Mumbai Court July 1983 Judgments
Associated Chemicals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC2065DTri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Associated Chemicals has filed an appeal against the Order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay vide Order No. V-2(15-A) 2069/79/2427 dated 25-3-82 and released on 17-4-82. The appeal was filed on the 25th day of November, 1983 as per registry. In column 3 of the Memorandum of appeal, the date of communication of the order appealed against has been mentioned as 21st April, 1982. The appeal was posted for hearing on the 25-2-1983. Shri S.V. Pikale, the Learned Counsel for the appellant has requested for adjournment and accordingly the appeal was adjourned to 25-2-83. An application for condonation of delay was also filed requesting to condone the delay of one month and eight days. The Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had entrusted the matter to his Customs Consultant one Shri A.S. Wagh for preparation of appeal and submission thereof. The said consultant was not definite about the authority before whom the appeal was to b...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Hedavkar Mechanical Works (P.)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1983
Reported in: (1983)6ITD141(Mum.)
1. These three appeals filed by the department relate to the same assessee. Hence, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee is a limited company. The only common ground in these three appeals relates to the question as to whether the assessee can be regarded as an industrial company for the purpose of being charged at the concessional rate of tax as provided under the relevant Finance Act, 1966 ('the Act').3. The assessee was incorporated on 20-12-1960 with the main object of manufacturing all kinds of machineries, implements, tools, etc. Hence, the assessee was treated as a company mainly engaged in the manufacture of goods within the meaning of the relevant Finance Act up to and including the assessment year 1977-78. However, the assessee closed its factory and stopped production with effect from 28-9-1976. It allowed its machineries to be used by another party in consideration of hire charges received by it. For the wh...
Tag this Judgment!Shantabai Keshav Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1983
Reported in: (1988)90BOMLR684
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This writ petition impugns an order passed by the Chief. Controlling Revenue Authority, Bombay, under Section 25 of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959, levying a penalty upon the petitioner.2. On October 28, 1977 one Keshav Balkrishna Joshi died at Bombay. The petitioner is his widow. The late Keshav left a will dated April 15, 1970 where-under the petitioner is the universal legatee. On November 16, 1978 the petitioner filed in this Court a petition for letters of administration, with the will annexed, of the estate of the late Keshav. The estate was shown to include an immovable property at Shivaji Park, Bombay. The petitioner valued the immovable property at Rs. 60,289.00. The valuation was based upon the report of Messrs. Vinayak K. Tharthare and partners, Architects. The total estate was valued at Rs. 65,118.23 and Rs. 2,536.00 was paid as court-fee thereon. On May 7, 1980 letters of administration, with the will annexed, were granted to the petitioner.3. On Octob...
Tag this Judgment!Shakti Samanta Vs. Fourth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1983
Reported in: (1983)5ITD713(Mum.)
1. The assessee has made this miscellaneous application under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and thereby requested the Tribunal to rectify its order dated 31-8-1982 in IT Appeal No. 1002 (Bom.) of 1981, as mistake apparent, from the record is there in view of the following : (a) that at the time of arguments, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 481 was cited, but the Tribunal, in deciding the appeal, has failed to consider this decision; (b) that each territory specified in the Table in the said Rule 9A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, is a unit as a whole and the statutory rule did not permit any bifurcation thereof ; (c) that if the picture is released in any part of the territory mentioned in the Table, the distribution in the said territory should be treated as complete and, therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error of law inasmuch as that territory 'K' mentioned in the said Table is bifurcated ;...
Tag this Judgment!i.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1983
Reported in: 1989(20)LC241(Bombay); 1993(64)ELT202(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. To accept the respondents' contention in this petition would be to hold that an Exemption Notification issued under Rule 4 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, can create the liability to pay higher, not lesser, excise duty.2. The Exemption Notification in question is dated 1st March 1979. It was issued by the 1st respondent in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 8. The 1st respondent thereby exempted cigarettes of the description specified in the first column of the table thereof from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon, both under the Central Excise Act and the Additional Duties of Excise Act, as was in excess of the duty specified in the corresponding entry in the second column of the table. There was a proviso which followed the table which is most relevant here. It read :'Provided that (i) if it is proved to the satisfaction of an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Collector of Central Excise that any cigarettes have been manufactured whol...
Tag this Judgment!Venkat S/O Niloba Kabade Vs. Kishan S/O Dadarao Dhumal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR74; 1983MhLJ1105
D.B. Deshpande, J.1. In a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-petitioner for declaration of his ownership and for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit-property including one godown which is in a portion of the suit-property the trial Court passed the following order below Exh. 51 in Regular Civil Suit No. 328/81 on its file and the order is as follows :---'The application of plaintiff Exh. 51 is allowed. By issuing mandatory injunction the plaintiff be restored with possession of disputed godown on the ground floor of the suit-house.....'I have reproduced the portion relevant for our purpose. This order was passed on 8th October, 1982. Thereafter, the plaintiff gave another application (Exh. 67) in the trial Court on 14th February, 1983. By this application the plaintiff prayed that process be kindly issued to execute the mandatory injunction through the bailiff of the Honourable Court directing the bailiff to deliver vacant possession of the godown to t...
Tag this Judgment!Lawrence Kannandas Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1819
Sharad Manohar, J.1. Order of conviction and sentence of the present appellant who will be referred to hereafter as 'the accused' under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Penal Code is the subject-matter of the challenge in this appeal by the accused.Since I find no other alternative but to allow the appeal and to pass an order of acquittal, it is necessary for me to state the case of the prosecution and the state of the evidence led by it in some details.I will first state the prosecution case which has been accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Pune I will thereafter refer to the nature of the evidence led by the prosecution and thereafter I will indicate the part of the prosecution story which can be said to have been established beyond any doubt. This would facilitate the appreciation of the conclusion that any Court must arrive at, namely, that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish any of the material facts which it must prove before it can make a legitimate ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Petroleum Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1813DTri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. filed a petition dated 23.7.1980 to the Government under old Section 131 of the Customs Act and this has been transferred to us and treated as an appeal under Section 131-B ibid. The appeal of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. covers six orders of the Assistant Collector of Customs as mentioned in the appeal memo which were confirmed by the Appellate Collector of Customs in his order dated 14.1.1980. A prayer has been made by the Corporation in the written memo that they have paid only one set of fee as six orders of the Assistant Collector were disposed off by a single order of the Appellate Collector. However, they are prepared to pay extra fees as may be ordered. Taking up this plea in the appeal first, we find that we have already held that in the aforesaid circumstances, only one appeal to the Tribunal should suffice and therefore there is no need for payment of the extra fees as offered by the Corporation. We refer in this behalf to...
Tag this Judgment!Swastick Lamnart Industries Pvt. Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC2069DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal under Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 filed by M/s. Swastick Laminart Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Rajkot, against the Order No. V.68/15-57/OA/82/Raj dated 31-7-82 of the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad under which the Collector has reviewed the Order No. V.68(15)-2/81/OA dated 5-1-1982 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot and under which the Collector had directed the present appellants to pay duty of Rs. 1,27,811.64, under Rule 56-A(5)(i) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as the Collector held that the appellants wrongly utilised credit of this amount in paying duty of Central Excise on plastic laminated sheets manufactured by the appellants and classifiable under Item 15-A of the Central Excise Tariff. Advocate Shri Satodia has contended that the appellants had the permission to have the benefit of Rule 56-A from the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot and earlier from the previous jurisdictional officer viz. A...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Dyestuffs and Chemicals (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1983
Reported in: (1983)6ITD513(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the department against the order dated 30-11-1981 of the Commissioner (Appeals), relating to the assessment year 1978-79, the previous year of which ended on 30-9-1977.2. The assessee is a private limited company deriving income from resale of dyestuffs and chemicals, etc., for earning commission. During the previous year under consideration, the assessee sold some goods for and on behalf of Plastic Resins and Chemicals Ltd. In accordance with an agreement which was in force since September 1973, and became entitled to receive a commission of Rs. 53,982 from the said party. The assessee took credit of this amount in its books by debiting the amount to the aforesaid party. It filed the return before the ITO, accordingly. However, the assessee later came to know that Plastic Resins and Chemicals Ltd. was not at all in a position to pay any commission to the assessee. The assessee got this information from the balance sheet of Dhrangadhra Chemical Works L...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »