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.
South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Collector of Customs
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1986
Reported in: 1988(19)LC126(Bombay); 1993(64)ELT200(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the legality of the order dated September 26, 1981 passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs, Manifest Clearance Department, imposing penalty of Rs. 68,613.80 in exercise of the powers under Section 116 of the Customs Act is challenged. The facts giving rise to the filling of this petition are required to be briefly stated.2. The petitioner filed Import General Manifest dated February 19, 1980 on arrival of vessel s.s. 'ARACAJU'. The goods imported for unloading by this vessel was general cargo. The Deputy Collector issued show cause notice dated April 1, 1981 to the petitioner to explain short-landing in respect of Item Nos. 158 and 31 set out in the Manifest. The petitioners gave explanation standing that in respect of Item No. 158, the entire consignment was discharged and there was no short-landing and in support, relied upon the tally sheet prepared by the Port Trust authorities. In respect of Item...
ivp Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC68; 1988(15)LC115(Bombay); 1986(25)ELT615(Bom)
1. The question which falls for determination in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether hardened or hydrogenated oils having melting point of 41 Degree C are to be classified under Tariff Items Nos. 12, 13 or residuary Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The question comes up for consideration in the following circumstances.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a Joint Stock Company governed by the provisions of the Companies Act and are running a factory situated at Ghodapdeo, Bombay, manufacturing vegetable products, such as vegetable oils, hardened technical oils, etc. The vegetable non-essential oil is hardened to a melting point higher than 41 Degree C and the oils are not capable of human consumption but are purely meant for industrial purposes. The hydrogenated oil is used within the factory for internal consumption in the manufacture of soap. Oils or fats consist predominantly of glycerine esters of fatty acid...
Govind Narayan Loktlikar Vs. Savitribal Roghurira Lotlikar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1986
Reported in: 1986MhLJ844
ORDER1. Can the Dirstrict Court in a reference under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, implead persons who claim to be entitled to the compensation awarded in a land acquisition proceedings or to a part thereof, or who claim to be interested in the acquired property, when the same persons were not parties before the Collector, is the question that arises in this revision application. The petitioner's answer to this question is in the affirmative while the respondents are of the opposite view.2. The facts are not in dispute and strictly speaking, it is not necessary for me to advert to them in detail. It suffices to say that proceedings hasd been initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the acquisition of a plot of land situated at Curchorem, for the construction of Police Staff Quarters. It appears that initially, only the respondents Dr. Jusha Kudchadkar and Prabhakar Kudchadkar were shown as the persons interested in the land proposed to be acquired. However, before ...
Pundalik S/O Mahadeo Ingole and ors. Vs. Sidheshwar Tukaram Uparkar an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR684; 1987MhLJ470
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. This is a writ petition arising out of the dispute proceedings under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short 'Act').2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioners 1 to 9 were duly elected as office bearers of the managing committee of the respondent No. 3 Society during the period when the Administrator appointed under the Act was in-charge of the affairs of the society. They were declared elected on the same date i.e. 24-6-1984 by the Returning Officer appointed by the Administrator for conducting the election. They were also handed over charge of the society by the Administrator on the same day i.e. 24-6-1984. The respondents 1 and 2 who contested the aforesaid elections but failed filed a dispute under section 91 of the Act on 20-8-1984. The only challenge to the elections of the petitioners 1 to 9 was in respect of their declaration as the elected candidates. According to the respondents 1 and 2, the declaration of the results coul...
Devidayal Electronics and Wires Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC89; 1986(25)ELT638(Bom); 1985MhLJ120
1. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act being engaged in the business of manufacturing various types of copper and aluminium winding wire and copper cables, which are classifiable under item 33B of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Excise Act'. At all times the petitioner, like other manufacturers of excisable goods, had paid excise duty on the wholesale price as demanded by the Excise authorities. In November 1979 a judgment of the Gujarat High Court declared that excise duty was not liable to be imposed on post-manufacturing expenses which formed part of the wholesale price. Similar view has been taken by other High Courts also.2. The petitioner says that it became aware, under this judgment, of the mistake of law under which it had paid extra excise duties. In the wholesale price, on which excise duty had been paid by the petitioner several post-manufacturing expenses have been included w...
Shalimar Textile Mfg. Pvt. Limited Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC83; 1986(25)ELT625(Bom)
1. The petitioners are a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and carry on business of manufacturing various types of tubes at their factory situated at Kandivli, Bombay. The Petitioners manufacture rigid and collapsible tubes from aluminium through a process known as impact extrusion, that is by forcing slugs of lumps and aluminium through a die under pressure. After the extrusion is complete and the extruded tube comes into existence, number of other processes or operations are carried out to suit the convenience of the customers. The manufacture of extruded tube was liable for excise duty under Sub-item 27(e) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Sub-item 27(e) reads as under :'27. Aluminium -(e) Extruded shapes and sections including extruded pipes and tubes.'Till April 1, 1970 duty on extruded aluminium tubes was imposed on tariff value as determined by the Superintendent of Central Excise and subsequent to that date excise duty...
Brahmanand Morandram Malkani Vs. Dy. Collector, Gold Control Cell
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1986
Reported in: 1988(19)LC208(Bombay); 1988(37)ELT507(Bom)
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the legality of the order dated February 20, 1982 passed by Government of India in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the grievance against the impugned order.2. Father of petitioner No. 1 is running a shop known as M/s. M.B. Malkani Jewellers at Sindhi Colony, opposite Paradise Cinema, Lady Jamshedji Road. Mahim. The father of petitioner No. 1 also carries on business in gold and gold ornaments at Shaikh Memon Street. Bombay, and holds licence required under the Act. It is the claim of petitioner No. 1 that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were carrying on business of gold ornaments at the rear of the shop situated at Mahim and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were certified goldsmiths.In January 1979, the petitioner No. 1...
Rajesh Dyeing and Bleaching Works (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Sayed Noor Raz ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1986
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ635Bom
R.A. Jahagirdar, J. 1. The facts in all these petitions are common and they should be mentioned before one proceeds to consider the questions arising in them separately. Rajesh Dyeing and Bleaching Works Private Limited, hereinafter referred to as 'the company'', is engaged in the business of, as its name suggests, textile processing. Two workers, Saved Noor Razvi and Maniram Anantoo, were in the employment of the company. They were charged with acts of misconduct constituting (1) riotous and disorderly behaviour on the premises of the Undertaking and (2) commission of an act subversive of discipline and good behaviour on the premises of the establishment. They were charged with these acts of misconduct on the basis of an incident which took place on 22nd of May 1975 when both the workers were on duty.2. It was the case of the company that at the time and on the day aforesaid Syed Noor Razvi was mixing a tablet containing narcotic substance with tobacco when the Security Officer, one V...
i.B.M. World Trade Corpn. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD116(Mum.)
1. These four appeals by the assessee relate to the assessment years 1973-74 to 1976-77. There is one appeal by the department which relates to the assessment year 1973-74. We shall first deal with the appeals filed by the assessee.2. The assessee is a non-resident company. The assessee has not made prescribed arrangements for the declaration of payment of dividends within India. The assessee had received interest in each accounting year from the First National City Bank, Delhi branch. The said bank was incorporated in U.S.A. The branch at Delhi carried on business in India. The income of that branch was assessed as income of the non-resident. The assessee claimed deduction of the said interest in computing the chargeable profits under the First Schedule to the Companies Profits (Surtax) Act, 1964. The said claim was made under rule l(x) of the First Schedule. That rule reads as under : In computing the chargeable profits of a previous year, the total income computed for that year und...
Geeta Clearing Agency Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1986
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC1177Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal CD(BOM)/370/86. In the delay condonation application it was stated that the Collector of Customs passed an order on 17-1-1986 cancelling the Applicants' custom house agent licence. In the preamble to his order, the Collector stated an appeal against his order would lie to the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi. According to the directions contained in the said preamble, which was also confirmed by the Bombay Customs, an appeal was filed with the Central Board of Excise and Customs in the month of March 1986 within the period of limitation. But the Board by its letter dated 25-3-1986 informed the Applicants' Advocate that the appeal in the above matter lies with the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and he was advised to file the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. It was then stated in the application as the managing partner of the Applicants was out of India almost for the whole ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »