Mumbai Court January 1985 Judgments
National Leather Cloth Mfg. Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1985
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC84Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revision Application filed before the Government of India against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No. S/49-1488/81 M, dated 16-10-1981 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal. The National Leather Cloth Mfg. Co. imported 60,000 kgs. of PVC Resin Solvic. They filed B/E for home consumption. Originally, the duty assessed was Rs. 2,29,186.10. They deposited this amount on 25-3-1980. When they went to take delivery of the consignment they were told that there had been less assessment and were asked to file a revised B/E and accordingly, they filed a revised B/E on 27th March, 1980 and paid the duty of Rs. 25,600.58 on 28th March, 1980. Thereafter, there was Customs examination of the goods and the examination disclosed shortage of 9610 kgs. of PVC Resin Solvic.3. On 26th September, 1980, they claimed refund of Customs duty on the short delivered quantity. Their application for refund of duty was re...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1985
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC537Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The revision application filed before the Government of India against order-in-appeal bearing No. S/49-1702/81M, dated 5-11-1981 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay, statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.2. The appellant's claim for refund of duty on short landed goods was rejected by the Assistant Collector as well as by the Appellate Collector as barred by time, in that, the refund application was made after expiry of 6 months from the date of payment of duty.3. When this appeal was taken up for consideration none appeared for the appellants.4. Shri Gidwani for the Respondent Collector reiterated his contentions urged in Appeal No. 165/80 - Star Textile Engg. Works Ltd. v. Collector of Customs 1985 (22) ELT 552 (Tribunal). In addition he contended that the ratio of that decision cannot be applied to the present case. He urged that in the Star Textile's case short landing had been established but in the present case short landin...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Gajria Electrical Industries Co.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1985
Reported in: (1985)13ITD318(Mum.)
1. The appeals [IT Appeal Nos. 5005 to 5007] are by the department. The assessee in this case is a private limited company, Gajria Electrical Industries Co. (P.) Ltd. Appeals [IT Appeals Nos. 1739 to 1743] are by an assessee, Neelam Traders, a firm consisting of three partners. All these appeals are consolidated and disposed of by this common order.2. Gajria Electrical Industries Co. (P.) Ltd. has 22 shareholders. One thing common to all the shareholders is that they are closely related to the director, Shri Hiranand Gajria. The assessee has income from commission business and property. The latter consists of rent received from a property known as 'Mistry Bhavan', situated in Dinshaw Wachha Road, Bombay.3. The company purchased this property in May 1972. The rent received of Rs. 5,31,007 included rent received from three firms Latesh Kumar & Co. of Rs. 39,794, Chandra Trading Co. Rs. 24,000 and Neelam Traders Rs. 27,832. Part of the premises allegedly let out to the above firms ha...
Tag this Judgment!Second Income-tax Officer Vs. Bisleri (i) (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1985
Reported in: (1985)12ITD116(Mum.)
1. The only ground in this appeal by the department relating to the assessment of the assessee, a company, for the assessment year 1980-81 is: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the sales tax penalty of Rs. 62,284 constituted an admissible deduction in the computation of the assessee's total income.The amount, in dispute, comprises of Rs. 58,400, being penalty imposed and paid under Section 36(2)(c) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and Rs. 3,884 being also penalty imposed and paid under Section 36(3). The Commissioner (Appeals) has, following certain orders of the Tribunal mentioned by him in his order, held that the entire amount of penalty, i.e., Rs. 62,284, is allowable as deduction.2. At the time of hearing, the Bench was confronted with conflicting views taken by different Benches of the Tribunal on the subject.Reference was made to the President for constituting a Special Bench for resolving th...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi and ors. Vs. Savanta Bapu Mali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom169; 1988(4)BomCR278; (1985)87BOMLR159
ORDER1. The respondent in this petition filed a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 1 of 1982, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Tasgaon, praying, among other things, for a perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners, who were the defendants in that suit, from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit lands as a tenant. Obviously the suit was abased upon the threatened interference with the right of the plaintiff to the possession of the suit lands. Some history of the litigation between the parties has been given to me. It is the allegation of the petitioners that though the respondent was originally a tenant of the suit loans, prior to the tillers day the possession of the same has been handed over to the petitioners under a valid order of surrender made by the Tahsildar. The case of the respondent, however, was that that surrender was a sham and bogus one, not to be acted upon. Despite that surrender, the respondent contended, he continued to be in ...
Tag this Judgment!Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. Vs. V.B. Dharurkar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1985
Reported in: (1987)ILLJ366Bom
1. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and having a factory at Pune. The first respondent is a Member of the Industrial Court who has passed the impugned order. The second and the third respondents are two registered trade unions. All the material which is on record shows that the third respondent is a union, being in existence for over at least a decade, whereas the second respondent-union is organising the workmen of the petitioner company newly in the area.2. The second respondent-union filed a complaint, being (ULP) No. 611 of 1983 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, charging the petitioner with commission of unfair labour practices. In those proceedings, an application being Ex. U-17, was filed on behalf of the second respondent for interim reliefs. The interim reliefs claimed by the second respondent are as follows :-'Hence it is prayed that during the pendency...
Tag this Judgment!Khadi and Village Industries' Commission Vs. B. Satyanarayana
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1985
Reported in: (1985)87BOMLR182; (1995)IIILLJ481Bom; 1985MhLJ390
Jahagirdar, J. 1. The petitioner is the Chief Executive Officer of the Khadi and Village Industries' Commission, having its office at Vile Parle, a suburb of Bombay. If the Payment of Wages Act is applicable to the establishment of the Commission, he would be a person responsible for the payment of wages within the meaning of that Act. The respondent is an employee in the said establishment.2. The respondent filed an application under the Payment of Wages Act contending that the petitioner has deducted from his salary certain amounts and that the said deduction is in contravention of Section 7 of the said Act. He, therefore, prayed in that application, numbered as P.W.A. 307 of 1983, for a direction for the payment of wages illegally deducted from his salary by the petitioner. Among the grounds on which the petitioner resisted the claim of the respondent was that the Payment of Wages Act itself is not applicable to the establishment of the petitioner and, therefore, an application unde...
Tag this Judgment!First Income-tax Officer Vs. Garware Wall Ropes Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1985
Reported in: (1985)13ITD331(Mum.)
1. The first effective ground in this appeal by the department relating to the assessment of the assessee, a company, for the assessment year 1979-80 is: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have rejected the assessee's claim regarding extra shift allowance instead of setting aside the assessment on this issue without any valid basis.2. It is common ground that the assessee-company took over the business of manufacture of synthetic ropes and twines from Garware Filament Corpn. (P.) Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 22,49,100 on 1-10-1977 which happened to be the first day of the assessee's previous year for the assessment year 1979-80. The capacity of this unit was only 400 metric tons. With a view to expand its manufacturing activity, the assessee applied for and received a licence to set up a new manufacturing unit of 2,000 metric tons on 15-9-1977. It is also common ground that the plant and machinery for the new unit themsel...
Tag this Judgment!Kalidas S/O. Durgaji Shinde Vs. Parwatibai W/O. Kalidas Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)BomCR515
M.S. Deshpande, J.1. This revision application by the husband is directed against the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Parbhani, reversing the dismissal of the respondent's application for maintenance and awarding Rs. 50/- per month as maintenance to her.2. The respondent's case was that she was married to the petitioner about six years ago and resided with him for about 15 months, but he treated her with cruelty and drove her out of the house thus requiring her to reside with her brother. Several attempts to bring about reconciliation failed. The petitioner thereafter filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and obtained a decree against, though he never desired to take her to his house. He thus refused and neglected to maintain her. Contending that she was unable to maintain herself, while the petitioner had sufficient means to maintain her, she sought a direction against the petitioner for paying Rs. 250/- per month as maintenance. The petitioner resisted the applicati...
Tag this Judgment!East India Hotels Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1985
Reported in: (1985)87BOMLR90; 1985MhLJ137
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The interesting question that arises in this writ petition is this: Is the proprietor of a discotheque liable to pay duty under the provisions of the Bombay Entertainment Duty Act, 1923?2. The petitioners own a hotel in Bombay known as 'Oberoi Towers'. Since 1975 they conduct in the hotel a club called 'The Cellar'. The club is a discotheque where music is piped and a dance floor is provided for those who wish to dance. There is seating accommodation and drinks and snacks can be purchased. The music is suitable for what is described as modern dancing. Entrance to the club is restricted to its members and their guests and to the residents of the hotel.3. By a letter dated November 3, 1977 the 2nd respondent, the Deputy Collector of Bombay, called upon the petitioners to show cause why action should not be taken against them for contravening the Bombay Entertainment Duty Act,. 1923 now called 'the Act'). The letter stated that the petitioners were conducting a 'progra...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »