12 in multi storied building popularly known as 'Elvina' situate at Isidoro Baptista Road, Pajifond, Margao, Goa moved applications for eviction of the petitioners a partnership firm and its partners from the said flats on the ground th...

Adnan Bilal Mulla Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010CriLJ1990

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. Admit.2. Mrs. Pai, the learned Addl. P.P. waives service for the respondent - State of Maharashtra.2A. Print dispensed with as the private paper book copies have been circulated. Appeal is heard finally.3. The appellant in this appeal, filed in the second round under Section 34 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (the POTA for short) by accused No. 15 in POTA Special Case No. 2 of 2003, prays for being released on bail.4. The appellant is a resident of village Borivali, Post - Padgha, Taluka - Bhiwandi, District - Thane and he was initially shown wanted in C.R. No. 25 of 2003 registered with the Padgha Police Station on 27/3/2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 225, 341, 353 and 355 of I.P.C. This complaint pertains to the alleged incident of obstruction put up by the villagers of Borivali to the Padgha police and the police officials of DCB - CID, Mumbai on 27/3/2003, when a heavy police ...

Ashok Bhumanna Chepurvar Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Secretar ...

Court: Mumbai

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself.2. The Petitioner claims to be a trader, being a commission agent. He has a shop in the market yard of the Respondent No. 5 Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti, Basmat. The term of the market committee expired some time in November, 2006, however, the same was extended up to 30th September, 2008 by the appropriate Authority vide order dated 23rd March, 2007, 14th November, 2007 and lastly on 25th May, 2008. Admittedly, there is no further extension to the committee after 30th September, 2008. Nevertheless, the same committee continued to manage the affairs of the Respondent No. 5 committee. It is stated that the committee published a list of 327 members who were either traders or commission agents or shop keepers in B class during the year 20052006. This list was published...