Gujarat Court September 1989 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Soma Textiles Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-1989
Reported in: 1990(26)ECC326; 1991(51)ELT225(Guj); (1990)1GLR145
Ravani J.1. The petitioner company is engaged in the business of manufacturing textiles and it is running a textile mill in the name and style of M/s. Soma Textiles. The petitioner company received two show cause notices dated November 2, 1972 and December 8, 1972. By these show cause notices the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed upon the petitioner company on the ground that cloth of sort Nos. 315 and 319 of running cloth was converted into rags and cleared by paying duty at the lower rate. The petitioner appeared before the authority concerned and submitted its explanation. After hearing the petitioner the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda passed order dated October 23, 1973 and held that the petitioner had deliberately cut the second cloth into rags with a view to evading payment of excise duty leviable thereon in as much as rags were exempted from payment of duty at the material time. The Collector further held that the petitioners h...
Shilaben Yogeshkumar Shah Vs. Shah Yogesh Kumar Vithaldas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-1989
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2474; I(1990)DMC542; (1990)1GLR58
B.S. Kapadia, J. 1. In Civil Revision Application No. 150 of 1989, my learned brother A.P. Ravani, J., by order dated 13th February, 1989 issued rule returnable on 8th March, 1989 and notice as to the hearing of interim relief was also made returnable on the same date. Mr. P.V. Nanavati appears on behalf of the respondent. Today the matter was placed before me for the purpose of hearing of the interim relief, but with the consent of both the parties, the revision application is heard on merits.2. Similarly, Mr. Nanavati states that, he has also filed a revision application against the same order and that is Civil Revision Application No. 528 of 1989. That revision application is also admitted and Miss Yagnik appears for Miss V.P. Shah, Advocate for the respondent in the said matter. Hence, both the revision applications are heard together.3. The present revision applications arise out of the order for interim alimony passed by the 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Vadodara on 28th December, 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›