Mumbai Court July 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.
Hindustan Petroleum Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1983
Reported in: (1993)(66)ELT510Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal transferred to the Tribunal under Section 35P(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellants M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. prayed for setting aside of the orders of the lower authorities who have levied on them duty of Central Excise amounting to Rs. 17,994.03 on 17.13 K. Litres of Palex 1500 classifiable under Item 11-B of the Central Excise Tariff on the grounds that these goods were stolen from their warehouse on the night of 15/16-5-1977. In support of their prayer, they contend that these goods were stolen and in this case of theft, the duty on these goods should have been remitted in terms of Rule 147 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. They, further, submit that the action of the lower authorities to treat this case as one falling under Rule 160 and demanding duty under Rule 9(2) is not correct. In support of their contentions, they have relied on Section 23 of the Customs Act, that provisions of which are analogous to those of Rule ...
Shaparia Dock and Steel Co. Pvt. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1900DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal transferred under Section 35P(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, against the Order No. 1263/79, dated 24th November, 1979 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay rejecting the appeal to him as the appellants claim for refund of duty with the Assistant Collector was time barred, under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as then in existence. Shri P.K. Thakor, learned Advocate for the appellant, has submitted that the main point involved in the present appeal is that of limitation and consequential determination as to whether the appellants' claim for refund of duty in their letter dated 30-1-1978 to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise was barred by limitation-or not. Shri Thakor has explained that it was for the first time with effect from 1-3-1975 that Item 68 covering all goods not elsewhere specified, was included in the first Schedule to the Central Excise Act. M/s. Shaparia Dock and Steel Co.Pvt. Ltd. claimed the refund of ...
Govind Pay Oxygen Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector Central Excise, Panaji ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1983
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR14; 1987(11)ECC204; 1989(20)LC404(Bombay); 1986(23)ELT394(Bom); [1982]134ITR268a(Bom)
Ginwala, J.1. The Petitioner is a manufacturer amongst other things of Oxygen and Dissolved Acetylene gases. It sells the gases manufactured to Southern Gas Limited, which is said to be a shareholder of the petitioner's company. Southern Gas Limited is the only buyer of Oxygen and Acetylene gases manufactured by the petitioner. Admittedly, the Southern Gas Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the buyer') provides the cylinders in which these gases are delivered by the petitioner to said buyer. The petitioner had submitted the price list to the first respondent for the purpose of assessing the excise duty on these gases and this list was approved by the first respondent on 19-5-1978. In this price list the value of the cylinders in which the gases were delivered to the buyer was not included. On 25-10-1978 the first respondent wrote a letter to the petitioner referring to the petitioner's letter dated 13-10-1978 in which the petitioner had brought to the notice of the first respondent t...
Harilal Vs. Kamal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Bom483
ORDER1. A short question that arises for consideration is whether the court-fees paid by the plaintiff is proper, and the question arises in this way. The plaintiffs (non-applicants Nos. 1 to 5) filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yavatmal, for ejectment, alleging that defendant No. 1 was their tenant and that this tenancy was validly determined after obtaining the written permission of the Rent Controller, Yavatmal. It was further alleged that after filing the plaint, when the plaintiffs went home, they found that defendant No. 1 removed his articles from the premises which were in his occupation of the same. They, therefore, impleaded defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit and claimed possession.2. Defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order 11, Rule 7 of the Civil P. C. for rejection of the plant, on the ground that it was not property valued. According to him, since the possession of defendants No. 2 and 3 was alleged as unauthorised, illegal and that ...
K.K. Gupta Vs. Devkumar Aggarwal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR707
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This revision application is filed by the Assistant Director of Inspection (Intelligence), Bombay of the Income-Tax Department of the Government of India against the order passed by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court refusing to frame charge against respondent No. 1 (who will be referred to hereafter as the 'accused'). The petitioner (who will be referred to hereafter as the 'complainant') had filed Criminal Case No. 64/S of 1980, against the accused on 26-3-1980, for offence under section 277 of the Income-Tax Act 1961. For the alleged offence arising out of, more or less, the same set of facts, another Criminal Case No. 78/S of 1980, was filed by him against the accused for offence under section 191 read with section 193, Indian Penal Code on 28-3-1980. Some evidence was led by the prosecution even before the framing of the charge and after examining the said evidence and after considering the likely plea of the accused, the learned Magis...
Pramod Rajaram Chavan and ors. Vs. Agricultural Produce Market Committ ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR50
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Since all these writ petitioners involve common questions of law and facts they were heard together and are being dispose of by this common judgment.2. Petitioners in all these writ petitions were dismissed from service with effect from 1st of June, 1982 by the Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bombay. In the letter of dismissal dated 29th of May, 1982 it is alleged that the petitioners were instigating and inciting employees to go on illegal strike which had been commenced on and from 13-6-1982. That they were also on illegal strike and have been coercing employees with grave and serious consequences and thus preventing and/or obstructing them from coming back to work. It was then stated that the Agricultural Produce Market Committee was unable to hold enquires, as the situation was very tense, and witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence. These orders of dismissal were issued under Clause (b) of proviso to Rule 103 of the Mahara...
Ayodhyabai Shrivallabha Lahoti (Sau.) Vs. Sumanchand Rupchand Phulpaga ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR368
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner landlady is the owner of the building bearing House No. 138 /B, Narayan Peth, Pune. The deceased Sumanchand was the tenant of two rooms on the first floor of this building and the rent payable was Rs. 37.02 paise. The plaintiff-landlady filed a suit against original defendant-tenant on 15th January, 1974 on the ground that the defendant was in arrears of rent for more than six months and had neglected to make payment thereof within one month after the receipt of the notice under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act). Thus it was the case of the plaintiff that she was entitled to a decree under section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act. She also sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that she reasonable and bona fide required the suit premises for the occupation for her family members. Thus she claimed possession of the premises under section 13(1)(g) of the Rent Ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›