Gujarat Court March 1991 Judgments
Sumitraben Ramujilal Vyas Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-1991
Reported in: 1991(33)ECC264; 1991(56)ELT507(Guj)
Ravani, J.1. Petitioners challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, on March 16, 1974, which has been confirmed by the Gold Control Administrator on Gold Control Appeal and also by the Government of India in revision. 2. Officers of the Income-tax Department had searched the residential premises of petitioner No. 1 - Smt. S. R. Vyas and had also searched the locker in the Central Bank of India jointly operated by petitioners No. 1 and 2. The search was carried on from July 29 to July 31, 1972. In the search, gold weighing 8662.300 gms. was recovered. Out of this, gold ornaments weighing 536.00 gms. were returned on the spot and rest of the gold and gold ornaments, i.e., 8126.300 gms. was seized under a Panchnama. Thereafter the said gold and gold ornaments were seized by the officers of the Central Excise Department and a regular Panchnama thereof was drawn. Statements of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 were recorded. Show...
Tag this Judgment!Mukund A. Sayani Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-1991
Reported in: 1992(58)ELT527(Guj)
Ravani, J. 1. Petitioner is manufacturing glass balls from the scrap of various glass items. The product manufactured by the petitioner was excisable and was falling under T.I. No. 23A(iv) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act as it was in force at the relevant time. The Superintendent of Central Excise, A.R. II, Division III, Ahmedabad, as per his order dated October 10, 1977, fixed the monthly duty liability of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 24,987.25 (Rupees twenty four thousand nine hundred eighty seven and paise twenty five only) for the period commencing from August 12, 1977 to August 31, 1977, September, 1977 and October, 1977. The petitioner had challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Division III, Ahmedabad by filing Special Civil Application No. 1845 of 1979 in this High Court. When the petition came up for hearing on September 13, 1979, this Court passed the following order : 'Allowed to be withdr...
Tag this Judgment!Nathalal Asharam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-25-1991
Reported in: [1992]194ITR110(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The assessee-registered firm filed its filed its return for Samvat year 2030, i.e., year ended on November 13, 1974, showing total income of Rs. 11,34,329. Admittedly, the business of the firm was closed at the end of the year. The assessee made a provision of Rs. 74,500 in the gratuity account at the close of the year for all the six employees of the firm. Before the Income-tax Officer, the assessee had claimed deduction in respect of the said amount on the ground that the provision was made on account of the retrenchment of these employees due to closure of the firm and considering their past services. The Income-tax Officer considered the said claim of the assessee under section 40A(7)(a) and (b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and held that no such deduction was allowable to the assessee. 2. In its appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it was contended by the assessee that, though the payment was described as...
Tag this Judgment!Kishanlal Meghraj Soni Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-25-1991
Reported in: 1994LC478(Gujarat); 1992(58)ELT530(Guj)
Ravani, J.1. Rule. Mr B.B. Naik waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petition is directed against the order of dismissal of the application for condonation of delay by CEGAT. The appeal was filed against the order dated August 9, 1989, passed by the Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad. The order was received by the petitioner on August 13, 1989. The appeal should have been filed on or before November 13, 1989. However, the appeal was posted on December 25, 1989 and it was received by the registry of CEGAT on December 29, 1989. Thus there was a delay of about 45 days in filing the appeal. The petitioner submitted that he was suffering from various diseases like typhoid, diabetes, etc., and also submitted medical certificate in support of the contention that in fact he was suffering from the aforesaid diseases and was advised rest for about two months. However, the Tribunal has rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner should have been vig...
Tag this Judgment!Navsari Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-25-1991
Reported in: 1992(60)ELT110(Guj)
Ravani, J.1. Petitioner mill company has been served with a show cause notice dated May 24, 1983. The show cause notice has been issued on the ground that under T.I. No. 18E, in the case of non-cellulosic spun yarn, its manufacture is complete after it is sized. Thus the duty is chargeable on weight after sizing as required under Rule 9 (as amended) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 whereas the petitioner mill company has paid the duty on its unsized weight. Therefore, the differential duty is recoverable. As indicated in the show cause notice the differential duty is of an amount of Rs. 3,11,990.40 (Rupees three lacs eleven thousand nine hundred ninety and paise forty only). The period for which the duty is demanded is between August 4, 1976 to December 31, 1976, and notice is dated May 24, 1983. 2. As regards the aforesaid factual position there is no dispute. Therefore the question is - 'whether the notice can be said to be within the prescribed period of limitation as provided unde...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gaekwar Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-24-1991
Reported in: (1991)99CTR(Guj)19; [1992]193ITR734(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, J. 1. The assessee is a public limited company and the assessment year which is relevant for the purpose of this reference is 1971-72, the year of account having ended on December 31, 1970. The assessee maintained a guest house with a mess at the factory premises in Bilimora. Bilimora is a small town with no adequate hotel facilities. The assessee was, therefore, maintaining the guest house with mess for its staff members coming from Bombay and the merchants who came to the factory premises for the purpose of business. It was stated that auditors, technicians and other employees of the assessee came from Bombay to Bilimora and these employees were provided with lodging and boarding facilities in the incurred a total expenditure of Rs. 17,687 in providing messing facilities to its employees who came to Bilimora from Bombay. The assessee claimed deduction of the said expenditure as business expenditure. The Income-tax Officer held that the said expenditure which the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rasiklal C. Nagri
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-24-1991
Reported in: (1991)98CTR(Guj)263; [1992]193ITR665(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, J. 1. The assessee is an individual and the assessment year index reference are 1968-69 to 1970-71. The assessee and his wife, Savitaben, were partners in the firm, Messrs. Pari Chimanlal Harilal. In his return of income for each of the assessment year under reference, the assessee had appended a note to the effects that interest income earned by his wife, Savitaben, from the firm of Messrs. Pari Chimanlal Harilal was not shown, relying on the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) for the assessment year 1960-61. The Income-tax Officer, while framing the income-tax assessment, included the share income which Savitaben had received from Messrs. Pari Chimanlal Harilal in the total income of the assessee in each of the years under reference. He, however, did not include the interest received by Savitaben from the said firm in the assessee's total income. After the income-tax assessments were complete, the Income-tax Officer issued notice und...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhat Silk and Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-1991
Reported in: 1991LC16(Gujarat); (1992)1GLR548
ORDERRavani, J.1. Which point of time is relevant for the purposes of levy and collection of additional duty of customs Is the rate of duty prevailing at the time when the goods enter territorial waters of India is applicable Or the rate of duty prevailing at the time of clearance of the goods from the bonded warehouse of the petitioner would be applied These are the questions which need to be examined and answered in this petition. Petitioner No. 1 is a mill company and Petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder and Manager thereof. (Hereinafter both petitioners referred to as 'the petitioner'). The petitioner is manufacturing fabrics falling under Tariff Item No. 22 of the First Schedule (as in force at the relevant time) to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. For the purpose of its business, the petitioner imported man-made filament yarn from Japan and other countries. The imported goods were subject to payment of additional duty of customs equal to excise duty, which is also popularly cal...
Tag this Judgment!Manguben and ors. Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Guj165; (1992)2GLR944
M.S. Parikh, J.1. All these appeals under S. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') arise from the judgment and awards dated 29-8-1980 of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court No. 17, Ahmedabad, in Compensation Cases Nos. I to 4 of 1979.2. Short facts of the 4 Reference cases before the learned City Civil Judge were as under:,The land under acquisition was of the village Paldi and village Shahwadi of City Taluka in the Districts of Ahmedabad. It came to be acquired for the construction of a dam (Right guide Bandh) for the development of water frontage of river Sabarmati. The notification under S. 4 of the Act was published on 2nd January, 1975. S. 6 notification came to be published on 16th October, 1975. The Land Acquisition Officer after complying with the provisions of the Act, declared his award on 15th March, 1978 awarding market rate at Rs. 7/- per sq. mtr. The claimants-appellants challenged the said award by seeking references which wer...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhat Silk and Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-1991
Reported in: 1992(57)ELT529(Guj)
A.P. Ravani, JJ.1. Which point of time is relevant for the purposes of levy and collection of additional duty of customs? Is the rate of duty prevailing at the time when the goods enter territorial waters of India is applicable? Or the rate of duty prevailing at the time of clearance of the goods from the bonded warehouse of the petitioner would be applied? These are the questions which need to be examined and answered in this petition.Petitioner No. 1 is a mill company and Petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder and Nianager thereof. (Hereinafter both petitioners referred to as 'the petitioner'). The petitioner is manufacturing fabrics falling under Tariff Item No. 22 of the First Schedule (as in force at the relevant time) to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. For the purpose of its business, the petitioner imported man-made filament yarn from Japan and other countries. The imported goods were subject to payment of additional duty of customs equal to excise duty, which is also popularly...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »