Mumbai Court April 2010 Judgments

Cello thermoware Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs (Export), Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per: P.G. Chacko 1. The appellant had exported their final product (plastic-insulated wares hot pot with stainless steel liners) in discharge of export obligation in relation to the raw materials imported earlier by them and cleared duty-free under Notification No.79/95-Cus. The raw materials are polypropylene, polyol and isocyanate, which were used in the manufacture of the plastic parts of casserole (export goods). The exports in question were made in nineteen consignments, some of them in February 1997 and others in March 1997. Investigations made by officers of the DRI, Mumbai, indicated that the appellant had inflated the net weight of polypropylene to the extent of around 35% to avail extra DEEC benefit. On the basis of such information, three containers were identified and it was found that the export goods had been examined and stuffed in these containers at the factory of the exporter under Central Excise supervision and that the shipping bills were processed at Jawahar Custom...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs. Mistair Health and Hygiene ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per: P.G. Chacko 1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the short question arising for consideration is whether the subject goods was assessable to duty of excise in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act as claimed by the assessee or in terms of Section 4A of the Act as claimed by the Revenue. The respondent was clearing baby power (50 grams) to M/s.Nestle (India) Ltd., for free distribution by the latter with their product Cerelac 400 grams. They paid duty on such clearance as per the transaction value declared by them. According to the department, the product, classifiable under SH 3304.00 and having been notified under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act should have been assessed to duty under the said provision of law. On this basis, a show-cause notice was issued for recovery of differential duty (difference between the MRP-based duty determined after abatement in terms of Section 4A and the duty paid by the assessee in terms of Section 4). The demand was contested by the...

Dharangaon Taluka Dekhrekh Sahakari Sangh Limited Through Its Chairman ...

Court: Mumbai

S.V. Gangapurwala, J.1. Heard learned Counsel Shri V.D. Hon for the petitioner, Shri S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.2. The petitioner in present Writ Petition, impugns communication dated 07/12/2009 issued by the Commissioner for Co-operation and the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, M.S., Pune addressed to District Deputy Registrar, Co operative Societies, regarding implementing Vaidyanathan Committee Report.3. The Petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and is a supervising unit concerned with the cadre of the Secretaries constituted Under Section 69-A of the Societies Act. According to the petitioner its area of operation extends to Jalgaon District. The Petitioner society has been constituted with the object of creating and maintaining the cadre of Secretaries, Managers and other paid employees of Primary agricultural credit and/or multi purpose co-operative societies and also such other c...

Ramchandra Carpet Palace Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mum ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J), We had directed the appellant to pre-deposit Rs.5,00,000/- and report compliance on 17.7.2009 vide order No. S/224/09 dated 15.5.2009. Time for pre-deposit was extended and accordingly the party was required to report compliance on 17.8.2009 vide order No. M/265/2009 dated 17.7.2009. The party again prayed for extension of time, which was granted on two occasions in the past. On 23.11.2009, when the matter arose for report of compliance, there was no representation for the appellant, nor any request for further extension of time. Consequently, by a notice dated 5.4.2010, the party was required to show cause on or before 18.4.2010 as to why the appeal should not be rejected for non-compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act. There is no response to this notice either. 2. In the result, the appeal is dismissed for want of compliance with Section 129E ibid....

Maa Krupa Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (G), Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per: P.G. Chacko, M (J) This application was filed by the appellant for issuing necessary orders for implementation of the Tribunal's order dated 14.8.2008. By the said order, this Tribunal had set aside the Commissioner's order of suspension of the CHA licence with liberty to him to institute enquiry against the CHA in accordance with law. The learned SDR submits that the licence has since been restored to the appellant by the Commissioner after necessary proceedings pursuant to the Tribunal's order and, in view of this submission of the learned SDR, we dismiss the appeal and the miscellaneous application as infructuous....

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal for assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 on 11 December 2008. The appeal is for assessment year 2002-03. The questions of law which have been formulated are as follows:a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in deleting the addition made on account of excess cash received at the cash counters of the branches in some years?b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in directing the AO to ascertain the correct date of payment of PF dues (employees' contribution) and to allow the same if the same has been made within the grace period of five days within the due date?c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in deleting the addition made on account of interest 'accrued' on Govt. securities?d) Whethe...

Bhagirath S/O Ramprasad Charkha Vs. Ramprasad S/O Chunilal, (Died) Thr ...

Court: Mumbai

P.R. Borkar, J.1. This second appeal is preferred by original Defendant No. 1 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Beed, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 151 of 1988 decided on 12.10.1990, whereby he allowed the said appeal and passed decree against present appellant Bhagirath (original defendant No. 1) to deliver possession of the suit property to Respondent Nos. 1 to 11 (original plaintiffs and legal heirs of deceased plaintiffs) on or before 13.11.1990 and also for holding enquiry into mesne profit under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. By the said judgment and decree, the learned Additional District Judge set aside the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit passed by the learned joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Beed in R.C.S. No. 227 of 1984 decided on 30.4.1988.2. Briefly stated, it is the case of Respondent Nos. 1 to 11 (Original Plaintiffs and legal heirs of deceased Plaintiffs) that the old hou...

Agricultural Produce Market Committee Through Its Secretary Vs. Vittha ...

Court: Mumbai

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This petition by the employer is directed against the order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur, allowing respondent No. 1's complaint of unfair labour practice as described in Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV to the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, 'the MRTU & PULP Act').2. Facts, which are material for deciding this petition, are as under : Respondent No. 1, who was born on 1-7-1949 and who claims to belong to Scheduled Tribe, was appointed as Peon on daily wages by the petitioner-Committee somewhere in the year 1980-81. On 12th December, 1991, he was transferred to Mandgaon. On 6-2-1995, respondent No. 1 was transferred back to Hinganghat. On 4-7-1995, he was transferred to Samudrapur.3. Since the petitioner had not regularized the services of respondent No. 1, he filed a complaint of unfair labour practice on 19-8-1992 before the Industrial Court, in which the impugned order c...

Dr. Sahil Deepak Rasane Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Its Depa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR1958

Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. Rule in all petitions where rule has not been issued.2. Considering that in all the petitions the issue is same or similar and pleadings are complete, we propose to dispose of these petitions which will also dispose of the similar issues raised in the other petitions. Considering the inconsistent stand of the State in the various affidavits filed in reply, those will also be considered while disposing of the issue that arises in these petitions.3. We find that various interim orders have been passed from time to time permitting students of the deemed universities to appear for the C.E.T. Conducted by the State Government and if they have passed the examination, then to proceed accordingly. One such order was passed on 25.11.2001 where this Court directed to declare the result of the Petitioners C.E.T. and then to process the matter accordingly.4. We may now set out a few facts which are relevant for the purpose of disposing of the controversy which arises in th...

Mahavir Jingonda Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR2227

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1990. By the said order the appellant came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 203 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- for the first charge and RI for three months and a fine of Rs. 300/- for the second charge. During the trial the appellant was on bail and on admission of this appeal on 17/12/1991 he was released on bail on the same terms as before the trial Court.2. On 15/5/1989 the marriage of the appellant was performed with Suman @ Sumati, the daughter of Jingonda and Babytai Patil, residents of Sangavade in Karvir Taluka of Kolhapur district. Suman came to reside at her matrimonial house with the appellant. On 5/6/1989 i.e. after 20 days of her marriage, early in the morning at 6 a.m., PW 10 - Manoha...