Mumbai Court July 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.
Dhoot Compack Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1986
Reported in: 1987(11)ECC86; 1988(19)LC327(Bombay); 1986(25)ELT636(Bom)
1. The petitioners are a private limited company and are engaged in the manufacture of various plastic goods. In the manufacture of plastic goods the petitioners use a substance known as High Density Polyethylene Moulding Powder (HDPE). The petitioners import HDPE from various countries and the HDPE is manufactured out of raw Naphtha and chemicals derived from it. During March 1980 and August 1982 the petitioners imported diverse quantities of HDPE from foreign suppliers and details of the consignments imported are set out in detail at Exhibit 'D' to the petition. The petitioners claim that at the time of clearance of the consignments, the petitioners were not aware of the exemption notifications issued under the provisions of the Customs Act. The petitioners claim that the petitioners learnt of the said notifications after some time when the judgment was delivered by this Court in petition filed by some other importers. The petitioners had also learnt that the petitioners are entitled...
Ahmedabad Advance Mills Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1986
Reported in: 1988(19)LC354(Bombay); 1986(25)ELT1030(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in the manufacture of cold rolled high carbon and alloy steel and special steel strips in India. The petitioners have set up a factory at Navsari where hot rolled strips in coil form are cold rolled to final gauges as required by the customers. Under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 hot rolled stainless steel strips fall under Tariff Item 73.15(2) and the standard rate of duty is 300% ad valorem. By notification dated January 15, 1982 issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1982, exemption was granted to the import of hot rolled stainless steel coils of a width exceeding 500 mm. when imported into India for cold rolling, from so much of that portion of the duty of customs leviable thereon and specified in the First Schedule as in excess of 100 per cent ad valorem.2. The petitioners imported hot rolled stainless steel stri...
Punichand S/O Ramsing Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR748
S.M. Daud, J.1. An interesting question of law arises in this writ petition which is directed against the passing and confirmation of an order for restoration of land under section 3 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974-hereinafter referred to as the Act'.2. On 30-7-1965, Bapurao passed a registered sale-deed showing the sale of Survey No. 191, Village Patodekhurd, Taluka Kinwat, District Nanded to the petitioner. After the coming into force of the Act, respondent No. 3 gave an application under section 3 claiming that he was the transferor, that he was a tribal, that the petitioner was a non-tribal and that he was willing to take back the land in compliance with the statutory obligations. An enquiry was held and the Deputy Collector held that the land belonged to respondent No. 3, that it was he who had sold the same to the petitioner, that the sale-deed showed Bapurao to be the vendor as he was the recorded pattedar of the land and that an order for r...
Pyarasaheb Kesarisingh Rana Vs. B.K. Solanki, Dy. Director, Fera
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1986
Reported in: 1988(37)ELT539(Bom)
1. Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner against the order passed by the Deputy Director, Foreign Exchange Enforcement and communicated to the petitioner on August 13, 1982, copy of which is annexed as Ex. 'K' to the petition. The petitioner carried on business of export of fresh fruits and vegetable to the United Kingdom in the year 1971 and on November 28, 1972 his house was raided and on the next day, the petitioner was arrested. The petitioner was ultimately discharged on December 19, 1977 as the Enforcement Branch did not file any criminal complaint. The petitioner was served with show cause notice dated June 4, 1977 to explain why proceedings should not be taken for violation of provisions of Section 5(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The proceedings were held and adjudication order was passed on December 29, 1979 by the Special Director holding the petitioner guilty of the offences. The order which is communicat...
A.R.G.V. Shriniwas Reddy Vs. Marathwada University and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR347
M.S. Jamdar, J.1. The main question that arises for consideration in this petition relates to the interpretation of Ordinance 310 of the Marathwada University, on the basis of which the application of the petitioner for the eligibility certificate for admission to the four year degree course in engineering, conducted by the engineering colleges within the jurisdiction of the Marathwada University was rejected.2. The petitioner passed Intermediate Examination held by the Board of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh in the year 1984. This Examination is recognised as equivalent to the Higher Secondary Certificate examination of the Maharashtra State Board of Higher Secondary Education. The petitioner secured 84 marks out of 150 in Physics, 72 out of 150 in chemistry and 141 out of 300 in Mathematics in the above referred intermediate examination of the Board of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh on the basis of this performance, the petitioner sought admissio...
Pyarsaheb Kesarisingh Rana Vs. B.K. Solanki, Dy. Director, Fera
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1986
Reported in: 1990(27)ECC66
Pendse, J.1. Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner against the order passed by the Deputy Director, Foreign Exchange Enforcement and communicated to the petitioner on August 13,1982, copy of which is annexed as Ex. 'K' to the petition. The petitioner carried on business of export of fresh fruits and vegetable to the United Kingdom in the year 1971 and on November 28,1972 his house was raided and on the next day, the petitioner was arrested. The petitioner was ultimately discharged on December 19, 1977 as the Enforcement Branch did not file any criminal complaint. The petitioner was served with show cause notice dated June 4, 1977 to explain why proceedings should not be taken for violation of provisions of Section 5(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The proceedings were held and adjudication order was passed on December 29, 1979 by the Special Director holding the petitioner guilty of the offences. The order which is co...
Kirtilal Moolchand and Co. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1986
Reported in: 1987(11)ECC78; 1986(25)ELT620(Bom)
1. The short question which falls for determination in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for what period the petitioners are entitled to receive detention certificate from the Customs Authorities. Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the claim made by the petitioners.2. The petitioners secured a licence on November 21, 1979 for import of alloy steel scrap to any chemical composition as shown under Item 23 Appendix 7 of Import Policy April 1978 to March 1979. In pursuance of the licence, the petitioners were entitled to import 140.243 metric tonnes of Alloy steel scrap. The imported goods arrived by the ship in May 1980 and three bills of entry bearing Nos. 6/92, 260/78 and 260/79 were filed on May 9, 1980. The Customs Authorities did not bother to examine the goods till October 8, 1980 and the goods were lying open under the sky. The Appraiser Group of Customs made a report on October 13, 1980 that though the goods imported are scra...
Sai Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. J. Datta, Member, C.B.E. and C. and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1986
Reported in: 1987(11)ECC110; 1988(19)LC245(Bombay); 1986(25)ELT623(Bom)
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the legality of the part of the order dated June 6, 1981 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay, confiscating a ship m.v. 'SEYRIAN WAVE' under the provisions of Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962, but permitting the petitioners to redeem the ship on payment of fine of Rs. 3,70,000/-. It is not necessary to set out the facts in great detail as the controversy lies in a very narrow compass.2. On October 19, 1980 at about 3 P.M. party of Customs Officers board the ship which had arrived on the previous day and anchored at Bombay Harbour. On taking search of the ship and the Captain's cabin, the Indian currency of Rs. 30,800/- and United States $ 11,050/- were found. The statement of the Captain of the ship was recorded. Further search of the ship indicated other contraband articles like cigarettes, calculators etc. After the investigation was completed, t...
Light Metal Works and Others Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1986
Reported in: 1987(11)ECC16; 1986(25)ELT613(Bom)
1. The controversy in this petition lies in a very narrow compass, and the facts set out hereinafter would make it clear. Petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm and the other petitioners are the partners. The petitioners purchase duty paid aluminium sheets and the same are cut to required sizes in the square shapes at the first stage. The pieces are further cut on the hand operated shearing machine to convert then into circular shape. Such circular pieces are then put in the spinning machine to get the required shape and thereafter the same are welded for the purpose of manufacture of topes. During the entire process of manufacture of topes, the square shapes or circles are not removed from the factory nor are they marketed.2. Tariff Item No. 27 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 deals with subject of 'aluminium' and Item 27(b) prescribes levy of duty at 50% ad valorem plus Rs. 4000/- per metric tonne on manufacturers of plates, sheets, circles, strips, shapes and sections in an...
Sharadchandra Shripad MaraThe Vs. Gurushant Gangadhar Kamble and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR120; 1987(11)ECC166; 1986(25)ELT915(Bom); 1986MhLJ738
1. This is a petition by original accused No. 17 Sharadchandra Marathe in Criminal Case No. 9 of 1986 from the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune seeking quashing of process issued by the learned Magistrate against the petitioner in the complaint filed against him alongwith other accused for the offences regarding evasion of excise duty and conspiracy. The original complaint filed before the trial Court by the first respondent is at Exhibit A to the petition.2. On perusal of the complaint allegations and without recording any verification statement of the complainment, who is a public servant, the learned Magistrate was satisfied that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner accused No. 17 and has issued process according to law. The petitioner, however, challenges issuance of process on several grounds.3. Before I appreciate the submissions of the Counsel on either side the brief facts as alleged in the complaint may be stated as follows :The first res...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »