Mumbai Court July 1986 Judgments
Collector of Customs (P) Vs. Sheth Brothers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1986
Reported in: (1986)LC665Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This application under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act is by the Collector of Customs (P), Bombay. It arises out of the order in appeal CD(T)(BOM)/329/80. The Collector by this application requires the Tribunal to refer the points set out in Annexure 'B' to the application and the points according to the Collector arises out of the order in the appeal referred to above.2. We heard Shri Senthivel as well as Shri Nankani. During the hearing Shri Senthivel was questioned regarding point number (2) in Annexure 'B'. He has to concede that no question of law has been formulated against that point. The Department had set out the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court, Collector of Customs, Madras v. D.Bhoormal (AIR 1974 SC 859). Relying upon the judgment cited above, Shri Senthivel contended that the Department has sufficiently discharged the initial burden by circumstantial evidence and there was concurrent findings of facts by the two authorities below and in the absence of eviden...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Vijay M. Merchant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD510(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the department and the cross-objection by the assessee were heard together.2. The assessee is an individual. The assessment year is 1971-72. The accounting year ended on 31-3-1971. One of the items of income was long-term capital gains on sale of shares. The shares were of two companies, viz., Bhor Industries (P.) Ltd. and Hakotronics (P.) Ltd. We are concerned with shares of Bhor Industries (P.) Ltd. The capital gain disclosed in the original return on sale of the shares of the company was Rs. 1,43,957. The computation for this amount filed with the return was as follows : Computation of capital gains on sale of investments-Bhor Industries (P.) Ltd. Capital gain 2,24,571(ii) Sale proceeds of 173 Capital loss (-)80,614 1,43,957 This computation was accepted by the ITO and the assessment was completed. It is to be seen that in this computation the cost of acquisition is taken at the price as on 1-1-1954. Before we proceed further, it is necessary to give few more fact...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Madura Coats Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD384(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 23-3-1982. The main issue for our consideration in this appeal is whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the assessee is entitled for substitution of fair market value as on 1-1-1964 in respect of shares held by it in the amalgamated company as on 1-7-1974.2. The relevant facts are that the assessee, an Indian company, is assessed as agent of an English company J.P. Coats Ltd. for the assessment year 1978-79. During the accounting year ending on 31-12-1978, the assessee sold 9,60,617 shares in Madura Coats Ltd., an Indian company, for a sum of Rs. 75,32,828. The assessee claimed before the ITO that the expenses in connection with the sale was of an amount of Rs. 96,061 so that the net sale price was Rs. 74,36,767. For the purpose of capital gains tax, the assessee claimed that the acquisition cost of those shares was Rs. 53,76,862, which he claimed on the basis of option ava...
Tag this Judgment!Firoz Haiderally Kachwalla Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC288; 1987(10)LC675(Bombay); 1987(28)ELT206(Bom)
1. The Petitioner is a partner of the partnership firm of M/s. M.A. Kachwalla & Sons and the firm deals in mirrors and glasses and also processes them. The firm regularly imports Belgium made mirrors and glasses for home consumption for processing. In the month of June, 1982, the petitioner importer four consignments out of which two consignments were of float glass and bills of entry bearing Nos. 219 and 220 were lodged on June 1, 1982. It is the claim of the petitioner that the clearance was held by the Customs for I.T.C. purpose and on June 3, 1982, the case was marked to Customs Appraiser. The Petitioner claims that though all documents were produced before the Appraiser, no action was taken to appraise the goods since the Appraiser was under transfer. According to the Petitioner, goods were examined only on July 7, 1982 and were ordered to be released on July 17, 1982 after it was found that the import was in order for I.T.C. purposes. It is the claim of the petitioners that the g...
Tag this Judgment!Ruby Mills and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC202; 1988(15)LC336(Bombay); 1986(25)ELT610(Bom)
1. By this petition filled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the legality of the order dated May 27, 1982 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Bombay, rejecting the application of refund of duty paid by the petitioners. The facts giving rise to the passing of this order are as follows.2. The petitioners imported Lucop Step and Repeat Machine and the Bill of Entry was filed on November 29, 1980. The Customs authorities assessed the goods as falling under Tariff Item No. 90.10 as stated by the petitioners and the duty was recovered. Subsequently, the petitioners become aware in June 1981 that the Collector of Customs (Appeals) has decided a matter on March 28, 1981 holding that the machine, viz. Lucop Step and Repeat Machine, is liable to be assessed under Tariff Item No. 84.35. The duty payable under tariff Item No. 90.10 was 100%, while under Tariff Item No. 84.35 was 40%. The petitioners realized, after becoming...
Tag this Judgment!Digambar Sakharm Tambolkar and anr. Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Bom297; 1987(1)BomCR43; 1987MhLJ419
Sugla, J.1. By this petition under Art. 226/ 227 of the constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the order dated 1st July, 1983 passed by the Municipal Commissioner Pune Municipal Corporation and Planning Authority (hereinafter referred toas thePlanning Athtority) under S. 51 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planing Act, 1966 where by Planning Authority has revoked thepermision granted to petitioner. No. 1 for building constructed vide commencemetn Certificate No. 285 dated d9 the June 1982 in terms of which the permission was grated topetitioner No. 1 to construce a building onhis plot of land no. CTS 517 with 69 and F. S. I.; 4. 45 petitioner No. 1 is the owner of theplot CTS 517. Sadashiv Peth, Pune and petitioner NO. 2 is the personwith whom the first petitioner has entered into an agreement for development of plot of land under an agreement dated 10thJune 1982. The above agreement was thus entered into by the first petitioner with petitiner No. 2 on the day next t...
Tag this Judgment!Espi Industrial Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC443Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Espi Industrial Corporation, New Delhi against the Order-in-Original No. SG-81/83A/S/10-56/84-L SIIB, dated 7-2-1985 of the Additional Collector of Customs enforcing terms of bond for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards fine in lieu of confiscation of goods imported under B/E No. 2783/25 by the importer and also levying a fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 20,26,500/- imported under B/E No. 2783/24 by the same importer. M/s. Espi Industrial Corporation imported the aforesaid two consignments consisting of components of Belarus Tractors UMZ per s.s. Nikolay Aananiev, and claimed their clearance under O.G.L. in Appendix 10 Serial No. 1 of the A.M. 84 policy. The Customs House objected to the clearance of these consignments under the O.G.L. on the grounds that the importer's registration certificate with" the Director of Industries carried the endorsement of "Tractor" on provisional basis as an additional item of manufac...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs and Central Vs. Naginkumar Mamaiyabhai Jagda
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1986
Reported in: (1986)(26)ELT864Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Rajkot has filed this application under Section 82-B of the Gold (Control) Act 1968 to refer to the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad the point of law which has arisen out of the order of the Tribunal No. 1236/85-WRB dated 11-10-1985, in the appeal of Shri. Nagin-kumar Mamaiyabhai Jagda registered under G.C.(BOM)A No. 121/85. Under aforesaid order this Bench directed that the appeal of Shri Naginkumar Mamaiyabhai Jagda be heard and disposed of by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) as the order under which Shri Naginkumar felt aggrieved was passed by the Addl. Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot. The Tribunal had held in earlier similar cases that an appeal against the Addl. Collector's order in such circumstances would lie to the Collector (Appeals) and not to the Tribunal. Hence the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in the order dated 11-10-1985 was in keeping with identical orders in the past.2. On behalf of the applicant, lea...
Tag this Judgment!Music India Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR8; 1987(11)ECC46
1. The petitioner No. 1 is a Public Limited Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and is engaged in the manufacture of gramophone records and music cassettes. The petitioner No. 1 has a factory at Kandivli in Bombay where gramophone records and music cassettes are manufactured. The gramophone records are liable to excise duty under Tariff Item No. 37A, while music cassettes under Tariff Item No. 59. The petitioners cleared the goods prior to year 1980 after payment of excise duty upon assessable value which was inclusive of post manufacturing expenses. It is the claim of the petitioners that they became aware of the judgment of this Court in the case of Bombay Tyre International Ltd. v. Union of India 1979 ELT 625 delivered in November 1979 and realised that the assessable value cannot include post manufacturing expenses. On May 27, 1980, the petitioners submitted price list of the Assistant Collector in which the assessable value stated was one determined after ...
Tag this Judgment!Kautik S/O Motiram Dandge Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1986
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR224
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. A writ of certiorari or in the nature of certiorari has been sought for by the petitioner in this petition.2. It is no longer in dispute that the petitioner entered in the Police Department as a Police Constable long back in 1969. He was promoted as Head Constable some time in 1979. In pursuance of the advertisement issued by Maharashtra Public Service Commission, he applied for the post of Police Sub-Inspector. It is not much disputed that some posts were reserved for the scheduled tribes. The petitioner claims himself as belonging to 'Malhar Koli' caste and as such , belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner was selected for the post against the vacancy reserved for scheduled tribe. He was asked by the Public Service Commission by its dated 24-2-1983 to join the Police Training College at Nasik and accordingly, he reported to the Principle on 1st March, 1983.3. While he was under training at the Police Training College, Nasik he received a communication ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »