Mumbai Court February 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.
Abdul Rajak Haji Mohammed Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1986
Reported in: 1986CriLJ2018
ORDERD.N. Mehta, J.1. This writ petition involves an interesting question whether a person summoned under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act can claim the right to have his advocate present during the course of his interrogation by the Officers of the Enforcement Directorate.2. The Petitioner in this Criminal Writ Petition Abdul Rajak Haji Mohammed was summoned by the Officers of the Enforcement Directorate under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (Act 46 of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as 'the F.E.R.A.'). The brief facts are that on 29-6-1985, the residential and office premises of the petitioner Abdul Rajak Haji Mohammod were searched by the Enforcement Directorate as also by the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. In the course of the search certain incriminating documents were recovered from the office premises and an amount of 450 Hongkong Dollars was seized from his residence.On 30-6-1985 one Mohammed Isaq Kapadia, the Market...
Zuari Agro Chemicals Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1986
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC648Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Zuari Agro Chemicals Limited filed a revision application dated 12-9-1978 under old Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and this has been transferred to the Tribunal in terms of Section 35-P and is to be treated as an appeal before us. The appellants pray for setting aside the demand for Rs. 7,92,405.77 raised by the Assistant Collector of 'Central Excise, Goa, for availing of proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The learned Advocate for the appellants stated that the appellants were manufacturing fertilisers under the brand name 'Sampurna' in which they were using1 imported Muriate of Potash as raw material. The import of Muriate of Potash was canalised through M/s. Indian Potash Limited, and they were selling the same to all consumers including the appellants at the pooled price. The pooled price did not give particulars of the countervailing duty paid by M/s. Indian Potash Limited on Muriate of Potash. Towards the end of 1975-7...
Andrew Pereira Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1986
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC806Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revision Application dated 4-5-1982 of Shri Andrew Pereira to the Government of India under old Section 13.1 of the Customs Act has been transferred to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 131-B ibid and is to be treated as an appeal before the Tribunal.2. The appeal was argued by Miss S.D. Kolhe, Advocate who explained" that the appellant was working as a fireman with the BPT and on the day in question viz. 19-3-1961 he was posted at Peerpav area. The Customs made a seizure of Rs. 18,300/- and 400 U.S. Dollars from him on that day and also seized some foreign goods from the crew member Shri Sherzada on the ship M.T. Gambhira. The appellant was prosecuted for the offence of attempted export of Indian and foreign currency. But he was acquitted from the charge of attempted export by the Magistrate.Miss Kolhe drew our attention to para 9 in particular of the Magistrate's order. Relying on the Magistrate's finding she submitted that the act of the appellant did not amount to an att...
Jayantilal R. Patel Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1986
Reported in: (1986)(25)ELT696Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri Jayantilal R. Patel has filed a Revision Petition dated 22-7-80 to the Govt. of India under old Section 131 of the Customs Act which has been transferred to this Tribunal in terms of Section 131B ibid and it is to be treated as an appeal before us.2. During the course of the oral submissions made by the learned advocate Shri J.R. Gagrat with Shri H.G. Mehta, the learned advocate stated that two main issues were involved in the present appeal. The first question was whether the Customs were right in invoking Section 123 of the Customs Act with relation to the rough diamonds under confiscation in appeal and secondly the explanation offered by the appellant regarding the legal import was not such as would pass through the test of probability. Referring to the facts of the case, the advocate stated that on 1.0-8-77, the officers of the Directorate of Enforcement searched the business premises of M/s. Mahendra Jewellers, Mukund Jewellers and associates situated at Prem Kutir, Churc...
Colour Chem Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1986
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC1225Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revision Application filed before the Government of India against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No/ S/49-146/78 Drawback dated 18.4.78 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal lie in a small compass. The appellants M/s. Colour Chem Ltd. exported certain dyestuff and claimed drawback under shipping bill No. 28197 dated 28.4.76. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Drawback rejected the claim as inadmissible on the ground that the appellants by their letter dated 30.12.77 stated that the consignment under reference has not come back to India and has been reported lost abroad and therefore the claim for drawback was inadmissible. On appeal, the Appellate Collector rejected the claim by holding that the goods were only loaded on the ship and as those goods were not landed at the port of destination and that there was also no evidence to show tha...
Hes Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1986
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC320Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The revision application filed before the Government of India against the Order No. 541 dated 23.11.1981 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are: The appellants M/s. HES Ltd., are the manufacturer of Alarm Time pieces and Lever Clock Movements etc. They were registered with the DGTD for manufacture of Analogue Quartz Clocks. They placed two orders with the Swiss suppliers for 5,000 sets and 22,000 sets of I.C. and Quartz required for their Quartz Clocks to be supplied in August and September, 1980. The foreign suppliers despatched by air freight five thousand sets of Integrated Circuits and Quartz. In the meantime on 3rd July, 1980 by a Public Notice No. 25-ITC(PN)/80 the Integrated Circuits and Quartz Crystals came to be canalised. When the appellants sought clearance of 7,000 sets of Integrated Circuits and Quartz, the same was objecte...
Shri Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1986
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC1121Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd., have filed the present appeal to the Tribunal against the Order No. V-2(23C)1063/80 dated 7-2-83 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay. Under the aforesaid order, the Collector confirmed the Order No. V.23C/18-130/79/1193 dated 27-2-1980 passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Division III, Ahrnedabad rejecting the appellant's claim for refund of duty amounting to Rs. 28,903.17 paid in excess during the period 1-12-1978 to 30-12-1978.2. The facts of the case are that due to slump in the international market in the prices of fibre imported for the manufacture of Asbestos cement products produced by the appellants and classifiable under Tariff Item 23C of the Central Excise Tariff, the appellants wrote a letter dated 18-10-1978 to the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, Division III intimating him of the change in prices of the fibre and stating that since the products of the manufacturer were being supplied to th...
Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. (P.) Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1986
Reported in: (1986)18ITD1(Mum.)
1. These three appeals by the assessee relating to the assessment years 1978-79 to 1980-81 are directed against the common order dated 20-7-1983 of the Commissioner passed in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The assessee-company was carrying on business of construction of buildings and other civil construction works. In the original assessments, the ITO had allowed investment allowance and had also treated the assessee-company as an 'industrial company' within the meaning of the relevant Finance Act and had applied the rate of tax at 60 per cent, which was prescribed for and applicable to 'industrial company' as against the rate of tax at 65 per cent prescribed for those companies, which were not industrial companies. In his order under Section 263, the Commissioner held that the findings of the ITO that the assessee-company was an industrial company and further that the assessee-company was entitled to investment allowance were erroneous a...
Sardar Mohan Singh Ahluwalia (Since Deceased) Through His Wife Vs. Mai ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR57
S.M. Daud, J.1. This is a petition taking exception to the passing and confirmation of an award pursuant to the raising of a dispute under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.2. Points arising for determination in this petition have to be considered in the light of the following :---Respondent No. 1- hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Society' a Tenant Co-partnership Co-operative Housing Society was registered under the Act. It is the owner, manager and controller of a block of flats forming part of what is known as Building No. 'F'. The Society's ancestry goes back to what is known as 'Maitri' Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.' That Society had two Schemes, one at Chembur Bombay 400 071, and the other at Chembur-400 074. The said Society constructed buildings in both the Schemes. Respondent No. 2 hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Member' was a member of the original society in Scheme No 1. As such member, she was ...
Shri Jayantilal R. Patel Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1986
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC1216Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri Jayantilal R. Patel has filed a Revision Petition dated 22.7.1980 to the Govt. of India under old Section 131 of the Customs Act which has been transferred to this Tribunal in terms of Section 131B ibid and it is to be treated as an appeal before us.2. During the course of the oral submissions made by the learned advocate Shri J.R. Gagrat with Shri H.G. Mehta the learned advocate stated that two main issues were involved in the present appeal. The first question was whether the Customs were right in invoking Section 123 of the Customs Act with relation to the rough diamonds under confiscation in appeal and secondly the explanation offered by the appellant regarding the legal import was not such as would pass through the test of probability. Referring to the facts of the case, the advocate stated that on 10.8.1977, the officers of the Directorate of Enforcement searched the business premises of M/s. Mahendra Jewellers, Mukund Jewellers and associates situated at Prem Kutir, Chu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »