Mumbai Court October 1986 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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Orkay Polyester
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1986
Reported in: (1988)(15)LC162Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order No.V-56B(30)l13/TC/83 dated 24-3-1986 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are:- 2. M/s Orkay Polyester, proprietors, Orkay Silk Mills, MIDC, Raigad (for short M/s Orkay) are the manufacturers of polyester filament yarn falling under Tariff item No. 1811(i)(a). By their application dated 22-3-1982 they sought permission to work under Rule 56B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short 'The Rules'). The Assistant Collector of Central Excise Division XIII, Kalyan by his letter dated 17-5-1982 permitted M/s Orkay to send the polyester filament yarn (POY) for draw texturisation to the following parties:- (5) M/s Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd., Bombay, subject to the following conditions: (1) should maintain detailed accounts of goods sent for draw textur-ising and for such goods received back to the factory of origin; (2) duty on such goods shall ...
Bhanabhai Khalpabhai Patel and Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1986
Reported in: (1987)(28)ELT489Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals arise out of a common order in two appeals bearing numbers 2100 and 2101 of 1980, dated 24-11-1980 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs.2. As these appeals though heard on different dates, as they involve common questions of law and facts, they are clubbed together and hence this common order.3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals may be stated as under : (a) Shri P.D. Zala, Company Commander, S.R.P. on 30-1-69 was proceeding in a jeep along with some police constables to catch smugglers in foodgrains who was smuggling foodgrains to Vapi from Daman or Gujarat. While he was so proceeding he saw a truck coming without light. He ordered the truck to stop. On questioning the driver of the truck, he revealed that the truck belonged to Appellant J.L. Sharma and the truck was being taken to Ahmedabad after unloading the goods at Harji. Among other things the driver informed that his master had instructed that he should take the truck ...
Smt. V.P. Kunhi Ayichu Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1986
Reported in: (1986)(26)ELT1021Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal No. CO(T)(BOM)300/80 is the original Revision Application dated 14.5.1980 filed under old Section 131 of the Customs Act while the appeal No. CD(T)(BOM) 523/81 covers another similar application dated 1.7.1981 on behalf of the same appellant. These applications have been transferred to the Tribunal in terms of Section 131 B of the Customs Act and have to be treated as appeal before the Tribunal. Since both these appeals were filed on behalf of the same appellant and have been handled by the same advocate, they were clubbed together for hearing and disposal at the request of the advocate.2. The appeal No. 300/80 Is against the Board's Order No. 391-92 of 1979 under F.No. 191/253/76/CXXVA/A.U.(B)/ F.No. 191/62/79A.U.(B) dated 3.12.1979 under which the Board rejected two appeals dated May 1976 and dated 1.5.79 preferred by Smt. V.P. Kunhi Ayichu as time barred under Section 128 of the Customs Act. These two appeals were filed against the same1 Order No. 32/1974/Cbllr. dated...
Dhrupad Bhagwan Sawale and anr. Vs. Collector, District Buldana
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR531; 1986MhLJ996
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard parties by consent. The sole point for consideration in this matter is whether notices of motion of no-confidence dated 25-9-1986 issued against the President and Vice-President of the Zilla Parishad, Buldana (Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2) issued under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads Presiding Authorities (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1962 (the Rules) framed under section 274(2)(x) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (the Act) are valid for want of grounds in the motions. One of the motions reads :'Since Shri Dhrupadrao Bhagwan Saole has lost our confidence, we are proposing motion of no confidence against him.'The other is similarly worded. The point is no more res integra. It is covered by our decision in Ganeshsinha Domansinha Hajari v. Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and others, 1963 Mh.L.J. 569 followed in Shaligram v. Collector, Writ Petition No. 2476 of 1981 decided on 14/15-12-1981. Matter is...
Joseph Alme'da and Anr. Vs. Krishnanath Harayan and Ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR731
G.F. Couto, J.1. Generosity, kindness of heart and charity not always sow the seeds of goodwill and gratitude and not so seldom as desired but more often than expected, brook ingratitude and bring up the base sentiments in a human being. These thoughts come to mind as here is an eloquent and unfortunate example of it, a case where a fine humanitarian Act, dictated perhaps by those noble teachings to give shelter to those who have no roof under which to live or to give food to those who are hungry, is answered by utmost ingratitude. The petitioners indeed having given shelter to respondent No. 1 and his family in their hour of need, find now themselves in a strange situation of being deprived, due to the acts of the latter, of their ancestral house. The old story of the camel and the kind hearted Arab, who is driven out of his tent, is thus repeated. The petitioners, therefore, approached this Court with this writ petition seeking redress to their grievance.2. The petitioners hail from ...
Rapidur (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1986
Reported in: 1987(11)LC236(Bombay); [1985]59STC165a(Bom)
Dr. Couto, J.1. Petitioners, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, challenge in these Writ Petitions the Assessment Orders passed by the second respondent, Sales Tax Officer, Panaji on 26th June, 1986 and 30th December, 1985 in respect of the assessment years ending on 31st December, 1981, 31st December, 1982, 31st December, 1983 and 31st December, 1984 as well as the Notice of Demand dated 30th December, 1985, and further seek the refund of the Central Sales Tax allegedly levied and collected from them without the authority of law in the said assessment years. The issues raised are basically the same and hence, this common judgment.2. We may state the relevant and undisputed facts.Section 10(1) of the Goa, Daman & Diu Sales Tax Act, 1964, for short the Goa Sales Tax Act, provides that no tax shall be payable under the said Act on the sale of the goods specified in the second schedule subject to the conditions and exceptions set out therein. In exercise of the powers unde...
Rapidur (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1986
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR411; 1987(27)ELT222(Bom); [1987]65STC400(Bom)
Dr. Couto, J.1. Petitioners, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, challenge in these writ petitions the assessment orders passed by the second respondent, Sales Tax Officer, Panaji, on 26th June, 1985 and 30th December, 1985, in respect of the assessment years ending on 31st December, 1981, 31st December, 1982, 31st December, 1983 and 31st December, 1984, as well as the notice of demand dated 30th December, 1985, and further seek the refund of the Central sales tax allegedly levied and collected from them without the authority of law in the said assessment years. The issues raised are basically the same and hence, this common judgment.2. We may state the relevant and undisputed facts.Section 10(1) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Sales Tax Act, 1964, for short the Goa Sales Tax Act, provides that no tax shall be payable under the said Act on the sale of the goods specified in the Second Schedule subject to the conditions and exceptions set out therein. In exercise of the powers...
First Income-tax Officer Vs. Caltex Oil Refining (i) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1986
Reported in: (1987)20ITD706(Mum.)
1. These appeals by the revenue pertain to assessments for the years 1977-78 and 1978-79. They arise out of separate orders of the first appellate authority, but some issues are common. Indeed, the order passed in the year 1977-78 has been followed in the appeal for the assessment year 1978-79.2. We will first of all deal with the appeal for the assessment year 1977-78. The substantial dispute is in regard to inclusion of Rs. 10,62,970 in the income. The first ground raised by the revenue is to object to the deletion made by the Commissioner (Appeals). The facts are in the following way : 3. Caltex Petroleum Corpn. (CPC) is a company incorporated in the United States of America. Caltex (India) Ltd. (CIL) is a subsidiary of CPC incorporated in the Bahamas Islands. CIL was carrying on through its undertaking in India the business of marketing and distributing petroleum products. Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd (CORIL) was an Indian company, the equity shareholdings of which were fully h...
Swami Ratanbabu Son of Bijanna Banne Vs. Wamanrako Shankarrao Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR98
M.S. Deshpande, J1. The challenge by the petitioner-tenant to the order granting permission to the landlord to give a notice determining the lease under Clause 13(3)(i) and 13(3)(ii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short the Rent Control Order) is two-fold. It is firstly on merits, inasmuch as it is urged that there was an arrangement or a practice of paying rent whenever demanded by the landlord and, therefore, there was no default and secondly, on the constitutional validity of Clause 13(3)(ii) on the ground that the provision is vague and uncertain and does not provide adequate guidelines to the authority, who is to discharge the duties of applying the provisions.2. The respondent-landlord sought permission of the Rent Controller for determining the lease of the petitioner who occupied shop premises admeasuring 10 X 12 feet, situated on Nazul Plot No. 14, Sheet No. 38-C at Akola at Rs. 80/- per month on the ground that the petitioner was in ...
Shri Dudhganga - Vedganga Vs. Collectors of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1986
Reported in: (1988)LC252Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These appeals arise out of and are directed against the order Nos.v. 15CC(30)191/TB/83, dated 4.1.84, v. 15CC(30)43/TB84/880, dated 15.2.85, v. 15CC(30)65/TB/Abad/83, dated 21.2.85, v.15CC(30)63/TB/A' bad/83, dated 21.2.85, v. 15CC(30)64/ TB/A'bad/85, dated 21.2.85, v.15CC(30)187/TB/83/273, dated 29.5.84, v. 15CC(30)86/TB/471, dated 13.6.84, v.15CC(30)199/TB/84, dated 30.6.84, v.15CC(30)108/TB/391, dated 9.8.84, v.15CC(30)55/TB/83/2578, dated 18.10.84, V.15(30)56/TB/84/343, dated 3.12.84, V. 15CC(30)184/TB/83, dated 26.2.85, V. 15CC(30)185/TB/2463, dated 27.2.85, M.410/AUR.44/85, dated 26.7.85, V.15CC(30)185/TB/83/2463, dated 21.2.85, V.15CC(30)63/ TB/A'bad/83, dated 21.2.85, and V.15CC(30)64/TB/A'bad/83, dated 21.2.85 respectively. The three cross-objections are by the Department. They are not cross objections in the real sense. In fact, they are briefs probably intended to be furnished to the Department Representative to effectively put forward Department's case. In none of the c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »