Mumbai Court March 1983 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.
Shri Ratilal Devabhai Navik Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1525DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 129-A of the Customs Act by Shri Ratilal Devabhai Navik against the Order No. DRI/BZU/1I0-1NV-4/81 dated 31.1.82 of the Addl. Collector of Customs, Bombay imposing on him a penalty of Rs. 20,00j/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1 62, The appellant's Advocate has argued that there was no evidence with the Addl. Collector of Customs to link up Shri R.D. Navik with 500 tolas of gold seized on 25.9,81 from Shri Rajendra Hiralal Yagnik. Even when Shri .H. Yagnik had stated that some of the documents recovered from him were in the handwriting of Shri R.D Navik, no attempts has been made to confront Shri Navik with these documents and it had been wrongly presumed by the Add]. Collector that the accounts represented the sale of smuggled gold and other goods. The Advocate has stated that the penal proceedings under the Customs Act are quasi-criminal proceedings and he has relied in this behalf on the Supreme Court's judgment vide A.I.R. 1961 S.C....
Vinayak Bhagwan Shetye Vs. M/S Kismet Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1983
Reported in: [1982]135ITR49a(Bom); (1984)ILLJ203Bom
Chandurkar, J.1. The petitioner was in the employment of respondent No. 1 company as a watchman. He was charged with misconduct on the ground that at about 12.40 a.m. on 6th July, 1976, while he was working in the third shift, he along with another security guard assaulted a canteen boy after having come near the gate of Parle Beverages Private Limited factory. This misconduct, according to the employer, would fall under the Standing Orders which refer to 'drunkenness, riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour on the premises of the establishment' and 'commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the establishment'. On the ground that as a result of the enquiry the misconduct was proved, the enquiry the misconduct was proved, the petitioner was dismissed on 30th November, 1976. The Union raised an industrial dispute arising out of this dismissal of the employee and another watchman and this dispute was referred to the Labour Court. One of the grou...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Hico Products Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1475DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the Addl. Collector of Central Excise Bombay-II against the Order No. V-2115AA) 1736/79 dated 22-5-82 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. M/s. Hico Products Pvt. Ltd., Khopoli have also filed a cross objection No. 1/83 dated 17-1-83 in this case. Shri Pattekar has argued on behalf of the Addl. Collector of Central Excise Bombay-11 that both D.B.S.B. and Modified Acid Slurry are finished products commercially known to the market by their respective names. Since they are different products, the levy of duty on both, even though classifiable under Item 15-AA is correct. He has drawn our attention to Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as modified, in this behalf to sustain his contention. He has sought to rely on the ratio of the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian Vegetable Product Co. Ltd. v. Union of India as reproduced in R.K. Jain's Excise Guide, Page 64. As per this judgment, intermediate product is liable to d...
Teleflo Instrument Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1481DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal under Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 filed by M/s. Teleflo Instrument Co. Pvt. Ltd. against the order No. A-l034/B11-185/82 dated 13.10.82 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay. The Collector of Central Excise Bombay-H has filed the cross-objection in the appeal. The appellants submit that the order of the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise No. V-68(30) 72/80 dated 11.6.82 is bad as he has confirmed the demand of Rs. 15,285.76 as Central Excise duty even though this demand is time-barred under Section 11-A of the Act. Both in their written submission and oral argument the appellants have explained how the amount is time-barred.They have also argued on the merits of the case to show how a portion of this demand is not justified. However, for the sake of brevity we are not dwelling on the argument at length. The learned Advocate of the appellants has further drawn our attention to the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Ap...
Mafatlal Fine Spg. and Mfg. Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1479DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal transferred to the Tribunal under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962. The main plea put forth by the appellants in writing and orally is that their failure to make the necessary declaration that no rebate of Central Excise duty paid on fibres has been obtained under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in the Shipping Bill at the time of shipment of goods as required under Public Notice No.Drawback/PN-27/28 dated 1.6.1978 issued under Rule 4 of the Customs & Central Excise Duties Draw Back Rules, 1971 should be condoned as they have now given this declaration along with their supplementary claim and have also obtained a certificate dated 7.5.1980 from the Supdt. of Central Excise, Navsari which confirms their declaration. They have pleaded that for the technical omission to give this declaration their claim for drawback of duty on the fibre content has been rejected and this . rejection is quite harsh. The Departmental Representative has argued that this declara...
Rashtriya Chemicals and Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC501DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is a stay petition filed by M/s. Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., Bombay for the stay of recovery of duty as demanded in the Order No. V(6) 21-225/70-Pt. 111/1569 dated 19-1-80 of the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise Divn. 'N' Bombay, as modified by the order No. V-2(6) 1079/80 dated 23-12-80 of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise Bombay. Learned Advocate Shri G.R. Gagrat on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the appellants have filed a revision petition dated 19-5-81 to the Government of India under the then Section 36 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and this petition has now to be transferred to the Tribunal under Section 35-P{2) ibid and it has to be treated as an appeal filed before the Tribunal. He has, therefore, submitted that the present stay application has been properly filed with reference to that appeal. The Learned Advocate has, further, submitted that the amount of duty demanded exceeds Rs. 4 crores and the same has been ar...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr. Mahesh P. Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1983
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR606
1. The marriage is no doubt a happy event in one's life and so it was with the first respondent herein, who is a Medical Practitioner and who has settled down in United States holding a Green Card. He came to India for celebrating his own marriage and so did arrive in India his sister-in-law Smt. Datta Mehta along with her infant sometime in December 1976, Smt. Datta resides with her husband in United States and also holds a Green Card. In fact, respondent I stays with his brother. After the purpose and celebration of the marriage, respondent 1 carried with him the happy memories of the said auspicious occasion and made arrangements for his return to United States. However, along with the said memories he also carried a packet containing certain foreign exchange, which according to him, was entrusted to him by Smt. Mehta to be handed over to her husband.2. It was on 7-1-1976 that respondent 1 arrived at the Airport at Bombay with his baggage. The trained eye of the Customs Officer, how...
Stretch Fibres (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC700DTri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants filed a revision petition before the Government of India under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the common order dated 17.9.1980 passed in relation to five separate orders of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay. The dates of such orders have been given by the Appellate Collector as follows:Customs Appeal File No. Order-in-Original No. & Date__________________________________________________________________________S/49-94/78 Bond S/8-273/77-78B dt. 14.2.1978S/49-95/78 Bond S/8-333/77-78B dt. 21.2.1978S/49-I26/78 Bond S/8-163/77-78B dt. 14.2.1978S/49-127/78 Bond S/8-334/77-78B dt. 14.2.1978S/49-70/78 Bond S/8-157/77-78B t. 14.2.1978 The Revision Application has been transferred to the Tribunal as appeal under Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962 and is being heard as such.2. Hearing notice for disposal of the appeal was sent to the appellants on 2.2.1983. However, on the case being called, we find nobody appearing for the appellants nor any requ...
The Collector of Central Excise Vs. Standard Alkali Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC614DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay II against order No. V-2(14H)2404/80 dated 28.6.82 of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. M/s. Standard Alkali, (Chemical Division) of the Standard Mills Co. Ltd. have filed a cross-objection in this appeal. Sfiri N.K. Pattenkar for the appellant has submitted after detailed arguments that the Appellate Collector's order dated 28.6.82 is not correct and the order of the Assistant Collector No.V(14H)3-39/78 dated 22.9.80 is correct. He has, therefore, prayed that the Assistant Collector's order be restored. Shri Chitnis has submitted on behalf of M/s. Standard Alkali Chemicals that, the Assistant Collector in his order dated 22.9.80 has discussed Rules 9(2), 10 and 10-A with reference to the demands issued to M/s. Standard Alkali Chemicals and after rejecting the applicability of Rules 9(2) and 10, he has held that Rule 10-A is the appropriate rule and thus confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs....
Sugrabi W/O Tayabali Mohd. Singaporewala and ors. Vs. Cavas Navroji Pa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1983
Reported in: 1984(2)BomCR277
R.D. Tulpule J.1. These two petitions arise out of the suit filed by Cavas Patel and another-the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2744 of 1978, hereinafter referred to as Patel, against twelve defendants for possession of a property described as City Survey No. 307-A/4A-A on Shivaji Road in the City of Nasik. This property is also known as Municipal House No. 1370-I. In the judgment, hereinafter the property would be referred to as House No. 1370(1) in Patel Colony in which this house is situated.2. It was the plaintiff Patel's contention that this property was originally let out to Abdul Hussein Adamji Bohori and Roshanalli Badruddin Bohori by a registered lease which was to commence on 1st January, 1954. That lease was for the period of three years and would have expiry on 31st December, 1956. However, before expiry of the lease period, Roshanalli, who was co-tenant of Abdul Hussein, surrendered his rights in the lease-hold and left and vacated the premises in question. After the exp...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »