Mumbai Court October 1979 Judgments
Schanlal Kanshiram Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1979
Reported in: 1983(12)ELT742(Bom)
1. The Petitioner is an established importer and, at all material times, held an import licence which was valid uptil 30th April 1975 for the import of dates from Basra to Bombay. The Petitioner had arranged to import dates under his import licence by a country craft named 'Vishwa Mohini'. According to the Petitioner, he had taken all precautions that the said vessel should reach Basra in time where it would discharge the consignment to be discharged there, and load the consignment of dates of the Petitioner from Basra within the period of the validity of the licence, viz. 30th April 1975. According to the Petitioner, the said vessel left the shores of India and reached Basra on or about 22nd/23rd April 1975. Further according to the Petitioner, the consignment of dates was loaded of the vessel'Vishwa Mohini' at Basra on at about 29th April 1975, that is within the period of the validity of the licence, vide two telegrams dated 30th April 1975 received by him, one from the Tindal of th...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahadeo Pandharinath Dhole and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom348
Pratap, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner -- the State of Maharashtra seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 22nd July 1974 passed by the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Tribunal (hereinafter the Tribunal) in Appeal No. 3 of 1973 preferred before it by respondent No. 1 herein under Section 4 (3) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971, against the declaration dated 16th August, T973 made by the Competent Authority under which declaration the property in dispute was declared to be a slum area.2. This petition involves consideration of some of the provisions of three State enactments viz., the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as the 1966 Act; the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the 1971 Act, and the Maharashtra Slums Improve...
Tag this Judgment!Materials Handling Engg. Co. Vs. M.G. Waknis, Superintendent of Centra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1979
Reported in: 1989(22)LC474(Bombay)
Pendse, J.1. The question which falls for determination in this petition filed Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is whether the seven items manufactured by the petitioners are liable to excise duty under Tariff Item No. 40. The 7 items are (1) Metal Tube Trolley, (2) Mini Trolley, (3) Trolley Structure (frame), (4) Gas Trolley, (5) Storage Bins, (6) Stainless Steel Pump Stands and (7) Box with door.2. The petitioners M/s. Material Handling Engineering Co. is a small unit employing about 4 or 5 workers. The petitioners are manufacturing the items in their factory situated in Bombay. The Tariff Item No. 40 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act provides for levy of excise duty on steel furniture. The Item reads as under:Steel furnitures made partly or wholly of steel, in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power whether in assemble or unassembled condition and parts of such steel furniture (but excludi...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakrishna RamnaraIn Private Ltd. Vs. Chief Controller of Imports an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1979
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT182(Bom)
1. The petitioners are carrying on business of manufacturing P.V.C. leather cloth and are registered with the Plastics and Linoleums Export Promotion Council as registered exporters of the P.V.C. Leather cloth. 2. The Government of India has declared an export policy. The exporters are assured of cash assistance and replenishment import licenses for registered exporters. The petitioners who are the registered exporters, in pursuance of this policy entered into contracts with M/s. Rexmore Ltd., Liverpool, England to supply P.V.C. leather cloth in large quantity. The petitioners exported the P.V.C. leather cloth to the tune of Rs. 38,66,486.65 during the period from July 1971 to December 1971. The Government of India issued a Notification dated August 6, 1966 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') notifying that the P.V.C. leather cloth shall be subject to inspection prior to its exp...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Vs. Piramal Spinning and Weaving ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1979
Reported in: [1980]124ITR408(Bom)
Madon, J.1. By this application under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Commissioner of Income-tax, who is the petitioner, desires that this High Court should direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer to this court the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under s. 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at 20% of Rs. 18,98,413 ?' 2. The said sum of Rs. 18,98,413 was paid by the respondents to the 'Indian Cotton Mills' Federation for their Export Fund. This fund was constituted by the said Federation, inter alia, for prompting export of cotton textile products, giving incentives, monetary or otherwise, as may, in consultation with the Textile Commissioner be decided upon by the committee of the said Federation from time to time, to the manufacturers, processors and exporters of cotton textile product with a view to prompt...
Tag this Judgment!Yesho Nathu Mahajan and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom221
Pratap, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenge the validity of notifications issued under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in July 1975 and October 1975 respectively and the proposed acquisition of 1 hectare and 72 acres of land out of Gat No. 613, situated at village Vaghode Budruk, taluka Raver, District Jalgaon, for a public purpose viz., provi-of house sites for landless workers and their families and for extension of gaothan.2. On 26th July 1971, the Grampanchayat of village Vaghode Budruk passed an unanimous resolution recommending acquisition of Survey Nos. 133 and 134 for the purpose of providing house sites to houseless persons. By another resolution dated 28th July 1972, also passed unanimously, the said Grampanchayat recommended acquisition (for the same purpose) of two additional lands Survey Nos. 129/2/5 and 129/1/2/2. However, the State Government on 25th July 1975 issued notification under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iv Vs. Excel Industries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1979
Reported in: (1980)14CTR(Bom)44; [1980]122ITR995(Bom); [1979]4TAXMAN89(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is an application under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for directing the Tribunal to state a case and to refer to this court for determination the following question : 'Whether, On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the payments of Rs. 9,00,000 to the Gujarat Electricity Board towards the cost of overhead service line constituted a revenue expenditure and hence an allowable deduction ?' 2. The relevant facts, Very briefly stated, are as follows : The case relates to the assessment year 1973-74. The respondent company was incorporated in 1960 and carries on business of manufacture of chemicals. During the year of account ended September 30, 1972, relevant to the aforesaid assessment year, the respondent set up a new unit at Bhavnagar for the manufacture of phosphorus. For the purposes of manufacture of phosphorus, the respondent required for consumption a large quantity of electrical energy which it had to obt...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Ramchandra Bhuwania Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1979
Reported in: 1989(42)ELT396(Bom)
1. The petitioner is a proprietor of the firm M/s. Supreme Industries carrying on business of manufacturing machines and hand tools at Bhagalpur in the State of Bihar. The to excise duty under Tariff Item No. 40. The 7 items are (1) Metal Tube Trolley, (2) Mini Trolley, (3) Trolley Structure (frame), (4) Gas Trolley, (5) Storage Bins, (6) Stainless Steel Pump Stands and (7) Box with door. 2. The petitioners M/s Material Handling Engineering Co. is a small unit employing about 4 or 5 workers. The petitioners are manufacturing the items in their factory situated in Bombay. The Tariff Item No. 40 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act provides for levy of excise duty on steel furniture. The Item reads as under : 'Steel furnitures made partly or wholly of steel, in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power whether in assemble or unassembled condition and parts of such steel furniture (but excluding allotted angl...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Jaffar Abdul Sattar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1979
Reported in: 1983LC639D(Bombay)
M.L. Pendse, J.1. The petitioner has installed two powerlooms at 74 Byculla Station Road, Bombay, and has obtained L-4 licence under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules for manufacturing cotton fabrics on the said looms. The Central Excise Rules provide for special procedure for paying excise duty on cotton fabrics and the petitioner made necessary application under Rule 96(1) and the duty was accordingly levied. The rate of duty was fixed per quarter/per year under Notification No. 41/65 published on February 28, 1965.Friday, 5th October 19792. The Notification No. 41/65 dated February 28, 1965 fixed the rate of Installed capacity of the powerlooms on per year basis or per quarter basis and different rates were fixed for powerlooms. The rate for powerlooms not more than 4 was fixed at Rs. 16.50 per quarter and Rs. 25/- per year. The explanation to this Notification requires to be quoted in exact terms. It reads as under:Explanation: For the purpose of computing the periods, the perio...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchand Bhojraj Vs. Ex Parte: Ramchand Hoodraj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-02-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom130
ORDER1. This is a Notice of Motion taken out by the Insolvent asking for an order of annulment of his insolvency and in the alternative for an order that all the debts provable in insolvency except the debt of Canara Bank are discharged under the provisions of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, 1975, In his affidavit in support the Insolvent has stated that he was doing business in partnership till 1969. During the time that he was doing business in partnership, his income was never more than Rs. 500.00 per month. From 1969 the Insolvent was in financial difficulties and since 1970 the insolvent has not earned anything and he hag not done any work since 1970. An order of adjudication was passed against the Insolvent on 16-4-1975. The Insolvent has also stated that he has an undivided 1/4th share in an immoveable property at Khar, which share has been mortgaged for Rupees 25,000.00. He has further stated that the value of his undivided 1/4th share in the immoveable property as on 22-8-197...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »